Talk:Chili pepper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

AJI

Aji word is better than Chile, not to be confused with the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albedu (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chili vs non-chili peppers

It appears some people are confused because they are focusing on whether or not the plant has a hot taste. There are two main groups of capsicum plants: one have a 'hot' taste and are commonly referred to as "chili" and the other are a group of plants that are not hot to taste and include sweet peppers, bell peppers and capsicum in Australasia. The key issue here is that these are all varieties of the same plant and therefore should be included in one Wikipedia article with appropriate descriptions. The difference in taste is caused by the level of the natural chemicals in these plants that cause a burning sensation when consumed. Even sweet peppers or bell peppers have trace amounts of this chemical.

Chile spelled with an "e" is a place, not a plant.

Actually, "chile" is common amongst Spanish speakers specifically in Mexico. Chilli is used by English speakers, in Australia, India, Indonesia and Southeast Asia in general, for the pungent types whereas the mild ones are called capsicums. Chile is also included and recognized in dictionaries. User:pep589 —Preceding comment was added at 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Smoking of Seeds

Just roll the seeds up with tobacco in a joint. Causes Euphoria but a deep burning sensation in your lungs. Still, excellent if you want to have a laugh :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.202.143 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a great way to cause serious, permanent respiratory damage to your lungs. Thanks for that piece of useless, dangerous information. --Jsderwin (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Every pepper is NOT chilli

It's quite obvious that this article is US-centred, there is nowhere in Europe that the sweet peppers are called chilli. Chilli are EXCLUSIVELY the hot varieties, it took me many readings to clarify my confusion and I think I speak on behalf of all Europeans.

Certainly you jest. Why are so many people so intent to use words in the least logical manner conceivable? 82.135.82.212 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If this article were US centric as you say, then the correct spelling 'chile' would be used. That's because here in the New World, where the chile is a native plant, that's how it's spelled. Additionally, you are wrong. Every pepper is a chile. They have been genetically modified to be sweet without any capsicum.--Jsderwin (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In the US, 'chili pepper' is a very common spelling, along with the Spanish spelling 'chile' — which itself derives from the Aztec (Nahuatl) word written 'chilli' or 'chīlli' (according to both the article and OED). Another spelling in the Americas is 'ají', from the Arawak word.

My understanding is that the word 'chile' is used for every capsicum (but not black pepper, white pepper or Sichuan pepper), while the word 'chilli' tends to be used only for the hot varieties. Pjrm (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be incorrect; chili/chile is only used for hot varieties, regardless of how its spelled. For non-spicy varieties, such as bell peppers, the word chili is never used. They are called peppers, though.oknazevad (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Chilli

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Who spells this word "chilli". I can't say I've ever seen it that way before in America, although I see a lot of websites spelled that way. Is this a British English spelling? Should this page just be at "chile"? Rmhermen 05:49 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

I've never noticed it with two Ls. Either "chili" or "chile". It is listed in the Oxford American Dictionary, though: chili, chile, chilli. (I guess in order of how common the spellings are?) --KQ

Google gives the following statistics (rounded off by me): "chili" 1.7m (world) 40k (UK) "chilli" 370k (world) 70k (UK) "chile pepper" 22k (world) 260 (UK) "chili pepper" 73k (world) 1300 (UK) "chilli pepper" 8k (world) 1200 (UK) The OED2 gives "chilli" as the main form, with "chili" and "chile" as archaic forms. All the stuff in my (British) kitchen spells it "chilli", including food imported from Thailand.

I'm not saying that I'm right and you guys are wrong. British English is clearly in the minority here. I'm just explaining why I spelled it as I did. I shall put a note in the article about the relative frequencies of the spellings. -- user:Heron

I really feel that it must and should be changed to "chile." While many people may use "chili" they are probably refering to powdered chiles. Chili is also the name of the American stew which is based off various mexican ones. As wikipedia is a forum that is designed to educate, I think that we should educate people to write (and say) chile. Some of this may be because I am a Californian and having been surrounded by Spanish speakers my entire life I pronounce chile and chili differently. Who cares if the more common usage is chili? That's what redirections are for. Digsdirt 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the meanings mentioned, but the article should simply explain the various spellings and each meaning in its own context. I view "chile" as a vegetable and chili (or any other spelling) as a hot beef stew. This is the point of view on the border between Mexico, and the states of Texas and New Mexico, in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huecodoc (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capsicum anuum

How do we handle the fact that jalapenos and bell pepers are both Capsicum Annuum? No one I think would call bell peppers chiles. Rmhermen 06:45 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

In Latin American cooking, there's a dish called "chile relleno" (stuffed chile) which uses a chile pod that is almost the size of a bell pepper, and not appreciably hotter. It's a stretch... but...  ;) -- Tooki 21:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It'd make more sense to call it chili than to call it pepper. But who cares, eh? 82.135.82.212 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New or Old World

Is the statement "the plant was unknown in Asia until Europeans introduced it there"? I have a source that says it has been grown in there for "thousands of years" wich seems to predate Columbus. I have also read about seeds of Capsicum frutecens from the 15th century being found in Lund. Also some roman texts may refer to chili peppers. // Liftarn

Your source is mistaken, the entire nightshade family is native to the new world only. Mkweise 23:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not so. While it's true that most economically-useful members of the Solanaceae, or nightshade family, are native to the Americas, there are some species that are not, such as: deadly nightshade, or belladona (Atropa belladonna), which is native to Europe, N Africa and W Asia; and the aubergine (Solanum melongena), which is native to southern India and Sri Lanka. Jimmy Pitt 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do people persist in making such utterly ignorant statements such as "the entire nightshade family is native to the new world only"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Haberenos

Re: the second photo - I don't think these are Haberenos. They are known as "hot peppers" and were sold at a caribbean market in London. From looking at the external link they are either Jamaican or Scotch Bonnet. Anyone could at identifying chillis? Secretlondon 22:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The peppers in your photo have the classic lantern shape of Habaneros, not the more bunched-up bonnet shape of Scotch bonnets. The Jamaican pepper shown in your link above looks very similar to a Habanero to me - I'd have to smell or taste a pepper to identify it beyond any doubt. Habanero peppers have a distinct citrus-like aroma that no other pepper shares. Mkweise 23:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Habaneros are originally from Cuba, not Mexico. Mkweise 23:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The scotch bonnet is a cultivar of the habanero. Digsdirt 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE Spelling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Try going to BBC site [1]and typing in the various spellings into the search engine. If you were looking for a recipe with only one L or an E, you would go hungry.

That is possibly the strangest comment I've ever seen ... that'd be like saying if you used the american or english spellings in a chinese site, you would get no results. Is that really too hard to understand? BBC = BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. So tell me, what spellings will the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation use - the BRITISH spelling or the american spelling. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Chilli pepper" may be the standard British spelling now, but the word was originally "chile" (Webster's says that we got the word through Spanish), which then got corrupted to "chili" and "chilli". Secondly, the word "pepper" -- in the strictest sense -- never refers to chiles, but only to black pepper (piper nigrum) and its relatives.

Bell peppers have maintained their name, despite the fact that they're not even spicy.

In the culinary arts and botany, the capsicum pods are referred to as "chiles" to show the distinction from pepper. All the "definitive" sources of culinary knowledge (e.g. Barron's Food Lover's Companion, which is available on the web as www.epicurious.com's food dictionary; and cookbooks like the Joy of Cooking, or Mark Bittman's "How to Cook Everything") all agree that "chile" is the best spelling for the pod, and that "chili" is the usual spelling for the dish whose full Spanish name is "chile con carne".

Note also that the full OED's etymology of its entry "chilli, chilly" reports evidence of Chille, Chile, and Chiles all before the first instance of "Chilli". Clearly, the "-e" spelling predates the "-i" spelling. That said, the etymologies do seem to stem from Native Mexican "chilli", but I ask how that was determined, since Nahuatl obviously had to be romanized at some point. As I said before, we got it from Spanish "chile".

I propose (and unless someone objects within a reasonable amount of time, will also do) that the article be moved to either "Chile (food)" or "Chili", and that all references in the article of "chilli" or "chilli pepper" be standardized to "chile" or "chili". I will also add a blurb about how chiles are not peppers, a distinction held only by plants of the genus "Piper". When westerners (among others) first encountered chiles, they called them pepper because until then, black pepper had been the primary source of spiciness they'd known, so they applied it to everything spicy.

I realize that "chilli" and "chili" (with or without "pepper") may be common spellings, but:

1. The OED does not define English -- the standard usage in relevant fields is more important
2. There is a lot of value in promoting a spelling that results in the least ambiguity (in this case, the distinction between capsicum pods and Piper berries)
3. We should encourage the use of the terminology used in the relevant fields: in this case, both the culinary arts and botany have de-facto standardized on "chile", and both also agree that "pepper" does not belong in the name.
4. That said, I recognize that "chili" is by FAR the most common spelling, so if we are going to depart from the spelling closest to the word of origin, then it should be "chili", not "chilli", which is a very specific alternate spelling.

Everyone interested in the spelling debate should read http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Caps_fru.html#etym_chile

-- Tooki 21:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) (P.S. I'm a linguistics and culinary arts nut, so I do have a little background!)

P.S. I also found another article (capsicum) which almost entirely overlaps in content with the chile article. Should we nix "chile/chili/chilli" altogether (aside from the blurb on spelling) and integrate the content with Capsicum and just refer to them as capsicums?

