Talk:New Mexico chile

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge the article, and it appears to open a discussion of at least renaming this one Falconjh (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that Fresno pepper be merged into New Mexico chile. Horticulture and genetically a Fresno pepper is a New Mexican What is specific to the Fresno pepper in the Fresno pepper article is of reasonable size to be explained within the context of New Mexico Chile without creating problems of article size or undue weight. Falconjh (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Conditional support if New Mexico chile is renamed to New Mexican chile pepper because such cultivars as 'New Mexico No. 9' are just part of the range of these peppers, and the current page name looks too much like a cultivar name that is missing its quotation marks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - The 'Fresno' chile is a cultivar with the New Mexican pod type, but the situation is so confused between that group of cultivars, which can be grown anywhere in the world, and the mythology surrounding peppers labelled as from New Mexico, that I am withdrawing even my conditional support for this merger. Sorry. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand your reasoning; As written this article is partially conflating two things, peppers in New Mexico and New Mexican peppers; with the latter being as I see it the primary focus of the article. Based on the linking from New Mexican cuisine, I am starting to think that the cultivar box, the capsicum box and other descriptions of the pepper, sub-cultivars, Anaheim, etc. should perhaps be a separate article and, potentially, Fresno be merged into that; with the other article on chili peppers as they impact the history, cuisine, culture, and industry of New Mexico. Though that would be a separate discussion as well. Falconjh (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not related to Cultivation#Outside New Mexico. It is a different Capsicum cultivar that happens to be named after a place in California. It is commonly cultivated in Colorado. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not fully familiar with all of the details of the horticultural classification system but according to what I have been looking at New Mexican peppers form a group that according to genetics is closely related to that of Ancho/Poblanos and together they are also a clade which is genetically distinct; I think I agree with Sminthopsis84 that the page also needs to be renamed, though that is a separate discussion. Falconjh (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OpposeKehkou (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Having looked quickly at the sources given by Falconjh, it seems to me that the nomenclature is confused (and certainly not compliant with the ICNCP), so it's hard to tell what articles should exist. There doesn't seem a strong case for changing the existing articles.

On a side-issue, since "chili" and "chile" are acceptable alternative US spellings, in Wikipedia we should stick to "chili" as per MOS:COMMONALITY. Google Ngrams show for American English "chili pepper" > "chile pepper" > "chilli pepper" (rare), whereas for British English "chilli pepper" > "chili pepper" > "chile pepper" (rare). Searching with Google and the successive domain restrictions .ca, .au, .nz, .za and .in shows that "chile pepper" is always markedly the least common of the three phrases outside the US (and then is often the name of a Mexican restaurant). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (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.

Rename

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. It doesn't look like any sort of agreement occurred about the article title. Please let me know if I may have misunderstood. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

New Mexico chile → ? – The merger discussion regarding merging in Fresno pepper failed, but everyone mentioned renaming this article with MOS:COMMONALITY of the use of chili vs chile being one reason given; What to rename the article was not decided as in a deleted comment Kehkou disagreed with a purposed name and brought to further awareness the dual usage of this page currently, being the New Mexican chili pepper group and chili peppers in New Mexico. Falconjh (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Although 'chili' with an i is perhaps more common overall, for the New Mexico variety, and within New Mexico, the 'e' is generally preferred and the overwhelming majority of current sources in the article use that spelling. The spelling also gets tied in with local culture and identity, and is one of those things locals argue about. Here's an AP article from 2000 that briefly explains it: Chili or Chile? Dispute Never Seems to Cool Off. I'm sure there are more out there, too, that's just after a brief search. MOS:COMMONALITY is a good goal, but this is not a commonality, it's a legitimate WP:ENGVAR difference. Since sources about New Mexico chile are pretty consistent in spelling, and this is somewhat controversial, I think 'chile' should be the spelling used. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR refers to which major national variety of the language should be chosen, not which regional dialect, so doesn't support "chile" over "chili" as the spelling used in the title or running text, although of course all regional names should be referenced in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess regional variations are not on the same level as national ones. From what I'm seeing, journalistic and culinary sources about these specific peppers largely seem to favor the e spelling. A couple of the ones currently used in this article use them inconsistently, using both spellings in an article, but still mainly and in headlines using 'chile'. As a term, "chili pepper" should not be treated exactly the same as "New Mexico chile" or "New Mexico green chile" or similar. This is not a passing difference used depending on region of publication but rather one which is used in a wide variety of publications from different places. While I know this isn't all that reliable, a search of Google News shows "new mexico chile" gets more hits than "new mexico chili", and with "new mexico green chile" the results are especially clear. The difference should be explained in the article, but the article title and text should follow the spelling most commonly used by sources specific to the topic, not to hot peppers in general.

