Talk:Pisco

Bias?

This article is quite biased in that it attempts to discredit Chile's claims to Pisco being their drink. It has several unnecessary lines devoted simply to discredit Chile's attempts to gain recognition of pisco as a national beverage. It also leaves claims that the chief difference between Peruvian and Chilean pisco is quality, when in fact there are a number of differences.

Hello anonymous user. It would be nice to know which lines you consider are unnecessary so they can be discussed. Also, if you can point the differences between the Peruvian and Chilean product it would be a nice addition to the article. - Kio July 1, 2005 21:17 (UTC)

I believe the crux of the matter is in regards to "Peruvian regulations do not allow the addition of any substance during distillation" and "Unlike Peruvian Pisco, Chilean producers are allowed to add demineralized water in order to dilute the proof of the finished product, as lower proof spirits are produced at a much lower cost than "pure" pisco"
Both products cost equal in each other's markets, and both are equally diluted, as they fall into the category of "aguaardiente" (40°~45°, see Aguaardiente[1]). In either case, the entry for Pisco[2] does not mention fermentation process, what dilutions, or even how to serve one. What is more, the section "Dispute between Peru and Chile" (though entertaining) is moot as it is stated that "no country has obtained the rights to the denomination "pisco"". Even "champagne" can be manufactured outside of Champagne.

With all due respect, this serves only to propagate a pi**ing contest. This is not NPoV.

NeoAmsterdam 10:13, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Are there any numbers of Peruvian pisco exports and Chilean pisco exports? Should they be included? As for the "pi**ing contest" remark NeoAmsterdam, it is is important to understand that a decision of what country can use what name can affect exports and therefore, the country's economy. I do, however agree that the article shouldn't be changed as it is NPoV as it is. Gerardo199 03:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what the import/export numbers are... I just drink it ;-) It may be of interest to readers if someone can, indeed, find and post the numbers.

In hindsight, though, "pi**ing contest" was not the best expression I could have used. The comment about champagne, however, makes clear my intended message: Both nations claim "pisco", and neither is in a position to deny the other.

The crux is to find, post, source, and verify the regulations regarding distillation and/or dilution. Until then, let's try to keep the mutual Peruvian-Chilean breagging-right/resentment/hostility out of the article, please?

NeoAmsterdam 07:41, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

P.S.: An anonymous user (200.4.245.200)[[3]] deleted Chile as a Pisco-producing country. This is exemplary of the "mutual Peruvian-Chilean bragging-right/resentment/hostility" that I was speaking of. Refer to history page for details.

NeoAmsterdam 04:15, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

well, it isn't really mutual, because Chilean POV is not to deny Peru to produce or distribute their own Pisco. Chilean POV defends the European brought grapes and shared tradition of destillery under the spanish colonies, it's rather a Peruvian campaign to deny Chile to produce it's own Pisco, and this is reflected on the actions of Peruvians and Chilean users here. You will rarely see any Chilean user to change articles showing unique chilean ownership --194.203.215.254 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten most of the article to focus more on what Pisco is exactly and how each country defines it, according to specifications listed on both government's websites, I have also added any and all information I could find of respective laws and treaties regarding Pisco by both Peru and Chile. I have been as unbiased as possible and presented only facts, making sure to note where the opinion of each country affects the notions as much as possible. --Hdezela 15:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. NeoAmsterdam 05:49, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I have added a photo of some bottles of Chilean Pisco and put it together with previous photo of Pisco bottle which I believed were from some Peruvian brand. I hope you'll like the photo.

Menanteau 2006, March 21.