Under the section on spelling it says that 'chilli' is the original Nahuatl word. How can this be? Nahuatl didn't use the latin dictionary, so there can't be an original spelling? Ashmoo 05:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph was in the article, but belongs here in talk (Gdr 00:58, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC))

Google test results: chili pepper, chile pepper, chilli pepper

All of those results still ignore the fact that the word "pepper" does not belong in the correct name of any capsicum pod. Yes, they are commonly referred to as "chili/le/lli peppers", but the fact remains that they are not pepper, they are chiles. Wiki should be about disseminating the best info out there, not perpetuating misinformation.

A Google test of "chiles" vs "chilies"/"chilis" vs "chillies"/"chillis" shows vastly more common usage of "chiles" than any other spelling ("chiles" has nearly three times as many hits as the second most popular spelling, "chillies").

-- tooki 08:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Look more carefully at those results: a very large number of them are references to people whose surname is Chiles, while almost all of the results for "chilis" are food or botanical references. JulesH 20:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree with you about "pepper" being inadvisable. So I removed it from everywhere except the introductory paragraph. However, you haven't convinced me about "chile" versus "chilli". "Chilli" has the advantage that it is clear how to pronounce it; it doesn't clash with the word "chile" (variant form of "child") or the country "Chile". And it's pretty popular too, if not quite as popular as "chile". Also dictionaries like the OED and Chambers prefer it. Can you say something more about the standarization you refer to above?

The page should perhaps eventually be moved to Chilli (currently a redirect) or something like Chile (capsicum) if we can agree on a spelling. Gdr 19:25, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add info :)

1. In the U.S., the "chilli" spelling is plain and simply not used. "Chilli" is a Britishism, and it is not fair to use a spelling unused by most English speakers.
2. "chile" is the most etymologically accurate spelling, and (though this is not the primary concern) converges nicely with the Spanish word for them: chile. Since Spanish is the language spoken in Mexico (the epicenter of chiles, both botanically and culinarily), there is some value in this.
3. I don't consider the OED (or any general-purpose dictionary) to be the final word on spelling, especially when definitive works in the specialty fields (in this case, the culinary arts and botany) have standardized on another. In culinary arts, I look at Barron's Food Lover's Companion, which is available on the web as epicurious.com's food dictionary; and cookbooks like the Joy of Cooking, or Mark Bittman's "How to Cook Everything". I'm not a botanist, but I've heard multiple times that botanists refer to them as "chiles", not anything else. (FWIW, Webster's prefers "chili" and mentions "chilli" as "chiefly British".)
4. While my preferred spelling is clearly "chile", I would be satisfied-under-objection with "chili". "Chilli" is too narrow, not used by the vast majority of English speakers.
5. "Chile (capsicum)" or "Chile (food)" would be good names for the entry.
6. I don't think there's any confusion with Chile (the country), and certainly not with pronunciation. I've never heard "chile" mispronounced.

The upshot is that, between the usage in the relevant disciplines, the etymology and the frequency, "chile" is the more scholarly choice -- after all, Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a comic book or blog!

I must also mention again (since nobody reacted to my previous mention of this) that there is an article, capsicum, that almost entirely overlaps with this one. We should consider folding this article into "capsicum".

-- tooki 02:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that "chile" is more scholarly. It has a major disadvantage that while it is etymologically closer to the origin of the word, it is hardly ever used at all in the UK, and from a brief examination of US supermarket web sites is not favoured by most US retail spice brands (Its Delish, McCormick and VONS) either, which presumably means that most Americans will be more familiar with the form they prefer ('chili', the same as is dominant in the UK). To many people, myself included, it just looks wrong (when I see it used, I tend to assume that people have got the word confused with the name of the country). I propose renaming the page to either 'Chili' or 'Chili pepper'. JulesH 20:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The spelling 'chili' (Chy-Ly) is counter-intuitive to the rules governing spelling and pronunciation that are found in the english language. Then there is the country, 'Chile' (Chil-Ay). Then 'chilli' (Chil-Lee), which reflects the usage and pronunciation in spoken english. Is this the english language wiki? Alumin(i)um. Merge this article with capsicum.

In the section about the spelling of the word chile/chili, what is up with the comment about the "alternative" pronunciation of "route" being influenced by the song "Route 66"? WTF? "Route" is a French word. "OU" in French has the "oo" sound. This illustration should be deleted: it is completely fallacious, irrelevant, and provincial. It's also quite dubious that the spelling "chili pepper" has been influenced to any degree by the rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers. Is there any documentation whatsoever for that? Take it out. RevJATB 03:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. root/rout is a regional distinction in the U.S. Probably whoever included it had their first encounter with the root pronuncuiation from the TV show, but in large parts of the country (and, I suspect, other anglophonic countries) the rout pronunciation is almost unknown. Dvd Avins 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The concept that the word "pepper" is only properly used to describe black pepper is incorrect. One of the official definitions by Webster is -

"Any plant of the genus Capsicum, and its fruit; red pepper; as, the bell pepper."

More importantly, the most commonly-used name for these guys in the English-speaking world, which is actually what we need to be concerned about according to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions when naming an article, is...

"peppers"

In fact, when you look at many of the commonly-used names that include the word "pepper", you can see that it's use in describing Capsicum is not only acceptable, it actually appears to be taking the lead over Piper! For example -

• sweet pepper
• hot pepper
• chile pepper
• anaheim pepper
• red pepper
• green pepper
• bell pepper

all of which refer to capsicums.

The idea that "pepper" is not used in this specialty field is also incorrect. I took a look at the catalogs of 10 different botanical companies which carry capsicums, to see what they called them. Here is the break-down -

1. Peppers - 5
2. Pepper - 3
3. Hot Peppers - 1
4. Hot Chile Peppers - 1

Note that ALL 10 of them had Pepper(s) as part of the name they used to refer to capsicums, and NONE of them were referring to piper nigrum!

The idea that the word "peppers" is not proper for use by those specializing in capsicum culinary arts or botany is ridiculous. Such notable capsicum folks as Dave DeWitt, Jean Andrews and Amal Naj all have books about the culinary and/or botanical aspects of capsicums which not only refer to them as such, but even include the word "pepper" in the book titles!

However, on the botanical side, I can think of no better example than the name of the capsicum research institution associated with the New Mexico State University (NMSU), and run by the esteemed Dr. Paul Bosland, recognized as one of the world's leading experts on capsicums. The name of this research institution is -

"The Chile Pepper Institute"

If "Chile Pepper" is good enough for Dr. Bosland, it should be good enough for us!

Unless we are to believe that all of these world-renown experts are "perpetuating misinformation", use of the phrase "chile pepper" is both acceptable and appropriate in this article.

On the issue of re-naming the article itself, I think that either "Chile pepper" (or alternatively, "Hot pepper") would be preferable to the other two spellings. I think that we can all agree that the current spelling is the least commonly used outside of the UK; and "chili" is also commonly used to refer to other things.

Unless someone can come up with a good reason why we should use the less precise "chili", I think we need to move this to Chile Pepper. --Hotpeppers 11:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My (fairly limited) understanding in the matter of "chile" and "pepper" is that it was Christopher Columbus who we have to thank (or blame) for this misnomer. Columbus was trying to find ways of justifying his expensive (and possible failure of a) voyage for Spices, when he decided to call the chile a "pepper" or in Spanish, "pimienta/pimiento" (pimentón) to help market the new spice to his sponsors and to ease the burden of returning without that which he set out for. A testament to his influence, we still make that (erroneous) connection today.Michaelyee 06:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Chili is the best way to write it, because who really cares a single US state with its dish in the whole World context? Chile is a whole country, here in Europe it would make a great confusion if word Chile is used instead of Chili, because we _do_ have geography in our schools as mandatory subject, which means most everyone knows where Chile is and when you refer Chili as Chile the first mental impression would be country Chile. If you refer to Mexican Spanish, please understand that epicenter is actually _not_ Spanish, should be some original Indian language. --- arl 20060621

Does one need to say more than [2]? --- arl 20060622

In all my life I have never seen the spelling Chili or Chilli until I read this article. Chile is the proper spelling. I find this whole argument amusing and yet baffling. If people in Europe aren't capable of distinguishing a plant from a South American country that's their problem. -- 172.190.9.168 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge into Capsicum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There was a great deal of duplication between the capsicum and chilli pepper articles (indeed, almost every portion of the subject was touched on in both articles). So I merged the two pages at capsicum. This has the useful side-effect of avoiding the question of which spelling the article should live at. Gdr 12:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, except wikipedia naming policy says the primary criterion for the name is the most common thing someone would think of when looking for the topic. Capsicum is certainly not it. So that move was ill timed (Chilli pepper is a FAC) and wikiquette suggests asking for consensus here before making a unilateral move like that is more appropriate. - Taxman 14:35, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

You said on WP:FAC that some information was lost. What was it? The merge was quite tricky, with many piece of information appearing twice or sometimes three times. I could easily have lost something in the process. Gdr 20:47, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Provided that ample redirects are put in place for all the expected names, I think that capsicum is a good place for the article to live. That said, the merge needs to be done very carefully to preserve flow, uniformity, ensure no inadvertently lost info, prevent redundant or conflicting info, etc. -- tooki 19:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe I did all that, and there are plenty of redirects. Please check and correct problems. Gdr 20:33, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RE: Wrongly Deleted Article

For the numerous reasons outlined in great detail in my posts of Sept. and Oct. of this year on the discussion page for Capsicum, I have restored this wrongly deleted article.

I will also go through the edits made subsequent to the merger and am re-applying them to both articles, in order to make sure that no changes are lost. --Hotpeppers 02:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Applied Latest Updates:

The following changes were made elsewhere to the contents of this article after it was deleted, and have been re-applied -

Update by Taxman on Aug 19 listed as "noted complimentary effect of a chemical on birds".

Applicable portions of update by Tooki on Aug. 26 listed as "minor cleanup".