There is also a semantic difference, as regionally 'chili' is used for the stew, while 'chile' is used for the vegetable (or fruit, but let's not go there just yet) and the sauce made from it. A chili-cheeseburger is very different from a green chile-cheeseburger on regional menus. Here's a NYT article which mentions that: New Mexico Takes Its Chile Very Seriously. Even the Spelling.

While ideally this wouldn't be a deciding factor, from a practical point of view, I suspect this would become a vandalism problem, as well. I predict a steady steam of well-intentioned New Mexican editors changing it back constantly if it's switched, much like Pavlova (food)'s weekly low-level vandalism over it's Australia vs New Zealand origin. Maybe that shouldn't be a consideration, but regardless, I'm not sure what's gained by making the change. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides the question of 'i' or 'e', there is also the question of New Mexican peppers the cultivar group and peppers of New Mexico, being the industry, culture, cuisine and history of which New Mexican peppers are a significant part and which is a major part of the history, development, and current cultivation and usage of the New Mexican cultivar group. Is one of the two the primary focus of the article and can the title be made clearer to reflect what it is primarily about? Or should it (continue) to be both and the title reflect that?Falconjh (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Chili" with an i would be asking for edit wars. Chili in New Mexico exclusively denotes the meat dish. New Mexicans go very far out of their way to distinguish the difference. I would not imagine this to be an issue with any other pepper, but this one is a special case. Most New Mexicans would just see it as a blaring insult.

I apologize about deleting my previous comment: I was trying to strike it and wrote a long comment on how I agree with the other guy on opposing the fresno issue, but I was unable to save it, so i deleted it out of frustration. But I still must Oppose the move, because the only other name that is common in literature (as per refs), and actually used in everyday conversation is New Mexico Green chile, which is a redirect to here because not all New Mexico chile is green.Kehkou (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kehkou, In terms of using an 'i'; the Chile Pepper Institute uses an E, La Costena which has a 60% share of the world chile pepper market uses 'e' and CARDI avoids the issue completely by strictly calling chili/es as 'hot peppers'; so I really don't think that the 'i' is actually that well supported, especially as it comes to us from Spanish where it is spelled with an 'e'. However, as I already tried to point out, that isn't the only point in question at all: are chiles as they pertain to New Mexico including the cultivar group known as New Mexican the primary point of this article or is the primary point of this article the New Mexican Chile being the cultivar group? Either way the name of the article should be clear on that distinction; it is currently ambiguous and the article itself is also ambiguous on that point. Falconjh (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

By the context of the article, I would have to say it pertains to cultivars adapted from pueblo chile, which gave rise to Dr Garcia's specimens, some of which are not what one would recognize as a New Mexico type chile. Whether all NM chile is derivative of each pueblo's variety and from which pueblos the came is a matter of debate. Even here in NM, documentation on the subject is scarce save for at NMSU. In fact I wanted to expand on the history and add a section on cultural impact, but i cant for the life of me find any cites that aren't just cookbooks. I guess the article reflects this ambiguity. I think the article could use much less ambiguousness if reliable sources can be located, but changing the name from what the consumers, and growers, themselves know it as, would just add to the confusion. Kehkou (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2015 (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.