Pisco is Peruvian. Chilean soldiers did not duplicate the original recipe and the drink that now is referred as "Chilean Pisco" is not Pisco at all, it another kind of firewater.--Gonzalo84 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple answer: one of the urban legends within Peru, easily refuted by mentioning that first Pisco grape plantation in Chile reach far more in the past than 1879 (beginning of the Pacfic war) --RapaNui 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another simple answer: Despite the nationalism that the origin of Pisco or the disputes that the use of its name might bring...well let me just inform you that on the contrary of the city of pisco recently created by the chilean government, the city of Pisco in Perú has existed since the 1600, and here is where this great drink appeared being that it was sorrounded by great vineyards in the Ica department on the coast of Perú. It is here where it was first conceived and well where it gets its name from. If chileans want to make peruvian Pisco made in chile well it´s all good but to each its own. And if you want to get techinical about quality I think like the laws stated above if you combine the resulting product of the graPes with water or other liquids it will never be as good as the pure or real thing! Even if economically it´s better I guess we prefer quality instead of quantity! good bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichin (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS PERUVIAN PISCO OR CHILEAN PISCO...BECAUSE PISCO IS FROM PERU AND THEREFORE THE NAME SHOULD ONLY BE PISCO. ANY SMART PERSON THAT KNOWS THE FACT WILL ASSURE YOU THAT PISCO IT'S FROM PERU. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SMALL EXAMPLE...IF YOU EVER READ THE BOOK CALLED: MI PAIS INVENTADO BY ISABEL ALLENDE (A CHILEAN WRITER) PLEASE READ CAREFULLY PAGE 22 WHERE SHE ADMITS THAT THE NAME WAS STOLEN FROM PERUVIANS AND SHE ADMITS IN A VERY "SMART" WAY THAT PISCO IT'S PERUVIAN. ONE OF THE THINGS SHE SHE SAIDS IT'S THIS:...WE STOLE THE NAME WITHOUT A SHAME FROM THE PERUVIAN CITY OD PISCO IN PERU...IF ANY SPARKLING WINE CAN BE CALLED "CHAMPAGNE" AND THE ONLY ONE AND ORIGINAL ONE IT'S FROM THE CHAMPAGNE REGION IN FRANCE THEN WE CAN ALSO "TAKE" SOMEONE ELSES NAME!

IF YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH AND CHECK THE DATES WHERE THE CITY OF PISCO WAS FOUNDED (YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO PERUVIAN SITES FOR THIS, IT'S EVEN IN WIKIPEDIA ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM) YOU WILL COME TO REALIZED THAT IT WAS FOUNDED WAY LONG AGO AND THE CHILEANS HAS A LITTLE CITY WITH AN "X" NAME THAT THEY RECENLTY RE-NAME! PISCO! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? CHECK THE FACTS! ANYONE WHO READS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE READING WILL KNOW THAT PISCO IS PERUVIAN. IT'S A SHAME THAT CHILEANS ARE TRYING TO STEAL THIS FROM PERUVIANS BUT IN THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE VERY SMART PEOPLE FOR DOING SO...THERE IS A HUGE POTENTIAL IN PISCO.

THE NEW THING THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE FROM PERUVIANS IS "SUSPIRO A LA LIMEñA" A TRADITIONAL PERUVIAN DESERT THAT EVEN HAS THE NAME OF LIMA IN IT AND THAT PERUVIAN HAS BEEN MAKING FOR YEARS AND NOW CHILEANS TRADEMARK OR ARE TRYING TO DO SO. DO YOU KNOW WHY ALL THIS IS HAPPENING? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT PERU IS NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL OF CHILE (ECONOMIC) THEREFORE THEY TRY TO OBTAIN ALL THE GOOD THINGS THAT PERUVIAN HAVE AND MAKE IT THERES, MONEY AND POWER PLAY A BIG ROLE ON THIS. THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY CAN...THEY WILL STEP ON PERUVIAN PEOPLE BECAUSE PERUVIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY MOVE FAST WHEN IT COMES TO PAPERS AND PERUVIAN PEOPLE NOT. NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT THE POTATOE IS FROM CHILE!...IT IS A SHAME THAT A COUNTRY OR SOME OF THERE PEOPLE HAVE NO INTEGRITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoSalaz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

THE REALITY IS THAT PISCO IS A PERUVIAN CITY AND IT IS A NON-ETHIC ATTITUDE FROM THE CHILEANS TO TRY TO STEAL A NAME FROM A FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR COUNTRY< SHAME ON THEM, PLEASE HAVE A LITTLE IMAGINATION AND LOOK FOR ANOTHER NAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.67.170 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 27 October 2008