The update by Bobierto on Sept. 5 listed as "habaneros and Scotch bonnets are the same thing!", which was based on the premise that the article was in error, was not re-applied, for the simple reason that the premise was incorrect, and applying this change would have made the article inaccurate. --Hotpeppers 05:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again: why "chilli"??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Even the page itself concedes that, with or without the word pepper, the vastly more common spelling is "chile". Why is this article filed under the least common spelling? -- tooki 00:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm moving the article to "chile pepper" because no one seems to have answered Tooki's entirely reasonable question in over a month. Nohat 04:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

chile pepper and capsicum

If this article is going to talk about the fruits, and the capsicum about the plants, then this one needs to lose its sections about the species, excessive talk of capsaicin, and whatnot. --Joy [shallot] 15:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chile (capsicum)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

King Dedede, kindly explain your reasoning for "Chile (capsicum)". --Joy [shallot] 21:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to chile pepper because firstly, it's most likely to be searched or linked to by that name (and by looking at what links here I can see that this is totally the case) and secondly, in the discussion above, we can see that majority says it should reside there. If soemone has issues with this then feel free to move it back but reason it first here. --Celestianpower ^talk 17:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this move (see above). I hope you don't mind my clarification of the lead section. Also I took out the bit about being most common in the UK. It seemed a bit over the top to me to have information about what spelling is more common in the UK before the information that this the fruit of a plant. Nohat 19:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving to Chilli

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not sure why this article is under the name of a country (Chile). Should really be moved to "Chilli". Of the many countries that speak have significant numbers of English speakers:

American Samoa, Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cayman Islands, China, Cook Islands, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guyana, Honduras, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, South Korea, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia (Peninsular), Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Montserrat, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Puerto Rico, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Uganda, UK, United Arab Emirates, USA, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

...only a few Pacific islands, the US, and Mexico use the word "chile". Additionally, the original word Nahuatl was closest to "chilli". The main argument above for keeping the article at "chile" is that it's the most common name in US cookbooks(!) - Xed 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Chile" is more common overall than "Chilli". Nohat 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your evidence? - Xed 09:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A Google search for "chile pepper" returns 433,000 pages. A Google search for "chilli pepper" returns only 309,000 pages. Nohat 09:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning what? A Wikipedia based on how many Google search results appear would lead to an awful lot of Britney Spears articles. It couldn't claim to be an encyclopedia. The combined number of people who would spell the word "Chile" is about 200 million. "Chilli" would be used by about 300 million. And if Google is more important than actual people, then you'll be pleased to know that "Chilli" wins in a number of searches - "hot chilli" "spicy chilli" etc. - Xed 15:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any actual hard evidence to support your assertions about the number of people who use each form? Because it just looks like a guess to me. As for "hot chilli" and "spicy chilli" it seems obvious that those who are in the minority of users of the term to be prone to such redundancies. Nohat 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you really believe this page should be moved, you should make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and let the community discuss it rather than acting unilaterally and against previously-established consensus. Nohat 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Xed, this is the dumbest shit ever. For real, man. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here?! The validity of the Google test is at WP:GOOGLE. It's pretty clear that Xed's opinion is in the minority here, or it's at least disputed who is right. Xed, stop moving this page unilaterally - Scm83x 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Google_test#systemic_bias - Xed 12:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. To avoid all the bias from songs and groups I searched for chile capsicum on google giving 266,000, compared to chilli capsicum giving 280,000. I don't think this close result is enough ton warrant a change, but it is certainly up for discussion. When I first read "chile pepper" I did not know what it meant, and read it as rhyming with 'smile'. This spelling is virtually unknown in the UK. -- 88.105.81.183 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia too. Chile? That's a country. Chili? Someone left an L out of Chilli. Why oh why are we listening to Americans on spelling? ;) They can't even get that U into colour, honour or armour! :P ~~ (Berym, presently unable to sign in due to PC issues, 07/05/2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.36.19 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Xed, my evidence, I am a native Spanish speaker, and I can tell you for a fact that chile is commonly used in some Spanish speaking countries as well as "aji", NOT "chilli." Yours is an opinion, thus invalid. User:pep589 —Preceding comment was added at 11:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish spelling is only relevant in as much as it has affected spelling in English speaking countries (this is not the Spanish Wikipedia). It is not an opinion to state that "Chilli" is used in many English speaking countries (the split seems to be along the same lines as US English / UK English). --James (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Medical Usage" moved here

I have moved the following whole "Medical Usage" paragraph which was added by Aragorn2 (diff). It contains speculations, unproven hypotheses, and wrong facts. Moreover, not a single reference is given and I could not verify most claims. Cacycle 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

In the West, it was long believed that excessive consumption of hot peppers could cause stomach ulcers. This was in accordance with the hypothesis that ulcers were caused by stress, and irritation of the stomach lining.

More lately, however, studies have shown that hot chile consumption is, on the contrary, negatively correlated with the incidence of stomach ulcers. For example, this ailment is less common in southern India than in the North of the country. In the South, dishes traditionally contain more hot peppers, probably to help preserve food in the tropical climate. Another study performed on 103 Chinese patients, some of which had stomach ulcers and some which had not, showed that the ulcer-free patients, on the average, consumed hot chiles three times as often as those who had ulcers (24 vs. 8 times a month). Also, some Native American tribes have been reported to treat stomach pains (often caused by ulcers) with increasing amounts of raw, hot peppers.

The relatively recent discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori offers a possible explanation for this effect: The capsaicin with its antibacterial properties could, when ingested regularily in sufficient doses, limit the population of this species (which is now suspected to be responsible for the great majority of all ulcers) in the human stomach.

While chiles as a cure for ulcers are still used only in traditional medicine, Western medicine has adopted pepper extracts containing capsaicinoids for a couple of other uses. For example, chronical pain is sometimes treated using highly concentrated oleoresin capsicum: The corresponding body part is locally anesthetized, then oleoresin capsicum is applied. As soon as the anesthesia wears off, and the patient notices a warming sensation, the oleoresin is carefully removed from the skin. After this treatment, the patient is usually pain-free for several days. (This treatment uses OC to deplete substance P and thus temporarily inhibit transmission of pain signals.)

The warming sensation and (in the mid term) pain-stilling effects of capsaicinoids are also used in heat plasters and ointments to treat muscular tensions and arthrosis. The former treatment works two-fold. First, the apparent heat directly causes the affected muscles to relax (in the same way that hot baths and sauna visits do). Second, the pain associated with tensions is, after the initial pain caused by the apparent heat, stilled, which interrupts a well-known feedback cycle (muscular pain leads to tension, which leads to more pain).

Arthrosis symptoms can be alleviated using the same preparations, however, it was even reported that local application of capsaicinoids can reduce wear of the cartilage by stimulating lubrication on the inside of the joint capsule.

All that said, it should be noted that safety precautions must be taken when handling substances high in capsaicinoids. Capsicum extracts must never be applied to open sores, mucuous membranes, or the thin sensitive skin of (for example) the scrotum and the labia. Be careful not to rub your eyes after applying capsicum creams, or handling hot chiles, unless you carefully washed your hands in the meantime. First aid procedures include carefully washing the capsaicin away with cold water and soap (capsaicinoids are hydrophobic), or, if the eyes are affected, rinsing with cold water for a prolonged period of time. In the latter case, see a doctor once the initial symptoms diminuish. An ice package may help on the way to the hospital rsp. the doctor's practice.

If very hot substances have been ingested, cool and fatty foods rsp. drinks soothe best, for example ice cream, milk (including soy milk). Avocados and guacamole, peanut butter, and, strangely enough, some foods low in fat such as cucumber are also reported to take the heat away reliably.

---

Cayenne: baccatum vs frutescens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayenne_pepper classifies the cayenne variety under capsicum baccatum, while

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_pepper classifies is under capsicum frutescens. Which of these is correct?

Hello....... I'm hoping this is the proper way to answer the above query. Cayenne is neither baccatum or frutescens. It is Capsicum Annuum. The C. Baccatum are mainly the "Aji" varieties of South America, and the Frutescens varieties that are most commonly known are the Tabasco and Malagueta peppers.

note by JB: there is an inconsistency in the wiki re which species Cayenne is, viz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper

says:

Capsicum frutescens, which includes the cayenne and tabasco peppers

but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capsicum_cultivars

says that Capsicum annuum includes cayenne.

Which is correct? I think the latter but I am no expert. In any case, someone should check and fix it, else wiki contains a glaring inconsistency.

67.142.130.45 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Antibacterial properties

Is there any substantiation of the claim that chili peppers have an antibacterial property? The lonely planet series of guides claims otherwise.

I removed the passage:

Capsaicin has an antibacterial effect, so food cooked with chiles keeps for longer without spoiling.

128.104.102.203 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have heard from a number of people that they are anti-bacterial.

I am unusually busy though. Is anyone interested in researching for citations on this?

Thanks! Phil

65.101.251.116 (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dorset Chilli - Apr 1st Joke?

