Talk:Chili powder

And so what exactly IS a "RED chili pepper"?

I think this term needs to be specified. I can say from experience that most chili powders I have tried are proprietary recipes that each company uses and sells as its own. There may be similarities among regional chili powders, but one thing I can say for sure is that most "chili powders" I have tried are not in and of themselves particularly spicy. I think they are not intended to be "HOT". I believe that the chiles used to make "chili powder" are more intended to add savory flavor, pepper "fruit", and umami taste to the prepared dish known as "Chili", regardless of whether that is the version of the dish known as "chili con carne"(Spanish) or the Americanized dish we call "Chile".

In America, the prepared dish known as "Chile", is often distinguished by either what is colloquially known as "Southern" or "Texas Style Chile" - MADE WITHOUT BEANS(Similar to "Chile con Carne"), or in the Northern United States, the prepared dish known as "Chile" is (to the best of my knowledge) usually prepared WITH beans; most often KIDNEY BEANS in my experience.

Regardless, the topic of this page regarding Chili Powder, I find overly ambiguous and poorly researched. Unless the chief regional "RED Chili" Pepper varieties are named specifically including the Latin name, then this article is basically not too helpful to the reader who is trying to understand just what Chile Powder is made from as I am myself, and the reason I looked up this wikipedia page. The chief peppers used to prepare the majority of the "chili powder" bulk volume I think, could not possibly be composed of cayenne pepper unless it was an extremely mild varietal that is now well known to consumer who buys "cayenne pepper". Cayenne pepper is usually quite "hot" - high in capsicum, even in the milder versions with lower scoville unit ratings.

I cannot say for certain but I am just guessing until I do further research that the mildest peppers are what form the majority volume of most commercially available "Chile Powders". The Dried chile peppers I know of that would fall into this category are definitely Ancho and Guajillo peppers which I can purchase locally where I live here in Texas. Again, I assume that each regional chili powder formula is a family recipe unique to that region. So then for example, what would be the difference in the pepper profile between the common San Antonio - Texas Chile Powder and New Mexico Chile Powder? The pepper profile is obviously different. I assume that what is referred to in this overly short and limited research wiki page is that, what is being referred to as "RED CHILI PEPPERS" is basically a generalized term that could refer to any number of different mild peppers varieties including dried red bell, paprika pepper, or again guajillo, or ancho(dried poblano) peppers. The answer lies with the manufacturer and proprietary trade secrets in the industry that strive to produce a superior tasting savory "chili powder". This cannot be too dissimilar to the many various varieties of East Indian "curry powders" that are produced through various manufacturers. There are many subtle differences in the recipes based upon company formulations, traditional cultural recipes, and the expected satisfaction of the customer who eventually buys a product to make their own food at home. Yet if you ask someone who is familiar with curry powders they can perhaps tell you some of the most common ingredients including turmeric and coriander. It is a similar concept I believe here in the southwest involving "Chili Powders" as these will all also most often contain oregano, garlic and cumin in varying quantities... Its the same difference.

This is my insight. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8098:2140:5161:24E:760F:F22C (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, the dish is universally spelled "chili (con carne)" in American English. Not "chile", which is sometimes used for the fruit and its powdered form (though not as often as the "chili" spelling). Either way, unless you have sources, speculation does not belong in a Wikipedia article. oknazevad (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Revist: Chili powder vs Chile powder

I'd like to reopen the conversation about chili (chilli) powder vs chile powder. These are not the same thing and should not be used interchangeably as the opening of the article suggests. Chile powder is made exclusively from ground dried chiles while chili powder is a mix of several spices including ground dried chiles. All the top results on Google for "chili powder vs chile powder" clarify and support this.

http://www.finecooking.com/qa/difference-between-chile-chili-powder.aspx

http://www.culinarylore.com/spices:difference-between-chili-powder-and-chile-powder

http://obsbite.blogspot.com/2014/02/important-winter-food-tip-chili-powder.html

http://kokopellis.blogspot.com/2008/06/chile-powder-vs-chili-powder.html

https://cheflippe.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/chili-powder-vs-chile-powder-whats-the-big-deal/

This article undoubtedly is referring to chili powder and I propose that references to chile powder be removed or at least clarified.