Some questions

I've made a modest attempt at some tidying. Mostly spelling correction, punctuation of run-on sentences, and removing random capitalisation (all presumably residual traces of translation?), but have a few questions about confusing points:

• The article states both that the name is derived from a vessel called a pisko, and from sailors referring to the port of Pisco. Which? Or, if we aren't sure, both theories should be explained together instead of each being asserted as true in separate sections.
• The reference to chicha is confusing. Chicha is apparently a non-distilled maize beer, so clearly pisco is not made in a very similar way at all. Is it being suggested that the initial fermentation is done in a similar way? If so, fermentation is a natural process which is pretty similar the world around, so exactly which aspects of chicha fermentation were copied for pisco?
• 'it is reported the Spanish called it "fire-wine".' Clearly the Spanish would have called it something in Spanish, not English. The sentence should read something like 'it is reported the Spanish called it vino del fuego ([[Spanish language|Spanish]] for "fire-wine"', however I don't know what the actual phrase was. Also, we try to avoid unconfirmable phrases like "it is reported". Who claims this? When?
• 'pisco ... drunk mostly by sailors, as crew usually drank whisky...' This is self contradictory. What is meant? Perhaps that the ship's officers usually drank whisky?
• 'this desert area was used to produce a pisco adapting the Peruvian techniques'. Huh? They grew grapes in a desert in the 1880s? How? If that is what is meant, it is remarkable and deserves more than just this passing reference.
• "Green Must, ... must be distilled before the fermentation process has transformed sugars into alcohol." Huh? If this is the case, the resulting material will be nonalcoholic. It will also contain no sugar, as sugar doesn't distill over. In fact, it will be basically just water, with a faint hint of grape aroma. Surely that can't be what is meant.

-- Securiger 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was a coincidence that the name given to the drink in Spanish and other languages was the same. In Peru, it was named for the pisko vessel, and internationally it was named for the port of Pisco. This is why it is called the same in most languages today, unlike wine for example, which has different names in different languages.
• Pisco is always fermented, then distilled, that's just the way it is made. As for similarities, they simply used the chicha technique maceración (don't know what it is in english) for the fermentation part of the process.
• The spanish called it aguardiente, which I translated as firewater later in the article. I thought it should be in english since this is the english section of WP.
• I translated directly from the spanish. Sailors for second-level ranks and Crew for first level. I assume it should be Sailors and Officers?
• The Incas had long used the desert to grow many fruits & vegetables, grapes was just another addition coming from Europe, nothing really remarkable about that.
• This is translated directly from the regulations and produces the strongest Pisco of all, quite pungent and very alcoholic.

Hdezela

Pisco in the United States

I have never been able to find Pisco in the United States, although I have only looked in 3 states (Michigan, Kentucky, and Oklahoma). I have only been introduced to it from friends bringing it from Chile... Does anyone know of any relevant import/export regulations at play here, and could write a section about this, or have I just had bad luck? Kinser 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Import regulations for Chilean Pisco was sealed in the CHILE-USA TLC starting 2004. Anyway it was also imported before. Check this store, you get both Chilean and Peruvian Pisco, though it's easier to obtain Chilean Pisco, due to the bigger production and export.[4] --RapaNui 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know of several liquor stores in Northern, Central, and Southern Texas that sell various brands of Pisco. Most are Chilean, but I heard some of the Peruvian brands were affected by natural disaster. Megyn 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

We usually consume Chilean Pisco. It is easy to find in any supermarket in Chicago-Illinois and Milwaukee-Wisconsin. The price is convenient and is not just a fire water, Chilean pisco is a refinate beverage from grapes which are growing in the region of Atacama and Copiapo in north of Chile. The most varieties of Chilean Pisco are Muscat (spanish Muscatel), Torontel and Pedro Jimenez, which are used to made a pisco with the flavor of the intensive daily sun and cold night of the North desert in Chile. Chilean Pisco can be served alone, in the rocks, with Coke and the specialty is a delicious Chilean Pisco Sauer. The flavor of a delicate and recognized flavor in North America and Europe is coming long time ago from valleys of a Chilean desert and we enjoy it every time with our family and friends. Taste it!

Alejandro Sanzana —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChileUsa (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pisco most widely consumed spirit in Peru ?