As of April 2006 a report has been made of the Dorset Naga, a variety of the Naga Jolokia pepper cultivated exclusively by the Peppers by Post company in Dorset, England. They claim a lab used by the American Spice Trade Association measured their pepper at 923,000 SHU

I would take this with a pinch of salt (the reference not the chilli), as it is from the April 1. It has certainly been taken as serious by other papers, but I have not found a report before this date. -- Chris Q 12:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

After more research I now think it is a real, but yet unverified claim and not a joke -- 88.105.81.183 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A more recent reference is in the April 2007 edition of "The Garden" (The Royal Horticultural Society's magazine) which notes the Peppers by Post people, and they says you can buy the seeds here [3]. If the RHS still thinks it is real, I tend to believe them. Patche99z 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

Chile Pepper → Chili Pepper: Chili is by far the most common spelling - see Google hits:

"chili pepper": 2,450,000

"chile pepper": 582,000

"chilli pepper": 392,000

— SteveRwanda 14:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support I had not even come across the spelling "chile pepper", and thought it would rhyme with smile. I would also support chilli pepper. -- Chris Q
• Spport i.e. "Chili" On overwhelming usage grounds - origin of word is fine but this language thing is dynamic albeit needing some basis. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - would actually prefer chilli pepper too, as prior to today I had never heard of chile or chili, but it does seem from the hits above that the single L form takes precedence. — SteveRwanda 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support to either option. David Kernow 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support not necessarily of Chile; current title is slightly confusing. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Chili pepper seems to be the most common term, and "Chile pepper" might be ambiguous in context of the nation of that name (and the peppers thereof). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per [4] ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Personally I prefer Chilli pepper -- nirvana2013 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consistent Spelling?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Now that the article has been moved to "Chili Pepper", shouldn't the spelling be used consistently throughout the article text? I'd make the change myself but I thought I'd open it up for discussion first.--140.32.18.3 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a good idea to move this page, as "chili" is a type of dish made from meat and beans. The peppers are called "chile." Badagnani 03:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the dish "chili" (aka Chili con carne) is called that is because it usually incorporates "chili peppers". It's actually logical for the two to have the same spelling! And btw, real chili doesn't have beans! :) -- Bovineone 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do it. Wikipedia should not belong to the US! (Incidentally, this sort of dispute is the reason I will never get a username until US people are in the minority.) By the way, my UK A-level exam paper mentioned chilli. 218.102.71.167 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Silly person, the US is the majority of ALL native speakers of English. That's right, America has more of them than all other countries combined. Therefore it's unlikely to ever be anything but a majority of the members of any widespread internet site. And how, by the way, does your not registering for a username help anything? --Kaz 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulldust. Give us proof that the US has more English speakers than the rest of the world combined. Anyhow... it's ENGLISH. Not Americanese ;) ~~ (Berym, presently unable to sign in due to PC issues, 07/05/2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.36.19 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I've nominated Category:Chile peppers to be renamed to Category:Chili peppers. You can check out the voting page here. -- Bovineone 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your decision was based on what, the chili stew? It's called "chili" therefore it's "chili peppers." The correct English term is "chilli" not "chili." Chile is also a valid spelling, originating from Spanish, so your decision to change it was erroneous. I guess the majority rules even when it's wrong. User:pep589

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge of Togarashi into Chili pepper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Oppose merge. Specific form of chile. Badagnani 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for same reason. There is an established pattern of separate articles for each major type of chili pepper, rather than polluting this main article. -- Bovineone 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it a specific form of chile? From the article, it sounds like it is just the japanese word for some form that has another name in the americas. If that's the case, it would be nice if we could work out the correspondence. (I actually also thought Togarashi was a spice blend, not a pepper. Recipes often say you can substitute chili powder if you can't get it.) Lisamh 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heat Ranking

I've seen articles elsewhere on the 'heat ranking' of various varieties of Chilli, should there be an article on this in Wikipedia? I think so! :o) Anyone want to create one? --Gavinio 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I was thinking of the scoville scale! It's already there... Sorry about that. Gavinio

Capsicum from Capsaicin (chemical)

Chili from our daily conversation but Capsicum from Capsaicin (chemical), capsaicin is: 8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide.

Capsicum Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article and the one on Capsicum are basically the same. Theyre both about peppers. To reduce confusion in readers, the two articles should be merged. MrPMonday 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because that article is about a genus of plants, while this one is about the peppers, themselves. The two do mostly overlap, but with important differences in focus and intention. A better solution would be to focus the Capsicum article more on the science and genus-like information, and persistently refer the user to THIS article regarding detailed regular-guy, food/decoration info about the peppers.--Kaz 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement, for the reasons below (region specific). --Monotonehell 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge for several reasons.

• There are many spellings of the word chili/chilli/chillie and only one spelling of capsicum.
• The Capsicum family encompasses all the fruits that go by different names in different regions. - peppers, chilies, capsicums etc.
• Several regions define a chili pepper as only the smaller fruits with 'heat'. This article is clearly about the entire family.
• There's already been issue regarding spelling, better to locate all the info on the one "Capsicum" page and redirect all variations to that.

--Monotonehell 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge notices, as I explained at Talk:Capsicum#Merge from chilli pepper. I didn't realise there was an active discussion here, as the merge notice on that page linked to Talk:Capsicum. Apologies. The merge notice can be added back again, but I suggest:

1. First, we could work on these articles a bit to clarify what they refer to. If they are to be separate, then it needs to be clear what they refer to, and that they are different. There should be disambiguation links where suitable. I've done a little bit on this, based on my understanding that chili pepper is the smaller hot type, and bell pepper is the larger type... I hope this is right. I'm Australian, and here chilli is the small hot one, and capsicum is what Americans call bell peppers... there's also sweet chillies and banana chillies in the shops here sometimes, which are almost as mild as bell peppers ("capsicums") but kind of pointy shaped like a chilli.
2. Make sure the merge tags are consistent, i.e. both link to the same talk page. This probably means deciding beforehand which way the merge should go.

Personally I oppose the merge as my understanding is (as mentioned above) that chili peppers are specifically the small hot ones and capsicum is either the genus or the bell pepper. Of course, if they both end up referring to the whole genus, they should be merged; this should be at capsicum, as this is a universally accepted term for the whole genus, unlike chili pepper. --Singkong2005 ^talk 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Species and cultivars" error.......

Under the above heading, Cayenne peppers are incorrectly listed under Capsicum Frutescens. It is in fact Capsicum Annuum. The only relatively common Frutescens varieties are the Tabasco and Malagueta peppers.64.12.116.199 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the correct spelling is Chile

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I came across this page for the first time this evening and I am astonished to find "chile" is misspelled here as "chili." This isn't something that is open to debate or surveys or "I grew up with this spelling and I like it better therefore let's choose that." The word is "chile." "Chili" is a term made up by Americans of European descent to describe a dish usually made with beans other than pinto, to which ground dried red chile has been added along with a whole host of other ingredients that have nothing whatsoever to do with Native American cuisine. I realize another corrupt spelling -- "chilli" -- is used by European and Asians but even so, that is no reason to continue using this misspelling. Wikipedia is supposed to present a scientific approach with correct scientific terminology. "Chile" is both the correct scientific and historical term and that should be what is used here unless one is writing about "chili con carne." Please change this. BTW, I noticed when checking the links for this article that someone had wrongly attributed "chili" to PepperCenter.com. The first page at that website makes it clear that their preferred spelling is "chile." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risssa (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 October 2006

Actually, just because in your country its spelled that way, doesnt mean it is in all countries. 85.178.254.102 10:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the correct spelling is "chile." Chili is the dish, chile is the pepper, chilli is a misspelling of the dish.

• • • People PLEASE stop arguing over the spelling. Look in your dictionary, the accepted spelling is different across regions. chil·i, chil·e or chil·li are all acceptable. It's like how americans (incorectly lol) spell "colour" "color". Just live with it, it's one of the things that make the world interesting. "If everyone looked the same we'd get tired of looking at each other" (Groove Armada) --Monotonehell 05:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chile is a country (look in your atlas). For the name of the vegitable please the books I've looked in says it's called "Chili". // Liftarn

Read what you typed again, "the books I've looked in" do not present a world view. Like I said above all spellings are mentioned in Dictionaries. --Monotonehell 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I've not generally seen the spelling "Chili" or "Chile" in Ireland outside of Chile-con-carne. zoney ♣ talk 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously no worldwide consensus on the spelling. I think the article will be most complete if we continue to acknowledge all common spellings, and provide the reasoning behind the controversies rather than appoint ourselves as arbiters for the rest of the world. Downstrike

According to Good Eats Alton Brown, Chile Pepper is the correct spelling. Chili is short for Chili Con Carne a dish. Chili pepper could mean the variety of peppers or casciums that make up the seasoning Chili Powder. Chile Powder is a mixture of casciums or a single cascium without any seasonings. If you look at spice conveyers that actually sell seasonings and peppers they spell this way not only in the United States but also Mexico and Latin America. This gives presidence over the British Commonwealth as the population of the those areas are of lesser than the United States, Mexico and Latin America. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parasites

Interesting thought the reference (http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-00/departments/featbiology/) is, we could really do with something with a little more, er.. meat. Rich Farmbrough, 12:00 16 January 2007 (GMT).

Too Long

Ok, at some point a line needs to be drawn:

"The chili pepper, chile pepper or chilli pepper, or simply chili, chile or chilli,"

Should a line be drawn - that would cross it.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There we go - great job! --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Precolumbian chili in Europe

I have some sources for precolumbian use of chili in Europe. Should I add it under the history section? // Liftarn

If they are reliable sources, go ahead. :) --Monotonehell 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are cookbooks reliable sources? I think it was in Eat the heat or perhaps Arctic heat. I'll have to check. It's quite interesting. A Capsicum frutescens was found in a layer from the 15th century (in Lund I think). And there was some description from ancient Greece that described pepper, but the description seemed to indicate chili rather than pepper (or it may be Piper longum (my speculation)). // Liftarn

Sounds a bit out there, how reliable are the sources? --Monotonehell 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's from the introduction of a cookbook so it's probably not the best source. I'll have to find the book to see if they are refering to another source. // Liftarn

Ok, I've checked and the original source is an article in Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift. // Liftarn

And now I've added a section on it. // Liftarn

It IS a bit out there. While the claim was actually made as recited by the cookbook, the claim itself is not accepted as credible by virtually all ethnobotanists. Tmangray 00:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a Maldive native

Flora of Maldives page staes quite clearly that it is for plants growing as natives. This species is not native to the Maldives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs) 22:57 UTC, 13 June 2007.