Emilhdiaz (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of those are unreliable blogs repeating the trendy misconception that is not borne out by a survey of generalist sources from across the years. oknazevad (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chili powder. 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/20070915042846/http://www.fiery-foods.com:80/Dave/chiliconcarne2.asp to http://www.fiery-foods.com/dave/chiliconcarne2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Gochugaru

@Oknazevad: Hi! my edit on gochugaru was reverted with the message saying "seriously, stop. It's just the Korean name, and inappropriate per WP:USEENGLISH." However, gochugaru in English language context refers to specific—seedless, Korean— kind of chili powder. You can read Gochugaru: The Hot, Sweet, Smoky Red Pepper Powder That is the Taste Behind Many Korean Foods and What’s A Good Gochugaru Substitute? if you are interested. Gochugaru is also the common spelling used in English language texts. In Korean language, however, gochutgaru (with t, due to Korean phonotactics) refers to any chili powder. Cayenne powder, for example, would be kayen-gochutgaru in Korean. It is like gochujang: the word means "chili paste" in Korean but it refers to specific—Korean— kind of chili paste in English language (and other non-Korean language) context. Listing different varieties of chili powder is, from what I know, a constructive eit. Specific type of chili powder named gochugaru is sold in Amazon and other internet shops. --Azeite (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding empty sections is not helpful, though. And frankly the section is far too long. We don't need the etymology, as it's irrelevant. Nor do we need the Hangul box. Also, excessive headers even without the empty section. And the lead image didn't need to be changed; the previous version showed a variety of powders in actual use, while the new one is far too posed. Finally, the gallery. That's actually a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Why do you consider the etymology irrelevant? I think the etymology and the word original language a relevant information. The section was also not long at all. There were only a couple of sentences. The article itself is very short and adding relevant contents seems like a good thing to me. Do you have a particular reason to remove the etymology? --Azeite (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It deals with concepts, not words, and conceptually it's just a regional variety of chili powder. The Korean name only has relevance insomuch as the term is used in English to specify the Korean variety. We don't really need to mention more than that. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A recently-created article, Gochugaru, has content that could easily fit into "Korea" subsection of Chili powder. I propose that the content be merged here and the other article become a redirect to the "Korea" subsection here, per WP:CFORK. The Chili powder article is also of a reasonable size that the merging of Gochugaru will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Buuz (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need for a separate article, but I disagree that we need to fully merge that form back in. See above sections. The only reason the separate article exists is because the creator attempted to overload this article with too much info about a word that is literally just "Korean for chili powder". A word, not a concept, but the etymology of the word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and etymology of non-English words that are directly translatable and rare in English is outside its scope. That's what Wiktionary is for. Really, the only thing the needs to be said at all is "Gochugaru is the Korean word for chili powder. Korean cuisine uses fine grain or flaky varieties." Anything more is simply WP:UNDUE trivia. The entire structure of the article is because the user was trying to force in the inappropriate material (via near edit warring) and this was the compromise. That he then ran off and created a wholly unneeded fork containing the inappropriate material is just frustrating. oknazevad (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Hi, I've just read the above conversation. In my onpinion, what's in the "Varieties" subsection of Gochugaru should also be preserved. And well, one sentence saying that gochu means chili and garu means powder doesn't seem overloading to me. The second sentence on romanization, though, may better be left out as it lacks citation anyway. --Buuz (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think we need to note that a variety that names the pepper it's made froms made from that pepper. It's tautological. Likewise, the literal translation of "sundried" is only useful if we're speaking Korean.

That's what it comes down to: why should we include a literal translation of the term "chili powder" in one language and not all the others. That's my problem with this whole thing. There's nothing significant or special about the Korean word for chili powder that deserves its a specific mention, let alone a separate article. Unlike the other entries on the list of varieties, which are mentioning specific cultivars of chili peppers used to make chili powders, there is no specific gochugaru pepper. It doesn't really belong on that list (which itself should be a single sentence of entirely different structure). Ultimately, the gochugaru article is appropriate for a Korean-English dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And posting the term at this article gives UNDUE weight to one foreign language, and not one that has any particular ties to the article's topic. I really just don't see what's so special about the Korean name for chili powder that we even need to mention it on the English Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Groceries sell different chili powders, and gochugaru is one of them. They sell it under the name "gochugaru" rather than just "chili powder" so the short mention of its meaning do seem relevant (and helping) to me. From what I know, gochugaru has its own (sub)varieties. The literal translation of "sundried" is especially useful when a non-Korean speaker wants to find that variety of gochugaru in a Korean or Asian grocery store. Several, not one, specific chili peppers are cultivated for making gochugaru, and the "variety" section of the gochugaru article mentions Cheongyang gochugaru made from Cheongyang chili pepper. Perhaps because that cultivar is the only one that has its own article. One most obvious chili pepper variety for gochugaru should be "Korean Dark Green", listed in List of Capsicum cultivars. I don't know if you cook, but I cook with different chili powders and "gochugaru" is treated (at least in the West) as a variety chili powder, just like the other chili powders in the list. Let's say, cayenne and gochugaru have different flavor profile. Different goochugaru varieties, on the other hand, share similar profile. --Buuz (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Support per WP:CFORK. --Sotaque (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