Being aware that Pisco is the most widely consumed spirit in Chile, I am quite sure that it is not the case in the other 2 countries Peru and Bolivia, though I am aware that it is the most polemical and most present within media of Peru. Bolivia by the way does not produce Pisco, but they call it Singani. Will try to find some sources of production and consumption within those countries. Cheers--RapaNui 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pisco is the most widely consumed spirit in Peru also. Pisco has been number one since it overtook Rum in 1997, Vodka has always been third. Hdezela 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RapaNui, you definitely do not know a thing about Pisco. And by the way, I have yet to see any Chilean provide any facts or proof that Pisco is from Chile! Pisco not only is the most widely consumed spirit in Peru but Pisco is originally from PERU, named after the city of Pisco!

Who gives a Damn, 90% of chileans Agree that Pisco comes originally from Peru. The point is that Chileans drank it in higher quantities and from older times. Chilean Pisco production is of about 50 million litres (according to chilean newspapers) on the other hand peruvians produce 10 times less. Consumtion is also bigger in chile, 16 million litres, we grew up (im chilean btw) drinking it, our fathers also did, even our grandfathers. Hell my Great-Great-Grandfather dranked it, mixed with powder when he was a Captain in the Nitrate War against Peru-Bolivia. Peru on the other hand saw Pisco as a Low-Class drink, they used to consume 1 million litres (untill 2002, year in wich the "War of the Pisco" touched it's peak thanks to a publicist photos in wich a South American Country appeared without the part in wich chile should have been, all made with grapes) nowadays they round up to 3 millions.

• Consumption is related to standard of living (i.e. ability to afford the product), as such the fact that Chileans may consume more Pisco than Peruvians does not illuminate the issues being debated here! Rafajs77 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I Don't know what's the big deal with this drink. The Valley of Pisco ELqui was named in the year 1936 !!!!!! on the other hand Peruvians created the department im wich Pisco is located on the year 1955'.

• This is intentionally misleading. The Department may have been founded in 1955, but the city of Pisco was founded by the Spaniards, I believe in 1640. That's almost 300 years before Chile's. The distinction is important, whereas in Peru the liquor is named after the city where it was produced, in Chile, the CITY is named in honor of the liquor.Rafajs77 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The European Union, Canada, UK, USA, China, South Korea, .. all the countries that chile has a free-trade agreement recognize the name PISCO for the Grape Spirit, always saying " this doesn't leave peruvians out of the picture".

I think the whole issue here, is not about who invented this, myself as a chilean find this rather ammusing, we drink it since we start drinking, and it was named in a first place as "aguardiente of pisco" (i.e. spirit of pisco" and just as like the romans used to Call the Temple of Castor&Pollux just the Temple of Castor... it happened here, we called it Pisco.

as a big conclussion, I wanna Add that Im at this moment Drunk.. with pisco after a nice get-together with my old Rugby pals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.104.95 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I was drinking Pisco right now.Rafajs77 (talk)

• I think it's a cultural thing. Peruvians always... ALWAYS brag about their food and drinks like how they have over 4000 kinds of potatoes and their corn is the best, etc. It's also about the only thing they have to brag about. So whenever someone challenges these claims, they are extremely offended by it. as to the question up there whether pisco is consumed in peru... the answer is no, most people can't afford it and the ones who can, drink whiskey. the most consumed alcohol in peru is "cañaso", what they call a kind of sugar cane spirit... it's what the winos drink. 189.25.150.8 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why listed as featured article in Spanish?

The links on the bottom left indicate with the star nex to the Spanish version, that it is a featured article in Spanish, but when you click on the link, it doesn't appear to be a featured article at all, should that be changed? Xobxela 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

about "Real Audiencia"

It is wrong to speak about the early days of Chile as Real Audiencia. the Real Audiencia was indeed the adminstrative organ in Chile, but does not serves as a name for the territory. should be called "Reyno de Chile", "Reino de Chile" (Kingdom of Chile), or the most exact denomination of "Capitanía General de Chile" (Captaincy General of Chile).

200.74.32.92 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Nuevededos

No References?!!