Merge notices

It looks like this page gets a merge notice slapped on it from time to time. I'd like to just say that there's a clear need for this article, independent of any biology/botany article about the various [List of capsicum cultivars|capsicum cultivars]. Chili peppers are a cooking ingredient and the source of various folk and modern medicines. Having an article about those broad uses and the cultural elements that have grown around them makes sense. Right now, the linkage between these articles seems to be clear and easy to navigate, so if someone wants to propose a merge, they should probably start by proposing how navigation will flow after they're done, and why the culinary/cultural elements don't merit a stand-alone article. -Harmil 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, there's a good model in the Vitis, Vitis vinifera and Grape articles, which are all under the Plants Project - the first two are largely focussed on the botany, the latter goes into more commercial aspects. Then you have a whole series of articles devoted to the individual domesticated varieties such as Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc, which are not part of the Plants Project but part of the Food and Drink Project (under the Wine sub-project in fact).

In the case of the peppers, there's a lot of little articles about individual varieties, which I suspect will never amount to much more than stubs - particularly if most of the botany is taken care of in the main Capsicum/Capsicum frutescens articles. So in this case I'm minded to be a 'lumper' rather than a 'splitter' when it comes to the individual varieties of chili - I see an article about them that is more than a simple list, with articles on individual chili varieties being splintered as necessary - I imagine something like birds-eye will already have enough to justify an article, but there seem to be a lot of stubs out there.

If you want to reduce the merge tendencies, then like the grape/V. vinifera articles, it probably needs a bit of work to push the two articles in different directions, C. frutescens on the biology, and this one on the cultural and cuisine aspects. FlagSteward 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Contradiction

From the page:

Chile is the American spelling (uncommon elsewhere) which refers specifically to this plant and its fruit. This orthography is common in much of the Spanish-speaking world,

These statements seem contradictory. How can it be uncommon outside America, yet common in much of the Spanish-speaking world? I suspect that the orthography statement originally applied to 'chili', rather than to 'chile', but got mis-shuffled during merging and unmerging, so I've moved it there.

I also find the use of the definite article in 'the American spelling' obnoxiously arbitrary, since many Americans refuse to spell it that way, so I've replaced it with the indefinite article. Downstrike

This is because 'America' = North America, Central America & South America. Specially to Latin Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.102.44 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Original Romanization

The original Romanization of the Náhuatl word was done by Spaniards, not Englishmen. Had they Romanized it as 'chilli', it would be pronounced as 'chiyey', instead of 'chilly'. (Has anyone heard it pronounced that way?) Further, although the web page cited here does spell the word as 'chilli', it doesn't seem to make any assertion about the original Romanization. Downstrike

double ll was not pronounced as y in 15th century spanish - it was pronounced as ly as it is today in castile. But the double ll in nahuatl words reflect and actual double l sound - because nahuatl differ from spanish in distinguisging single l's from double l's. The spanish monks who alphabetisised nahuatl realised that this was different from spanish and the most observant of them did write it chilli and pronounce it as a double ll. Whereas laymen spaniards wrote it with a single l and pronounced it with a single l. This is the origin of the two different orthographies chilli/chili.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sport pepper" redirect

"Sport pepper" redirects to this page, but I believe it should redirect to "Serrano pepper" instead based on this page:

http://www.hotdogchicagostyle.com/faq.php 12.48.196.9 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nahuatl has for its absolute case 'atl' or, after a consonant, ' tli', as in ahuacatl; xtomatl; chocolatl; atlatl; therefore, could it not have been 'chil-tli' that ended up as 'chilli' thence 'chili' & romanised by th spanish into 'chile: which is the name of a country, not a fruit. 203.61.121.136 (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Name in other languages" section - Proposed deletion

Having added to this section I wonder whether its is justified, you could add this to many wikipedia entries. The article already has the scientific name and the names used in English-speaking countries. I propose that this section be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I second its deletion. Translations belong in dictionaries not in enccyclopedia articles. And it is a completely random sample of languages - and the list can never be considered complete. I delete it right away.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Guajillo article needed

The guajillo chile is one of the most important in Mexican cuisine--an article about this chile is needed immediately. Badagnani (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The name 'chili' should be removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Chile is a native fruit to the Americas. Chili, or Chilli is a dish made often using chiles. Culinary articles should use these names. If we are discussing the plant, chile is the correct word to use. To see the main article using the chili spelling is quite amusing. Additionally, chile is referenced here as being used as a spice to a dish. It should be noted that Mexican and Southwestern American cuisine uses chile as a main ingredient.Jsderwin (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that people actually support a vote to set the nomenclature for the word chile. There is no doubt the word is chile. To use google for statistics is wrong. If you put the words "Bigfoot" and "Rabbit" together you will get about 110,000 results. Of course there is no such thing. If you put the words "chile" and "Chilli" together you get 73,500,000 results. Jsderwin (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was formerly titled "chile," until it was moved a few months ago to "chili." Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quite pedantic of you Jsderwin, but you do have a point there. "Chili" is the dish using the plant called "Chile" is what I think you (eventually) are stating, if it matters. Bugguyak (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the word "chili" Should be removed. It is perfectly fine. It supports the food chili pepper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.191.245.76 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The word 'chili' is perfectly acceptable. 'Chile' is a specific way of disamguing it in the US, because 'Chili Con Carne' have become commonly known as 'Chili'. WP has no policy on using American or English spelling, but I think chili is more recognizable by non-americans, and it is also the original spelling and name in the US. Carewolf (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More on naming

I'm from the UK. I have to disagree with what the article says: The mild larger types are called bell pepper in the United States, Canada (and sometimes the United Kingdom), sweet pepper in Britain and Ireland - um, not really. I very, very, very rarely hear them called sweet peppers and have never heard them called bell peppers - they're just called peppers, either red peppers, green peppers or the less common yellow and orange ones. And as for the hot ones - well, over here in my neck of the woods the hot fruit are simply called chillis, not chilli peppers (perhaps so as not to confuse with chilli pepper, which is the ground powder from the hot fruit that you put in your chilli dish.) I expect all this is clear as mud, but I wanted to put it straight. I'm not really arsed whether it's spelled with one l or two.86.147.162.237 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic chart

Why is there no botanical taxonomic chart as there is with other plants? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

External link with lots of recipes

This external link was removed, but I checked it out and it seems like it would be good to include. http://www.platinumrecipescollection.com/chilli/ ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, WP is not a collection of links, and especially not to sites that are ad farms. ► RATEL ◄ 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Chili

I believe many people own a plant from a local gardening store that is called something like 'an ornamental hybrid' or 'super chili' or some such thing. Could one of you experts not figure out how to write an article on this cultivar? I believe that it is a hybrid or mutant cayenne.--137.186.217.73 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ahh...

The "fact" about 1 in every 400 peppers being used to smuggle drugs has been removed for 1. being uncited and 2. being more appropriate on a page dealing with smuggling. --Wilson (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Is a Poor Way to Define Spelling

To define the spelling of chiles based upon Google entries is like defining the proper role of women in society based upon Google entries. In the majority of culinary texts and as taught in culinary schools around the world, you will find a consensus that the word is spelled "chile" when talking about the ingredient and "chili" when talking about the stew made with the ingredient. After all, one of the most commonly misspelled words in the English language is "to" in one of its forms. All too often we see people use one of the wrong two spellings when they mean to use the proper spelling. It's a case of mistaken context. Are we to alter the usage of the word simply because Google statistics shows one of the three spellings to be more common? I think not. The word is "chile" not "chili." I find the dependence upon Google statistics for definitive spellings to be disheartening, to say the least. Kemkerj (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Runny Nose??

I'm aware of several people that suffer from a runny nose after eating food which contains the spicy capsaicin-based red chili pepper and this is backed up by a few web searches. If this is a common occurrence, shouldn't it be noted in the article along with the sweating side effect? 194.46.189.240 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"A high consumption of chili is associated with stomach cancer" Enforcement as a statement of fact

I recently made a simple change to this statement from " A high consumption of chili is associated with stomach cancer" to " A high consumption of chili may be associated with stomach cancer" as there is no solid unarguable evidence that this is defaintely the case. (see links below and a million others you can find with a google search that argue otherwise).

http://www.zhion.com/herb/Pepper.html http://chilli-willy.com/health-benefits-of-eating-chillies.html

"The incidence of stomach and colon cancer is far lower in South America, where they eat far more Chilli than they do in the North.

Scientists have also found that Capsaicin inhibits cancer cell growth. "

I changed the wording in the article to make it less of a definate statement of absolute fact BUT it was reverted back. Why?

I've changed it back again. Please discuss here the reasons you think it should be otherwise. Thank you Danno81 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We use scientific studies, not commercial webpages, as sources when inserting scientific information. The studies cited show that there is an association between high cap. consumption and cancer, not that there "may be". ► RATEL ◄ 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets take the 4 references you're refering to attached to that statement in the main article:

Ref 40 - Chili pepper consumption might be an independent determinant of GC in Mexico. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. - "Might", not "Is"

Ref 41 - The cancer increase was dependent on the concentration of these groups in a county. These results strengthen and extend an earlier case-control study which found odds ratios above 5 for the stomach cancer association with capsaicin pepper. It is further evidence that capsaicin is a human carcinogen. Further evidence, but not fully conclusive.

