Talk:Naga Viper pepper

Category

Why is this identified as a vegetable-related story when peppers are fruits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.248.215 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoax?

[ref: http://bhutjolokia.blogspot.com/2010/12/naga-viper-pepper-hoax-marketing.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceeding comment was removed by 78.33.201.27 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That site appears to be a spamvertisement. I see no indication from that link that this is a hoax, though it's written so poorly I had trouble understanding it (I'm a native English speaker, the site's author is named "Jim" and is in San Diego, CA). Additionally, a quick search reveals dozens of more reputable sites (e.g. Yahoo News ^[1] and The Epoch Times ^[2]) reporting the record without any mention of naysayers.   Adam KatzΔtalk 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article that was in this space was properly sourced with news articles! -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My above comment was in response to a linked allegation of naga viper being a hoax. The original post was removed before Erroneuz1's response. Users should not remove comments from talk pages due to issues like this. I have returned the original post to provide context. See also the revision history. Adam KatzΔtalk 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Fowler might like to answer the queries in the link below before he asserts his claims. The below article was written by JIM who has a financial interest in knocking the Naga Viper. He was at the time of the launch of the Naga Viper about to rename a Trinidad Scorpion chilli as New Mexico Scorpion without any changes being made to the genetic makeup of the chilli. The Naga Viper which has been growing and being tested since 2008 stole the thunder of the pretent renamed chilli. I have a feeling that it is all sore grapes. I think that the US should stop taking native varieties and renaming them as they see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

"The Naga Viper was created in England by chilli farmer Gerald Fowler of The Chilli Pepper Company" smacks of advertisement and self-proclaimed claim to creation fame. The pepper has been growing at the hills of Nagaland for centuries. In Indian parlance - it has been around before farmer Fowlers 14 gand-pas were even born. (transliteration of a popular Indian way of expression)

I am appalled by this bio-piracy and would like to set this right. Visitors to Nagaland can walk in any village and see the chilli grown in abundance.

Joydeep

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.230.82 (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, the Naga Viper is a cross between the Bhut Jolokia, the Trinidad Scorpion and the Naga Morich. However, according to the Bhut Jolokia article, Naga morich is a transliteration of Bhut Jolokia from Bengali. This makes a nonsense of the article's basis in fact - hence the template. Philg88 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then a reference is required. Philg⁸⁸ talk 22:02, Tuesday February 22, 2011 (UTC)

If you read the relevant websites, the breeder distinguishes between the Bhut Jolokia[3] and the Naga Morich[4] as being two varietals within the same species, much like a Peach Habanero is distingushed from a red Habanero. All are C. chinense but all are different varieties. Is the breeder correct? who knows, but it is how he reported it and it is how it has been recorded in the literature. If there is a problem with his reporting then that is not the problem of Wikipedia, we write according to facts provided. Anything else would be speculation and OR. The naming of peppers is full of problems, each little locality growing the same plant labels it with their own unique naming conventions. When researchers go into these towns on seed collecting expeditions they record the name the locals use, therefor there may be 15 different names for the exact same variety. Collectors err on the side of safety rather than obviousness. Likewise growers use the same names as what the collectors used to differentiate between different varieties. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Further the naga morich is described as a landrace variety here[5] and here [6] at the now defunct Dorset Naga pepper page (the result of overzealous "locals" thinking they know what is correct because the pepper is from "their" country, despite this being an english speaking wikipedia and westerners creating their own interpretations of what we call things). Further emphazising my point about collections, collectors, growers, and breeders. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that either the Bhut Jolokia article is either wrong or, if it's correct, the statement here that it's a cross between "the Naga Morich, the Bhut Jolokia and the Trinidad Scorpion" must, by definition, be false. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:38, Wednesday February 23, 2011 (UTC)

It is a tad confusing (I agree), but it is not up to us editors to determine the fallacy. There are references that point to it being derived from those 3 peppers so that is what we put into the article, now if you can find a reliable source that says the same thing as you are saying then that can also go into the article under "Controversy" or something similar. In addition, did you read what I linked to about Varietals and landraces? when you read those articles it all starts making a little more sense. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the disputed tag - again. There is no dispute, the article is correct as written and referenced, if you have further issues with the ancestry, take it up with the breeder, the website asserting the claim, or the web. Verifiable references are given, not our place to judge their accuracy. We don't do original research WP:OR --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 03:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anna's 6 cents:

• I think this article should stand. It's sources are good, and it seems like Bhut Jolokia and Naga Morich are distinct from one another. There's lots to support that.[7][8] Is that the original question? I see that morich redirects to jolokia.
• I'm not sure what Phil's last comment means. It contains "either" but is missing "or".
• Chili industry websites are full of BS, it seems. Naga Morich means "Naga" from ferocious warriors who once inhabited Nagaland, and "morich" meaning pepper, yet I see its meaning being snake. [9][10]
• I see a link in the lede of Bhut Jolokia chili pepper "known variously by other names" that simply goes to the section below in the same article? First time I've seen that. I'm going to change that to "(see etymology section)", so don't be alarmed.
• Have I just made things more confusing?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anna. I have reworded my unclear English above. My point is that to be a cross of three things they must all be separate entities. If Bhut Jolokia and Naga Morich are one and the same (which the Bhut Jolokia article says they are) then the Naga Viper (WP:AGF it exists) must be derived from something else. It is a tad confusing I will admit. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:28, Wednesday February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I think getting consensus before removing the tag would have been best. In fact, had you simply started the paragraph with "...I would like to remove...." instead of "...Also, I'm removing...", the sensible statement you made in the rest of the paragraph would have gained easy support for the tag's removal.