I can't believe that this article has grown so big without any references whatsoever. The origins of Pisco are a very contentious issue between Peru and Chile. If no-one provides references to back claims toward one country or the other, then I will go through and delete all the biased information. Claiming that Pisco was named after the port city also does not hold water without some very reliable sources, since it is such a common Quechua word. --Ozhiker 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

http://wapedia.mobi/es/Pisco_chileno: "El origen de la palabra se remonta a la producción del aguardiente de uva, que al menos desde 1613 se producía en el Valle de Ica y que se exportaba por el puerto de Pisco, y que por extensión pasó a denominar en toda el área a los licores de similar naturaleza. A principios del siglo XX de ese modo lo consideran tres investigadores chilenos. Manuel Antonio Román señalaba en su Diccionario de Chilenismos y de otras voces y locuciones viciosas (1901) que el pisco era "un aguardiente muy estimado que se fabrica en el Perú [...] y conocido ya en el mundo. Principió sin duda, en el puerto de Pisco y por eso tomó ese nombre". [5] Rodolfo Lenz explica, a su vez, en el ""Diccionario etimológico de voces chilenas" (1905), que éste era un "buen aguardiente de uva. [...] El actual Pisco antes se llamaba "Aguardiente de Pisco" porque de allí y de Ica venían". [6] Finalmente, José Toribio Medina, en su obra Chilenismos. Apuntes lexicográficos (1928), indica que era un "Aguardiente de uva moscatel de esa procedencia [Del pueblo de Pisco, en el Perú] y con cuyo nombre se fabrica también en Chile". [7] y que pisco era, además, la "botija misma en que se envasa" [7] [8] Es necesario mencionar que hasta 1798, el Valle del Elqui era una zona dentro del Reyno de Chile, que dependía del Virreinato del Perú. Hasta 1810 y 1821, los Valle de Elqui e Ica, respectivamente, eran posesiones dentro del Imperio español, gobernadas por autoridades coloniales." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.187.1.74 (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Pisco

The 'Peruvian Pisco' heading has repeatedly been changed to 'Original Pisco' I have reverted it because this is an extremely contentious issue between Peru and Chile, and since the article provides no cited references whatsoever about the origins of Pisco, it is not valid to claim that Peruvian Pisco is the 'Original'. Please add strong citations for such claims. --Ozhiker 12:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

pisco peruano

since ancient and emancipation times there has been a city in peru named "PISCO " where the production of the black and other kinds of grape have taken place,that is the primarly reason why peru is the rightful owner of the beverage named pisco,since that was the place where it was originaly made.

Pisco is a port, and no Pisco was elaborated in ancient times there, but ICA, the region behind. Pisco was simply the main spanish port for exports of this spirit coming from every corner at the pacific coast. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2 "pisco"

There are two "pisco". One of then was from Ica (Viceroyalty of Peru) and other in La Serena (Kingdom of Chile) in 17th century. Ica and La Serena belongs to Viceroyalty of Peru in 17th century. Please add chilean history version. --Achata (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

no neutral

please indicate which part is not neutral to see what can be done. Arafael (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There were marked, and you just removed them. Please don't do that without discussing. Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It's better a "neutral article". I prefer remove they and show them in Talk to discuss. Arafael (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's better to have a NPOV article, but removing the tags doesn't automatically make it one.

For starters the History and Origins section is completely missing referencing and is usually the main dispute involving both Peruvian and Chilean contributors.

I think this article needs a lot of work in terms of tone, referencing and general re-organization of sections.

Whenever, I get more time I'll work to find some reliable sources and add them to the history section, in the meantime we should leave the tags alone.

Now if you want to help improve it, feel free to jump in.

Likeminas (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean remove all no neutral paragraphs. Then add to sections: "Pisco Peru" and "Chilean Pisco". Arafael (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What you just added is not even a valid tag, but a simple picture.

Do you undertand what dispute and NPOV mean?

Let me say this again; by removing the tags you're not making the article any more neutral. You can always improve it by adding sourced and improving the organization of sections.

Likeminas (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the history of Pisco divided between in "Chile" and "Peru"?

