Talk:Agwa de Bolivia
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Bolivia may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
This not a blatlant advertisement of Agwa. I have consumed this beverage and found it intersting. I found Kahlua which is a coffee liqueur already has a page on wiki but Agwa does not, so I added it. The information contained in the Agwa wiki entry is pretty basic.
I have mentioned what it is, where its available, who owns it, where its manufactured and listed the websites I came to know of...in case there is any violation in this please be specific and not generic so that I can correct it.
- Thank you for creating the page. I had never heard of this liquor until May 2012. Out of the 3 liquor stores I frequent, only one of them carries it. It has a nice taste, and liquor connoisseurs are missing out if they do not try it. So this page is a great educational tool. Stopde (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Agwa -- Nothing to do with Coca, nothing to do with Bolivia
Agwa -- now Ad-free!
Information comes from the AGWA webpage and is misleading
This is false advertisement. The product "claims a longstanding heritage that honors traditional Bolivian coca leaf liqueurs". Fist of all, until 4 years ago, there were no coca liqueurs in Bolivia. The first coca liqueur was MadreCoca, which is a real coca liqueur, made with real coca leaves and green tea by a proces of maceration. MadreCoca is legal in Bolivia but not legal anywhere else. (look up MadreCoca in Facebook) AGWA uses the name Bolivia in its label but this is not a produc sanctioned by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. On the other hand, the Foreign office of the Government of Bolivia, does, on occation, distribute bottles of MadreCoca to its Embassies when they try (without success) to get the international ban on coca leaves (not cocaine) lifted.
AGWA claims to use Bolivian coca leaves and then distilate to a strenght of 78-88 ABV. This is sheer nonsense because starch and/or sugar content in coca leaf is almost zero. There is no physical way to turn a coca leaf mash into ethanol for distilation. Furthermore, none of the alcaloids or other benefitial constituents (or not benefitial, depending on your point of view) in coca leaf have lower boilling point than ethanol, so nothing would get through to the distillate. Might as well have a distillate without the coca leaves. Company does not disclose if they are adding caffeine to the drink.
This is clearly a case where a company uses a name (Coca & Bolivia) to attain a certain advertising objective. Since the dring has ethanol (probably made either from a sugar or grain base) and caffeine, people that drink it get some "strange" buzz.
These things are for sure.
- No real coca leaf content in drink.
- If conpany uses coca leaves, it is only to be able to get away with the false advertising.
- Nothing in this drink even remotelly has to do with Bolivian culture or heritage. (Believe me, I am from Bolivia)
- Not even a slight hint of coca leaf flavor.
Now, I attempted to put all this information in the description but was quickly edited out. It seems that I have to be very polite and come to a consensus with other editors. I am new to editing and if I have made a mistake then I appologize. I hope, for the sake of truth and a little justice, that someone with a little common sense looks at this and helps me include this info in the AGWA page.
How would you feel if someone made blatantly false statements about a native plant from your country and your country name. The fact that it is in the AGWA websit does not mean that it is true. Sruizmier (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding. The problem with your edit is that it does not use any references. You must use reliable sources WP:RS so that other people can verify your edit per our policy of WP:V. Your opinion, nevermind how informed or expert, does not count, unfortunately, without these reliable sources. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- As Dr.K. says, all information must be verifiable in reliable sources. If you are willing to proceed slowly and take some time to learn how things operate here, you may like the resulting article (or at least, like it more than the current text). However, the personal experience and knowledge of an editor is not usable in an article. See WP:5P for an overview, but you don't need to worry about all the details. You may like to suggest (click "edit" in the right margin next to the heading of this section) some text in the article that you would like to see changed. Don't try to do everything at once, start with something small. See WP:TP for how talk pages work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)