Ref 42 - However, when consumption was measured as frequency per day, a significant trend among consumers was not observed. Multivariable adjustment increased the magnitude of the chili pepper-gastric cancer association, but a significant trend among consumers (measured as frequency per day) was still not observed. Chili pepper consumption may be a strong risk factor for gastric cancer, but further studies are needed to test this hypothesis. "May be" not "is"

It would go against the scientific method if we use this as definitive confirmation. We can say "May Be" but not "Is". Also note that only taking studies that show a positive increase and ignoring the rest even if they show evidence but draw a possible, not definitive conclusion will constitute a form of publication bias. The wording should stay as "may be" and not a conclusive "Is". Danno81 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fruit or Vegetable?

The article states that chili peppers are a "fruit" of the whatever genus. Then, later it says that they are commonly "used as a vegetable". Does anyone know if they are technically a fruit or a vegetable? Thanks! Deepfryer99 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Both. Cacycle (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All fruits are vegetables. If you want to be more folksy and less scientific I guess chili is neither a classic fruit nor vegetable, it is a spice. Carewolf (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading this entire Capsicum (I'll attempt to circumvent the 'chili, chilli, chile bitchfest) article, I really wonder who let high schoolers edit it. Articles such as this is why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously by academia. Having said that, by definition a fruit is a ripened ovary while a vegetable is other flesh of the plant. Since the 'pepper' part of the plant is the result of fertilized flowers, or ie they are the ripened ovaries of the vegetable of the main plant. Thus, the 'pepper' is the fruit. It IS the ovary in which contains the seed. The rest of the plant is the vegetable. When the fruit is dried and converted to powdered form, then it is a spice. How a plant is cooked really has nothing to do with its classification as a fruit or vegetable, but more on how it is treated. ie, it is cooked like a vegetable or eaten like a fruit. But being used 'as if' or 'like' does not make it 'be.' An aircraft may 'fly like a bird' but does not make it a bird, although some slang does refer to aircraft as 'birds.' One could argue that the flesh of the fruit could make it a vegetable. The same argument could also be used on an Apple, which is just flesh surrounding the fruit. But that is dismissing the definition completely. Again, the flesh of the fruit IS the ovary. An ovary contains seeds, whether fertilized or not. A ripened ovary IS the fruit. The roots, leaves, flowers, and stem are all parts of the vegetable. Hence why tubers (ie, potatoes) are vegetables. The 'traditional' argument could also be made. But ignorance isn't a reason to continue ignorance. Traditionally, many people were not as well educated as they are today. Spices are the dried form of fruits and vegetables. Although the fruit can be cut up to 'spice' up a recipe, that does not make it a spice, but 'used LIKE a spice.' Again with the 'like.' In spice form, fruits and vegetables can be stored longer, transported easier, and reduce storage space required. In summarization, the 'pepper' or 'chili, chilli, chile, etc' is the fruit. In dried form it is a spice. Usually the vegetable part of the plant is not consumed. And Wikipedia should be used to further correct information and not folklore or ignorance. TheePepper (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Biology is not the only relevant definition of "fruit" vs "vegetable". While absolutely, unmistakenly a botanical fruit, the chili pepper is not used in sweet dishes, but in savory, therefore from a culinary stand point it is a vegetable. And since this is an article that is as much about the chili pepper as a food, the culinary use definition is exceedingly relevant. oknazevad (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is used in sweet dishes, but how about we stick to relevant sources rather than personal opinions? --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tomatoes invoke the same confusion: see Tomato#Fruit or vegetable?. jmcw (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

growing chili peppers

The article about Chili peppers is full of useful information however I feel it could be made better with some information on growing them as this seems to be getting very popular, I have searched myself many sites looking for good information and the page would benefit from having at least an external link.

http://gomestic.com/gardening/guide-to-growing-chili-peppers/

Stuart747 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this link. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Chili pepper → Chile pepper — It is profoundly ridiculous that this page exists, and persists to exist under the improper spelling. Chili is a westernized corruption of the word and best used to refer to the southern dish. Experts such as Dr. Bosland, who is recognized internationally as one of the foremost experts on Capsicum, and furthermore the director of the Chile Pepper Institute at New Mexico State University, as well as specialists in culinary arts and botany all agree the proper spelling is Chile. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, so the spelling should reflect the most commonly accepted spelling in the English Language: which is Chile. I recommend a permanent move to 'Chile Pepper', with redirects from 'Chili', and an explanation of the name controversy being added to the head of the article. JovBlackheart (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like this debate will not end. I think it is logical to use the spelling of the regular users of the fruit / vegetable than debating over English or British. South Asians are the common users of hot varieties of Chili and it is spelt as Chili in India, Pakistan and British Commonwealth countries. North Americans rarely use pungent and hot spices and the varieties of capsicum used in America are the bell peppers and the likes of Jalapenos. So I suggest moving to plain Chili instead of Chili peppers or Chile peppers. rams81 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to see some proof, please, that "chile" is "the most commonly accepted spelling in the English Language" The Google hit data cited above seems to indicate otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• "North Americans rarely use pungent and hot spices and the varieties of capsicum used in America are the bell peppers and the likes of Jalapenos" - got some proof of that, or is that your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose This is not the epicurean Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. [5][6] Clear WP:UCN from Google News also... [7][8] - infact, Google News suggests spelling it as "chili pepper", since it thinks "chile pepper" is not the right search term. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• strong oppose The phrasing of the suggestion suggests why. "Profoundly ridiculous" is WP:PEACOCK. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. I.e., they explain usage as it exists and has been. (Read the explanatory material in the front of Websters or the OED.) The idea that something "should be" spelled in a certain way demonstrates, not only a misunderstanding of how written language is used, but also doesn't take in account that modern search engines can handle a variety of spellings without problem. There is no theoretical or practical reason to change the article spelling. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME on the English Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No proof having been given of the claims made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been discussed numerous times, please read the archives. Beside that, it simply does not matter and it would be very disruptive to move this article every few weeks due to someone's personal preferences, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety. Redirects are in place and the etymology and all existing variants are discussed in the article. Please let's get some real and productive work done here. Cacycle (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You omitted your Edit Summary sentiment, which drew an amused chuckle from me! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Chili is the common spelling, even in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia deals with what is, not with what you may prefer it to be. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Standard usage should prevail. Jusdafax 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per UCN. Flamarande (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Catalog of scientific findings

I've removed a considerable amount of cited material, some of which may be appropriate, but which in context was nothing much more than a list of scientific papers and theories on the subject.[9]

Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, nor a cross-reference to every paper published on a topic. Adding huge amounts of material that summarize recent papers is problematic in that it forms no coherent narrative, and is unlikely to be read by most readers.

Discussion is invited on what should be included. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1. That's not an exhaustive list of research on the topic, just a selection of the most interesting. And it's "findings", not "theories".
2. I find it more informative to include it than to remove it
3. It does not fit the definition of a linkfarm
4. Not all sections need to be narratives. Bulleted points are sometimes appropriate

► RATEL ◄ 01:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. No problem with bulleted items. They are probably under-used in Wiki, and over-used in business meetings. Bulleted points present some peculiar compositional difficulties, and not everybody is as unfortuate as I am, having had to create a three hour PowerPoint presentation. (There's a recent paper I could find, whose findings suggest that most bulleted PowerPoint presentations do not improve audience retention.)

Looking at the chili references, my guess was that I would be interested in reading most of them. So the question here is avoiding the "linkfarm effect". If there are thousands of papers on a topic, only some will be included in Wikipedia. How is a selection of them to be made? Before that is answered here in specific detail, the "Wiki question" is: Why can't that material be incorporated into the article?

There, in my mind, as I was going over the links, was the crucial distinction. It isn't that those papers are uninteresting, it's that they were not worked into the narrative. That they were not practical to work into the narrative suggested that the findings were not central to the topic. Hence my request for a discussion. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the list again, after having it replaced by an editor who was shortly afterward banned as a sockpuppet.[10] [11]

When there are hundreds of articles to choose from, having Wiki editors pick-and-choose is original research WP:OR, and possibly synthesis WP:SYN. A reliable source, such as a government agency, or an authority in the field should choose which papers are most significant, which papers have authority in the community. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping some pro or con lobby from filling the Wiki article with WP:BIAS that no typical reader would have a way assessing. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I second the opinion of Piano. Although removing extra references may seem useful, censorship is not the right answer. If the link is bogus and has no merrit, ie points to an obviously opinionated blog, then remove it. I have seen too many articles on Wikipedia with references to sources that are not accurate or are opinions. Blogs are not scientific proof. 75.41.185.182 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chili is a dish. Chile is a fruit.