I do not understand why somebody has divided early history of Pisco into "Chile" and "Peru", since the disputes of the two countries are being adressed under its own section. The history of pisco currently appears under the topic "Peru" rathan than under its own topic "history". I will change that, but somebody disagree let us discuss it here.Dentren | ^Talk 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "Pisco Sour" not listed under the cocktails?

Pisco Sour is probably the most significant use of Pisco outside of Chile and Peru. I will look for references and add "Pisco Sour".chavo (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'm adding them.Wipsenade (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Source abuse, misscitation and Peruvian POV-attack

User 131.104.45.46 is trying to change [5][6] lead reserve the label "pisco" for pisco from Peru while calling the Chilean product a "yellowish-to-amber colored brandy". 131.104.45.46 bases his Peruvian nationalist foreign policy aligned claims on a website apparently from the OEA that host a document about the FTA between Chile and United States in 2004. (source here) where it says "The United States shall recognize Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco), Pajarete, and Vino Asoleado, which is authorized in Chile to be produced only in Chile, as distinctive products of Chile. Accordingly, the United States shall not permit the sale of any product as Pisco Chileno (Chilean Pisco), Pajarete, or Vino Asoleado, unless it has been manufactured in Chile in accordance with the laws and regulations of Chile governing the manufacture of Pisco, Pajarete, and Vino Asoleado." This is source is: 1) not authoritative 2) says nothing about that Chilean Pisco is not just pisco. 131.104.45.46's source regarding that "pisco" is Peruvian is WorldReference. I let the observes to judge themselves the validity of these sources to maginalize "Chilean Pisco", but it should be known that Peru has tried to claim the exclusive right to the use of the Pisco label name as an appellation of origin, and it is in this context 131.104.45.46 edits have to be seen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.141.179 (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I am trying to figure out whether the "Peru pusher(s)" here have some kind of valid point or are just promoting a nationalistic POV, and the answer is not really clear to me. I don't really understand why you say that the FTA is not an authoritative source. It seems to me that a law or treaty is much more authoritative than just about any other source, so an FTA is very authoritative. It is interesting to me that in [7], the EU seems to have endorsed the idea that "Pisco" (not prefixed by a geographic location adjective) is implied to be from Peru, and this is in a document that is newer than most of the other references. Additionally, I note that some of the other documents seem to explicitly allow the term "Chilean Pisco", but seem to be silent about whether "Chilean Pisco" can be labelled as just "Pisco" (without prefixing this term with a geographic location adjective). Of course, I am sure that the average person in Chile probably just says "pisco" rather than "Chilean pisco" when they discuss their domestically-produced liquor. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FTA's are politics and the parties involved have interests, this compromises their neutrality are thus not authoritative at least not in controversial topics. A Chile-EU or Peru-USA FTA can not decide what is worldwide to bee considered pisco, just what is defined so in their jurisdictions. FTA's can be used as sources but with caution! Barrel, you should be aware of that this is just one of many such controversies just like Bolivia tries get exclusive rights on diablada or Peru on ceviche. Lets make it clear for the nationalists pushers that they can have these points of view expressed here but not as absolute truths and not as the first defining sentence in the lead. 130.238.141.171 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Formulation

Sorry continuing with this stuff. In History it is quoted "Pisco has been produced in the Chilean cities of Santiago and La Serena since 1552". The cited text http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-23762005000200005&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es says that since that year there was produced "aguardiente de uva o Pisco". What looks like a contradiction, for although the whole article is about the later origins of the word for this grape brandy, in that part it has no prove of that early use of the word Pisco, just very good funding of the early production of aguardiente = brandy - which, for the purpose of booth that article and this one of wikipedia, ain't the same until proven so. So, I would propose to correct towards "Grape brandy has been produced in the Chilean cities of Santiago and La Serena since 1552". Leon-geyer (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a misunderstanding there. The cited article in question seems to suggest that pisco and aguardiente were the same until some of this aguardiente started to be called pisco in Peru and then the name was adopted in Chile also.. later on (20 century) pisco and grape aguadiente were truly separated by law. Chiton magnificus (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little suggestion

The spanish Wikipedia has an article about the Chilean pisco and another about the Peruvian pisco.

Would be a good contribution to this article if somebody could translate both articles from the spanish Wiki. Wilhelm Wiesel (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)