@Oknazevad: WP:UNDUE is about not giving minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. (E.g. The article on the Earth not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept.) Information about a chili powder variety is not a "view". --Sotaque (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

True, the guideline is strictly about opinions, but in the spirit of the guideline, there's an appropriate level of coverage of just one variety in an article that covers the entire concept of dried, powdered chili peppers. It's a matter of importance. It's not particularly important for someone who's looking at this article because they're reading up on topics related to Tex-Mex cuisine to know the etymology of the name of the Korean variety. That's the problem with keeping evenrything from the unneeded content fork: it comes to dominate the article unduly. Yes, Korean chili powder is significant to Korean cuisine, I'm not denying that. But chili powder is significant to many types of cuisine, and for only one to get so much coverage is excessive. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad:Please don't edit war. You've already violated WP:3RR, which may lead to a block. Please don't do it again. Also, I think the coverage was reasonable. What is it you call "that much coverage" and "so much coverage"? We are talking about a couple of sentences for goodness' sake, and a sentence that mentions the etymology of gochugaru hardly dominates anything. No one said gochugaru was particularly important for someone who's looking at the article for their interest in Tex-Mex cuisine, but the information is relevant for someone who's looking at the article for their interest in chili powder in general. --Sotaque (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the only variety to get its own header. It's the only variety to give an etymology. And it has half a dozen citations, which is unneeded per WP:CITEOVERKILL. Indeed, looking at the references, one would think this article is the content form you merged back in. This version fails WP:PROPORTION.

PS, WP:3RR is only applicable within a 24-hour period. I'm nowhere near 3RR, as my reverts have been over four days. Actually, if anyone is 3RR, it's you, as my initial edits post-merge were not a revert, but standard practice to better integrate material into this article in proportion to the rest of the article. I've only reverted twice, both times because you blanket reverted my edits while completely failing to address the issues raised both here and in edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have actually reverted three times. It's still not WP:3RR because it hasn't been within one day, but you now blanket reverted me three times.oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I can't think that six relatively short sentences on a variety of chili powder can be considered "disproportionate" to their overall significance, when the article is about "chili powder". Also, WP:PROPORTION is another WP:POV guideline, says mostly about "aspects" rather than "subtopics" of the main subject. Chili pepper is still a quite short and stub-like article that has a lot of room for improvement (or, addition). I suggest we try to achieve the balance by adding contents on other varieties of chili powder, instead of removing the couple of existing sentences that give information on one subtopic. You can add some contents on other varieties of chili powder and get them a header. You are also free to discuss the etymology of other varieties of chili peppers if needed as in the case of gochugaru. Regarding WP:OVERCITE, no sentence on gochugaru is over-cited with more than three references. -Sotaque (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, were going to to continue to disagree. Might I suggest asking for import from WP:3O? oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Sure! A third opinion would be really helpful. --Sotaque (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on the inclusion of gochugaru information):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Chili powder and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The issue at hand seems to be whether gochugaru (Korean chili powder) should be mentioned in this article and to what extent. Sotaque supports the inclusion as it is relevant to the topic, while Oknazevad opposes the inclusion as it is too specific to the topic. I believe the information provided right now is excessive and too specific in contrast to the other cuisine covered. Here are how some other pages handle such information: Bean sprout — It has a balanced coverage of the different names with additional information on their uses. It does not provide individual headers for each type. Gochujang & Chili pepper paste / Fermented bean paste & Doenjang — These are two prominent spices which have their own individual pages. They have brief mentions on the more general article in order to guide the reader to the correct subpage of cuisine. Therefore, I recommend that the current gochugaru information be cut down to one sentence, the section on variety expanded to include a passing remark on different varieties (i.e. Làjiāo fēn) as appropriate, and the reader directed to Korean cuisine for more information on gochugaru. Korean cuisine should be the hub of such information (or a separate article if possible), and articles on the overall topic should fork out to the regional varieties/cuisines. Including detailed information on each cuisine on every spice article would definitely be cumbersome. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)