I can't believe that this hasn't been changed. With the world looking at Wiki daily, to have this kind of error is shameful. --Jsderwin (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check the discussions above. Cacycle (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah I read it. It's wrong. It needs to be changed. Chile is native to the Americas and we spell the word Chile. The rest of the world should accept the correct spelling. --Jsderwin (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This spelling debate is embarassing. Who cares? Is there a similar thing going on in the "Colour/Color" article? Anyway, ask an Englishman if you want to know how to spell in English! Only, joking Matthewcgirling (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Superstition

Why does the psychological explanation of people's liking for chillies appear under the head of "Superstition"? Could somebody move it to a better place?
Also, in support for the stated use of chili with lemon in India, please google "nimbu-mirchi" (Hindi for "lemon-chili"). It's a very common phenomenon, and you may find something that can be cited.
I suspect, however, that once the psychology point is moved out, the superstition topic wouldn't be left with much. Ankurtg (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree...It's more about Hinduism than about chillis. Matthewcgirling (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content removal

Some of the more dubious and unsourced content has been withdrawn from this article. If you wish to view it, please see this diff: [12] -- The material is not lost, it remains in the history and is clearly visible here. Please feel free to add it back, provided you have a reliable source to back it. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Infinity Chilli

There is a new record breaking chilli called Infinity Chilli. It has a Scoville Scale Rating of 1,176,182. Can someone add this to the article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12505344 — Ganeshk (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thai chili

Thai chili is referred to as a single C. frutescens variety and a plant of the species C. annuum is used as illustration... Thai chili is not a single variety(and at least 3 species have "Thai" varieties) and some editing is needed but I want a general consensus before editing... also see Bird´s Eye talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrontosaurusLove (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong doubt chilli peppers originated in South America for the entire world as there is wrriten evidence that Chillies existed in India way before the Portugese discovered in South America. If you look at the Chilli pepers found in India none of them look like the ones found in South America. Closest one is the Serranno pepper. I have a feeling it is more like Darwins theory were similar things but slightly different are on two parts of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.196.19 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the same doubt as well. Since there are definitely varieties of Indian Chillies that grow wild and are about 1 cm long and very hot. But having said that unless we have a reference from a peer reviewed article about multiple origins of Chilli pepper, we cannot use that in Wikipedia. rams81 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiles probably made their way to India 500 years ago. The chances they have grown and mutated into different sizes and shapes are likely. Not to mention, I haven't seen any Indian chiles that don't look like varieties located in the Americas. --Jsderwin (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Great read on the etomolgy of the words, chili, chilli and chile

This should probably be added somewhere in the article to help quell the debate about the correct spelling.

"Chili, Chilli, Chile, or Pimento?

Columbus believed that he had arrived in the Orient when he landed on the islands of the Caribbean Sea. He was so convinced of this that he called the islands the Indies, the natives were labeled Indians, and to the confusion of all who came after him, the pungent spice they ate was named pimiento after the completely unrelated black pepper—pimienta—that he sought. The indigenous Arawaks, his Indians, called the fruit axí (pronounced "aah hee") that was transliterated in Spanish to ají (ajé or agí).

Today the pungent varieties are still called ají in the Dominican Republic (formerly Española) and a few other places in the Caribbean and much of South America. In the Andean area the ancient words uchu and huayca are used for capsicums by some Amerindian groups. In Spain American peppers are called pimiento or pimientón (depending on the size) after pimienta or black pepper from India. However, the Spanish names did not stay with the plant through Europe; it is called peperone in Italy, piment in France, and paprika by the Slavic peoples in the Balkans.

In 1519 when the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, the Nahuatl-speaking natives called their fiery fruit chilli. The main interest of the initial Iberian explorers was conquest, then gold and silver; chilies and other plants were of little concern to them. Fifty years later a different type of Spaniard arrived. Dr. Francisco Hernandez, physician to the King of Spain, was the first European to collect plants in the Americas. Hernandez lived in Mexico from 1570 to 1577, and when he returned to Spain, he produced four books on the natural history of the plants and animals he had found in New Spain. He heard the Nahuatl speakers pronouncing the name of their pungent native spice "chee yee." Consequently, when he wrote about that plant, he gave the Nahuatl word a Spanish spelling, using the double ll to reproduce the "y" sound he had heard the natives make. The Nahuatl stem chil-refers to the chili plant. It also means 'red.' To the generic word "chilli" the term that described the particular chili cultivar was added (e.g., tonalchilli for a chili of the sun or summer, chiltecpin for a flea chili, etc.). At some point the Spanish speakers in Mexico changed the original Hernandez spelling to chile. Today, that word refers to both pungent and sweet types of chilies and is used Nahuatl-style combined with a descriptive adjective, such as chile colorado (for a red chili) or chile poblano (for a Pueblo chili). Confusingly, the same Mexican variety can have different names in different geographic regions, in various stages of maturity, or in the dried state.

In Portuguese pimenta is used for capsicums and qualifies the various types—pimenta-da-caiena, cayenne pepper; pimenta-da-malagueta, red pepper; pimenta-doreino, black pepper; pimenta-da-jamaica, allspice; while pimentão is pimento, red pepper, or just pepper. Ají and chile are not found in a Portuguese dictionary, nor did Portuguese settlers or explorers carry these words with them in their travels.

The Dutch and English were probably responsible for introducing the current capsicum names to the eastern part of the Old World because in Australia, India, Indonesia, and Southeast Asia in general, chilli (spelled chillies or sometimes chilly) is used by English speakers for the pungent types, while the mild ones are called capsicums. Each Far Eastern language has its own word for chilies—prik in Thai and mirch in Hindi, to name but two.

The most confusion with regard to spelling exists in the United States, especially in California and the Southwest. Here, one finds both the anglicized spelling chili (chilies) and the Spanish spelling chile (chiles) used by some for the pungent fruits of the Capsicum plant, while "chili" is also used as a short form of chili con carne, a variously concocted mixture of meat and chilies. The Oxford English Dictionary offers chilli as the primary spelling, calling chile and chili variants. Webster's New International Dictionary prefers chili, followed by the Spanish chile and the Nahuatl chilli. Chilli remains the spelling most used by English-speaking people throughout the world.

For the sake of clarity and consistency, it would help if capsicums or peppers were used when speaking of the fruit of the Capsicum in general, both sweet and pungent; chilli or chilli pepper for the pungent types; chili for the spicy meat dish; and pimento for the sweet, thick-fleshed, heart-shaped red capsicum. Chile (in italics) should refer to a native Mexican cultivar or, in its not italicized form, it should refer to the long green or red variety from New Mexico or California. Whenever possible, the name of the specific fruit type, group, or cultivar name should be used."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/chili-pepper-1#ixzz1dBkXRRHW

Since the primary chiles I come across and use are that of the large green New Mexican (Anaheim), poblano or dried varieties common to the southwest and Mexico, I naturally gravitate towards 'chile' as my way of spelling the fruit. --Jsderwin (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"The term in English ... is just chilli..."

A recent edit in the lead paragraph changed "British English" to "English" so it now reads: "The term in English and in Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia and other Asian countries is just chilli without pepper." Not only is this incorrect (since it is not the term most used in American English) but it implies that Australia, New Zealand and India do not speak English. My edit of this change was reverted so I'm looking for discussion here. Jojalozzo 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your reversion. It looking at the edit history, it seems that it may have been the result of an edit conflict while the other editor was changing all the spellings to to the British "defence" spelling. That is an unneeded change outright, per WP:RETAIN. Which ties into your question below, about ENGVAR. Based on the previous use of the "defense" spelling, and, most importantly, the title using the one-L spelling of chili, I would say that American English was already the established variant, and that all of the spelling change edits are in violation of RETAIN, and should be reverted. I am doing that now. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I've heard chile, chile pepper & pepper used interchangeably, w/pepper probably being the most frequent term (though not by a lot). Then again, I've only lived on the West Coast, so I don't know what the rest of the US calls them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.61.216 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We base Wikipedia content on what the sources say, not what we hear, think, believe or know. Jojalozzo 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ENGVAR?

Has the WP:ENGVAR (American English or British English) of this article been determined? Jojalozzo 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on spellings, especially the title (one-L), I would say its American English. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Refs for hottest

I'm not sure what official bodies we should recognize in the disputes over claims of hottest pepper, but I think that the Huffing Post reference should not be used given it cited only the New Mexico State University's Chile Pepper Institute, which did the research. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of the Scoville scale

In this article, it stated that the amount of Scoville units is measured by incrementally adding chili extract to a sugar water. I believe that is as incorrect as it can be, and actually the complete opposite. You are supposed to add the sugar water to the chili extract to the exact point where the heat disappears. The amount of units of water you had to add to the unit of chili extract is then the Scoville value. If no one opposes to this I will change it in a week or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floss 666 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Origins

Currently we're using two sources (Perry, L. et. al. 2007. Starch fossils and the domestication and dispersal of chili peppers (Capsicum spp. L.) in the Americas. Science 315: 986–988 [13] and BBC News Online. 2007. Chilies heated ancient cuisine [14]) for the following statement on the origins of chilis:

Chili peppers have been a part of the human diet in the Americas since at least 7500 BC. There is archaeological evidence at sites located in southwestern Ecuador that chili peppers were domesticated more than 6000 years ago, and is one of the first crops cultivated in Central and South America that is self-pollinating.

Another source (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/29/11905.full) is being proposed to replace these to support the statement:

Chili peppers have been a part of the human diet in the Americas before Precolumbian A.D. 600–1521. There is archaeological evidence at sites located in Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico that chili peppers were domesticated more than 8,000 years ago, and is one of the first crops cultivated in Central and South America that is self-pollinating.

By my reading this new source does not support that statement. Instead it says in a review of existing literature that "wild chili harvesting beginning ≈8,000 years ago, followed by cultivation and eventual domestication of the pungent fruits of Capsicum annuum by ≈6,000 years ago" in the Tehuacán Valley. The source discusses new findings for the period from 600AD to 1521AD and does not contribute new facts on the earliest history of the plant's use.

It appears that a good secondary source on this topic would be: Smith CE, Jr (1967) in Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, ed Byers DS (Univ of Texas Press, Austin), pp 220–255. Jojalozzo 01:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)mv new discussion to bottom

Chilli2

the article is currently using the Americanized spelling, i have done some research into the etymology and origins of the word and especially in response to the above section

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chilli From Classical Nahuatl chīlli (“pepper”).