Heaven Sent Gaming

A game and entertainment company listed by the New Mexico Tourism Board means nothing. Tourism boards are happy to list whoever wishes to be listed, so that doesn't establish it as a RS; even if it were establishable as a reliable source based on that, the listed source is still not a reliable source for the subject of species of the pepper, it isn't remotely a science text. It may be usable as a source for establishing the cuisine and culture of New Mexico, as that appears to be the intended purpose of the source. Falconjh (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oy vey. Heaven Sent Gaming is absolutely not a reliable source, as has been hammered to death by sock investigations, and multiple - deletion - discussions (and more). This is spam, pure and simple, and if this comes up again I'm going to bring the site up for blacklisting. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock investigations are routine, as are article deletions, see Toby Turner and a multitude of others. They however have no bearing on whether a source is reliable, nor do they have any bearing in reasoning for blacklisting a website. I was searching to create articles about Christian organizations, and "Heaven Sent Gaming" happened to be one of the groups I'm researching, they are not notable enough to warrant an article from my personal research (maybe one day, but not now). I don't know much about peppers or New Mexico, but the source in question simply states facts about the pepper itself. I agree with Falconjh that the source being listed on a tourism site doesn't make it reliable, but the source itself does establish cuisine and culture information about the pepper. Grayfell, I did notice that you were involved with the discussions related to Heaven Sent Gaming's initial article deletions, perhaps you may have bias on the topic, simply take a step back and look at the source objectively. Falconjh, I believe the source would be more appropriately used in a potential "culture" section in this article. I won't be of any other help, as I am ignorant on this subject. Ruski22 (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If a source is unreliable, which this is, and it is repeatedly added to various articles by proxy-using IPs or recently created accounts, then it is reasonable to consider adding it to the spam blacklist. The site is WP:UGC, and like other wikis, is not a usable source. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source in question isn't a wiki. Its fine if you don't want the source used, but the site itself is not spam. Even if spammers are using it on pages. Ruski22 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is not reliable, as it doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking, it has no editorial oversight, and it's author, Mario J. Lucero, is not a recognized expert in the field of New Mexican culture. It's a personal website, which are not reliable sources. The editor who started this Wikipedia article is also the editor who runs that site, and has been banned for multiple reasons related to self-promotion. The site's addition to this article is not only inappropriate as a source, it's inappropriate as it undermines the integrity of the project. Since it's useless as a source, and it keeps being added by drive-by editors, how is it not spam? The aggressive addition of an unreliable source is spamming, and since the site is unlikely to be useful for anything, its addition to the spam blacklist would be a net positive for the project. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the source in question, "the authors are primarily Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz Lucero, with editing work done by Jason Waggoner, and others, including professional contacts including leaders and peoples of New Mexico and its Native American Pueblos and Reservations." I will not be posting here any longer, I don't want to interfere with these New Mexico articles, as I am ignorant on this topic. And like I said, I respect your opinion in not using the source but, to be honest, your being really weird about this. Take a step back, and relax, seriously.Ruski22 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. You're commenting in edit summaries about my edit history, but since I've barely touched on this subject in the last few hundred edits that means you're digging through old stuff trying to prove a point. So I'm the one being weird about this? If those sources listed on their about page (mostly obscure academic stuff or obvious and general local news outlets) are usable, then they can be used here, but they also list anonymous sources and personal contacts, and nowhere in their articles do they attribute where any particular info came from. Saying that they talked with "leaders and peoples..." is comically unverifiable. Articles about Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz were deleted because neither of them are recognized experts, and they were created as self-promotional spam. Who is Jason Waggoner? What credentials does he have? When a site's major contributor has a history of deception involving Wikipedia, then it's not unreasonable to question that site's reliability. When that site starts from zero, like Heaven Sent Gaming, then these kind of spammy, unethical antics hammer the last nail in the coffin of reliability. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove a point, I've only seen you edit was Silver City. I agreed with you that this shouldn't be used a source. Are there others that you're involved in related to this new Mexican Encyclopedia? I was only speaking about your involvement in the Miscellany Deletion discussion. I'm not even trying to defend this source, just saying that you're over-reacting. Your now claiming that Heaven Sent Gaming is somehow connected to the Orangemoody thing, are you serious? You didn't even bring this to my talk page. Ruski22 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Another note, User:Rhododendrites' assessment during the Miscellany discussion actually agreed that the User Smilelee was behaving in good faith. Ruski22 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Heaven Sent is related to Orangemoody; I have no reason to think that, and I assume that it's an unfortunate mistake. I am saying, however, that there are a number of persuasive reasons to believe that you are the same editor as Smile Lee, and that a sockpuppet investigation is warranted on those grounds. The reasons you were falsely flagged as an Orangemoody sock may possibly also have implications for that investigation, and I wanted to explain that as a likely source of confusion. That's all. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates are Incorrect

There is no evidence Fabian Garcia worked on chiles as early as 1894 as stated at the beginning of the article. This is probably a conflation with the 1894 date that Ortega worked on similar chiles in California, from New Mexico seeds, which pre-dated Garcia's work.

The Chile Pepper Institute webpage states that Garcia started work in 1907 and NM Chile no. 9 was introduced in 1921. Ortega's chiles could not have derived from NM number 9, since it was not yet developed.

Spope3 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

According to this article: http://www.desertexposure.com/200712/200712_garcia_chile.php Garcia was working with Chiles but not in terms of producing the #9 in 1894. I haven't looked up the faculty record but there appears to be a discrepancy within that article regarding where Garcia was as it states he went to NY prior to coming back to NM, suggesting that the date may have been 1895 not 4, not entirely relevant though. The article points out that Garcia standardized the New Mexican chile with Juan de Oñate being a possible candidate for its introduction to New Mexico with what would become New Mexican chiles being those that " adapted particularly well to New Mexico" being " a long green chile that turned red in the fall". This suggests that the article needs some reworking to be correct. Falconjh (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement with the 1894 date has a footnote for reference [5], which on page 32 states "Fabian Garcia developed New Mexico no. 9 in the early 1900's". It would be nice to know the sequence and dates by which Ortega and Garcia ended up growing clearly related chiles in the decade or so starting around 1894, but it may not be possible to ever determine how this happened. One possibility is that since a nearly modern form of the chile existed in 1894 (since Ortega brought it to California then), there is a belief that these must have originated from Garcia then.