As the word "chili" is a bastardization of the Spanish "Chile" which in itself is taken from the Nahuatl word; (Nahuatl was the language of the inhabitants of the central highlands of Mexico when the Spaniards arrived) Wikipedia is a forum that is designed to educate and as such I think that we should educate people to use the classical spelling of "chilli". Some of this may be because I am Englishman and I don't like the progressive devolution of our language. Who cares if the more common usage is chili? That's what redirections are for and after all this is an english language site (86.189.6.16 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

Additionally i suggest everyone look at the section "Dubious Original Romanization" as this further leads me to believe chilli to be the correct word as the Spanish monks that initially romanised it to "chilli" did so because of the native pronunciation. in English the word "chilli" would be pronounced "chill-e" where as "chile" would be pronounced differently

Finally it would be good to establish the general usage by English speakers outside uk/us to see what the prevalence in the wider world is (86.189.6.16 (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

Please review previous discussions on this page for the history of discussions related to the spelling. I think you will see that our consensus is reflected in the spelling of the title and that some etymology and alternate spellings are addressed in the article. As a fellow editor, please improve our coverage of the name where you can. You might also want to look at policy on English varieties. Jojalozzo 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin C content green vs red

There is a section of text here, which states "Red chilies contain large amounts of vitamin C and small amounts of carotene (provitamin A). Yellow and especially green chilies (which are essentially unripe fruit) contain a considerably lower amount of both substances.", this seems at odds with the contents of this: Vitamin_C#Plant_sources table, which ranks green chillies as having substatially more Vitamin C than red ones. But which one is wrong? --DustWolf (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The USDA entry shows 242 mg Vitamin C per 100 grams raw, hot green chili peppers.[15]

The USDA entry shows 144 mg Vitamin C per 100 grams raw, hot red chili peppers.[16]

The Vitamin A content (1179 IU vs 952 IU) is not greatly different. Given that this article does not have references, I would say that this article is incorrect. jmcw (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

This article copies, verbatim, entire sentences from the 'reference' http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/main/salts/scoville.asp, which asserts copyright on its content. 198.228.216.172 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Has this been fixed?

New Mexico chile

It seems patently weird to me that green chile and red chile (in the New Mexico sense) do not have separate articles here, while many other peppers do. Chile is a major agricultural industry in the state (especially the green). Many books have been written about it, including how it differs from other strains. Hatch, New Mexico is world-famous for its chile. Chile-roasting season is a big deal in the state. Even McDonalds (among other fast food restaurants) in NM have it as a condiment, and include green chile (spelled correctly) cheese burgers on its in-state menus. The stylized chile itself is an iconic emblem found all over the place there. NMSU has an agricultural program devoted to developing green chile strains (the most famous output of this program is the 'Big Jim' cultivar, as dominant in the green chile market as the 'Hass' avocado in its purview). There are academic journal as well as secondary sources on this. If anyone's thinking "what chil[i|e] should I WP:SPLIT a new article off about", please let it be these. There should at least be a section in this article for NM chile. Someone in-state (I'm not any longer) would probably be best to do this, since they can get at a shipload of paper sources at the state's university libraries, especially the southern one, but also UNM in Albuquerque. PS: If people are wondering, the strains are most similar to Anaheim and Pasilla peppers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive discussions before 2013: Proper spelling & Vegetable vs Fruit

Before starting a new discussion about the proper spelling of this plant or whether it is a fruit or vegatable, please read Talk:Chili pepper/Archive 1 and consider if there is actually any more to say. Thank you! jmcw (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no reasonable debate about either of these questions. The majority spelling, for the whole class, is "chili"; certain varieties are conventionally spelled "chile", and the British (in a country with no native peppers, I might add) prefer "chilli". Botanically, peppers are a fruit. This is true of various other "vegetables", like squash, tomatoes, eggplant, etc. They're used as vegetables (i.e. cooked along with other greens, like cabbages and asparagus), and nutritionally classified that way by various "authorities" (in things like food pyramids and food groups) on the basis of nutritional content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(spelling and Usage) Note

In the usage of "chile" in the southwest states of U.S.A to refer to hot sauce (if I don't misundertand that is what is refering to), and quote, "chile also denotes a thick, spicy, un-vinegared sauce made from this fruit, available in red and green varieties, and served over the local food". would it be of use to extend the secction to mention that in that same context the use is also widespreaded in some states of México? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.169.146 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, since the word is "chile" in Spanish, across the board (i.e. for the pepper and for a sauce consisting mostly of it). Mainstream English borrowed and anglicized this as "chili", but in some bilingual areas the original spelling carried over into the local English dialect. I.e., there is no "chili" in Mexican Spanish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Does a Chili pepper ripening and changing colour from green through to red have any effect it’s Scoville scale rating?

Does a Chili pepper ripening and changing colour from green through to red have any effect it’s Scoville scale rating, or is it's rating constant irrespective of ripeness? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question. Subjectively chilis picked from the same bush later when they are red taste hotter, though I have not read about any research. It seems to me that the change is small, less than the difference between chilis picked from different bushes of the same species. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this indeed is true. Picked peppers at the first signs of ripening can often lack the signature the fully ripened fruit will have. It depends on the cultivar, the weather, and the individual plant. --99.46.4.65 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, subjective assessment doesn't help us here. We need reliable secondary sources. Lots of books have been written about chil[i|e]s, so presumably at least a few of them would cover this, pro or con.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chili pepper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070312093900/http://www.tribo.org:80/vegetables/dahongsili.html to http://www.tribo.org/vegetables/dahongsili.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104135812/http://sfood.info:80/cuisine/kimchi/k35.htm to http://sfood.info/cuisine/kimchi/k35.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Chiltepin peppers

Where do the chiltepin peppers fit in? There is somewhat of a hype about these wild species recently.--89.144.237.35 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference : Hjelmqvist, Hakon. "Cayennepeppar från Lunds medeltid". Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, vol 89: pp. 193

This reference is widely distributed on the internet. Could someone verify that this is not a hoax? jmcw (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I answer my own question: although my Swedish is not very good<G>, I find the article mentioned at [17]. My Swedish language skill detects no hoax. jmcw (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article its not clear to what Hjelmqvist refers to as a prove. Was there actually an archeological and botanical prove, or does he only refer to older literature, what do other scientists think about it?--89.144.237.35 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(Spelling and usage) Epistemology for "most commonly spelled"

For the 'chilli' spelling, I've changed the claim from "'chilli' is used" to "'chilli' is the most common spelling", and changed the list of countries (mostly adding countries). The grounds for this claim in each case is a fairly simplistic pair of similar tests:

• a Google search for ("chile" OR "chili" OR "chilli") site:COUNTRY-CODE -chilean -republic -santiago -"northern chile" and reading through the first few pages of results, manually excluding references to the country, the Red Hot Chili Peppers music band, and other entities.
• a number of matching pages for "chili" site:COUNTRY-CODE compared to "chilli" site:COUNTRY-CODE; with no attempt to exclude references to proper names.

(for each COUNTRY-CODE in {au, cn, in, my, nz, pk, sg, za}.)

For Sri Lanka (.lk), these two tests gave conflicting results, so I excluded Sri Lanka from this claim.

For .sg and .cn, the results were relatively close, so these countries (and Sri Lanka) in particular would benefit from more evidence as to usage in these countries. Pjrm (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, so why not add -"Red Hot Chili Peppers" to the search string, to keep the band from dominating the search results?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Added Wiktionary template box to the "Spelling and Usage" section. If it bothers you there, it could be moved down to the "External Links" section with the other template boxes. Bosef1 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

cultivation and other sections missing - is this a stub?

i wish there were a section covering cultivation, and a section covering botannical description.

also, theres a mention (from y. 2013, here on talkp., see above) of unsourced AND wrong information in the article about ripe vs unripe chili's vitamin C content. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC).

Not at all wrong see http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/48/10/1275.full and http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jamc/2015/102125/ and so forth. Ripe Chili's are higher in vitamin C. Falconjh (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that USDA is wrong per se per the previous discussion, how the peppers are stored and processed means that by 10 days post harvest green chili's can have what red chili's had at harvest while red chili's vitamin C content degrades 15-25% (depending on storage method).Falconjh (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked the first article and it was helpful, thank you. However, this does indeed lead to the conclusion that the USDA maesurements are not reliable for comparison of "ripe/unripe chillies' vitamin C content - even if those measurements are correct per se, the possible diferences between chillies picked from different individual plants of the same cultivar, between chillies picked (and measurements done) in different years, or places, also the differences between cultivars, the differences caused by different storage times and conditions alltogether (as all these possible causes of difference between the measured values are not accounted for) means that the USDA measurement in case of chillies are inconclusive and could be used only for further statistical analysis after a lot of additional sampling and measurement.176.63.176.112 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chili pepper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810200520/http://agmarknet.nic.in/preface-chhilli.pdf to http://agmarknet.nic.in/preface-chhilli.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515183915/http://www.seedsbydesign.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1478&Itemid=42 to http://www.seedsbydesign.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1478&Itemid=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with an accidental mouthful of hot chili pepper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page states that capsaicin is hydrophobic, i.e. it does not mix with water. What it doesn't say is that the best way of dealing with accidentally taking some unexpectedly hot chili is therefore not one's first reaction of drinking lots of water, but rinsing the mouth out with a neat strong spirit such as gin, whisky rum or vodka and spitting it out again. This actually works, I have done it...

Franciscus montmartinensis (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually the best is to use whole milk, as the capsaicin is fat-soluble. The distilled spirit is just numbing the tongue, so it doesn't feel the chili burn, just the alcohol burn. Regardless, it doesn't belong in the article because wilipedia is not a how to guide). oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Better than milk, cooking oil. If you do use milk, full fat works better than skimmed.

This is why lassi, raita or just yoghurt is popular with a curry. Tony OU812 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.