Spope3 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Mexico chile. 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/20150923202817/http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/content/files/chilecultof-nmsu.pdf to http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/content/files/chilecultof-nmsu.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319181151/http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/content/files/H64.full.pdf to http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/content/files/H64.full.pdf

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) 06:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

0-70,000 scoville?

That's quite a range. 0 is literally no spice, and 70,000 is extremely spicy (by my standards, at least). Are you sure that is right? Alex of Canada (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Table

I have expanded the cultivar table greatly using information straight from the horse's mouth here. If anyone else can find more information on specific cultivars, please enter missing entries on the table and diversify the sources if possible. Most of it is from this one source, but it is so official that it *should* suffice for now. Thanks and stay healthy! Kehkou (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New Mexico chile vs Chile in New Mexico

I have also been sandboxing a new subsection on cultural impact that I plan to make live very shortly. is now live. As with the table, the more information I find and add, the more of a distinction is noticed between the New Mexican pod type and chile in New Mexico in general; the article is starting to migrate toward the latter. Maybe we could move it to Chile peppers in New Mexico and use the current namespace for an article on the pod type, or better yet, put in subsections on the "New Mexican pod type" and "Other varieties in New Mexico", or something. I'm not making any formal requests at this time, I just want to start the discussion. Cheers! Kehkou (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The article isn't terribly oversized, so I think it still fits the topic. But I do think creating a separate article for the "cultivars and landraces" section would be beneficial, maybe call it List of New Mexico chile cultivars. Then you could separate the peppers of the New Mexico pod type into its own section on that article. 2601:8C4:4380:6A30:9DF3:8FEB:6723:7D83 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That certainly isn't a bad idea Kehkou (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit, and comment

I added a sentence to the "History" section to refer to Emelio Ortega, as he was clearly an early actor in the development of this genre.

I somewhat question the placement of the "Chile vs. Chili" section in this article. That should probably be in the "New Mexican Cuisine" or "Mexican Cuisine" article and it is also poorly sourced at present.

Re: Kehkou - I think the landrace term should replace the heritage term in the beginning section of the article, as it is more exact.

Spope3 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata and cultivars group

I added this citation re: the cultivars group (discussion on Wikidata). Chile cultivars of New Mexico State University released from 1913 to 2008 [1], publisher=New Mexico State University. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Quality reassessment

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have reassessed this article in the plants WikiProject and have determined that it meets the criteria for B-class article status! I have also requested reassessment from the folks over at the US and food and drink WikiProjects.

This article has come quite a long way from its somewhat controversial birth; a lot of useful and verifiable info has been added and a lot of the fat trimmed, and overall it has been sectioned well enough and is comprehensive enough to warrant at least B-class article status. I think a few more cultivar table data entries with references, better image and table placement, some more info on culture and on the history of Puebloan cultivars, and some slight tweaking to the linguistic flow, is really all that stands between here and good article status!

It would also help the cause if someone in southern NM finds some relevant info on the subject in the local literature and adds and cites it here.

Peace!✌️ Kehkou (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Weak sources (and messy citations)

Lots of blog and vendor sources are being cited, for claims that are mostly of questionable encyclopedic value anyway. A lot of that should probably just be pared out.

And someone needs to read the citation template documentation. |work= and its aliases like |website=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, are for the name of the work (often the domain name when it comes to websites, unless they clearly have a work title); these are never for the name of the publisher. The |publisher= parameter is for the company or organization (e.g. university or department thereof) that published the material, never for the website or newspaper/magazine name. |agency= is only for newswire material published originally by a news agency like AP or Reuters then re-published in a local newspaper (which goes in |work= AKA |newspaper=); |agency= is never for a local newspaper name. |author= is for organizational authors like committees, not for Lastname, Firstname pairs. And so on. I only cleaned up about half the citations because it's dark:30 my time.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer

i am a tried and true new Mexican. My take on Chile is try to find the best information you can, and beware, there are tons of "copycats" out there. A few good pointers on whether it is a reliable Chile source is if the Chile has an "e", if there is a zia symbol next to the Chile anywhere, or if it says "hatch", as in Chile from the Hatch valley 24.116.90.157 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As I've addressed on your talk page, this is not a forum for general discussion, not a blog for publishing your opnions, and not an advice site. This is an encyclopedia, which requires reliable and independent sourcing. Even the talk page here is only for improving the article, not for having opinionated chats or debate about the subject of the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)