As for this article, it does look like the problem doesn't lie here. It appears as though Naga Morich should be an article and not a redirect to Bhut Jolokia. A little more homework might confirm or reject that. (FYI: Naga Morich was never an article.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian Sydney University have carried out DNA tests that show Bhut Jolokia and Naga Morich have different DNA markers and are different varieties. A Genetic Comparison of “Bhut Jolokia” and “Bih Jolokia” the hottest chillies on Earth.

Thesis:

Literature Review and Research Paper

Faculty of Agriculture

The University of Sydney

23th October 2009 Conclusions:

• “Bhut Jolokia” and “Bih Jolokia” have different genetic structure based on comparison of DNA fragment and sequence data using 3 molecular techniques employed across six of the 12 Capsicum chromosomes.

• “Bih Jolokia” genetic structure is highly homologous with C.chinense and C.frutescens species whereas “Bhut Jolokia” is structurally more closely linked with C.annuum species.

• Reduced crop load in “Bhut Jolokia” as compared with “Bih Jolokia” may be linked to genetic self incompatibility.

• Continued research comparing such varieties and their closely related native landraces will prove to be vital in understanding evolutionary relationships that may be useful in overcoming agricultural barriers such as crop yield for such varieties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bih Jolokia and Naga Morich come from the same country and source and although no DNA tests have been carried out we feel they are slightly different in heat, colour and size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 10:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC) The sites owner JIM has a financial interest in all of this. He took a traditional Trinidad Scorpion got it tested and renamed it New Mexico Scorpion. No changes had taken place between the original Trinidad Scorpion and the New Mexico Scorpion. The Naga Viper stole the thunder on this made up renamed chilli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC) --Chilliarbitor (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That shed some light indeed. Do you have any info on Naga Morich and Bhut Jolokia chili pepper? Are they the same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Naga Morich is a Capsicum chinense Jacq and the Chile Pepper Institute Bhut Jolokia is a Capsicum chinense and the Bhut Jolokia from Assam in India is a Capsicum chinense Jacq so you can see that the Naga Morich and the Assam Bhut Jolokia are the same variety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.201.27 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC) --Chilliarbitor (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacq? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Capsicum chinense Jacq.) is a species of The Capsicum genus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

--Chilliarbitor (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything you've just written makes no sense to me at all from a logical or taxonomical point of view. I think a cladogram is in order for the whole genus, or at least for the species' varieties. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Anna, you are correct, sometimes I type before I think, and then compound things by hitting Save before I read. It would have been more proper. And for the record...Jacq. is short for Jacquin, the last name of the botonist who "found" the pepper's chromosome count and described it first in the literature. Determining if it was part of the ancient group of Capsicum versus the "newer" groups of peppers. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 05:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all my friend. I do the same. Actually, sometimes I hit save before I type, and then I think: "What was I even going to type?" Jacquin info is interesting. Now, what about morich? Is it a distinct cultivar/variety? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly Anna, in the botanical germplasm collector's world, they are all considered different varieties due to the fact that they were originally collected in three different places. Collectors nowadays are going after genetic diversity and trying to save all that can be saved before it is lost. Therefor each type is given a unique identifier because if a unique trait shows up, they want to know where specifically the original material came from. Usually collections are given Accession #'s followed by locality accessed from plus name known by in that locality. This Genetic material (in the form of seeds) is freely available to the public via GRIN[11], which is where most of the naming problems come from. Instead of using the accession #'s in their descriptions, laymen and breeders use the Locality because it sounds better than GRIN#75-1094R. (Further problems come from natives of that region thinking they know all there is to know about a variety because they live/lived there and the western world is wrong, which is the current problem with the chili articles being moved from title to title, merged where they shouldn't be, etc....) Hope this helps. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 23:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So how about if we add the GRIN references? i.e. "cross between Naga Morich (GRIN link), the Bhut Jolokia (GRIN link) and the Trinidad Scorpion (GRIN link)" ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:17, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed, however I will need help going through the 452 C. chinense accessions in the GRIN database to see which one, if any at this particular database are the ones in question. Also the 23 C. baccatum accessions here and the 312 C. baccatum accessions here, due to these being at various points possibly being thought of as baccatums. If they are not in the GRIN database (due to backlogs in their updates) there is one more database in Europe to be looked into --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nashville Monkey. That's the info I was looking for. I will butt out of the hottest debate. My chief concern is whether morich exists or not. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's where it gets slightly tricky Anna, whether or not they exist , as listed, in the databases, they exist now because people, breeders, home growers, collectors are trading them under those names (correctly or not), if a sample where to be collected now from those peppers grown by an individual growing them as ... let's say Naga Morich, that is how they would become identified for THAT accession. Convoluted I know. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 22:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

IE Naga Morich and Bhut Jolokia. Just to help confuse matters :-) --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 22:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nashville. That's good enough for me. It certainly seems to deserve an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stray comments

Naga Viper is not a hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilliarbitor (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

AS of the 22nd February 2011 The Naga Viper is the newest Hottest Chilli In The World at 1,382,118 shu signing unsigned comment by Chilliarbitor

Latest update - Naga Viper Chilli (once more) the world's hottest

OK, I have rejigged the article so that it reflects the current situation and removed the disputed tag for the moment - I am sure that Guinness did the required due diligence before awarding the title. I have commented out the second paragraph - it is not cohesive and arguably irrelevant. If anyone wants to tidy it up and reinsert please do so. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:32, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so there seem to be some people who are critical of Guinness World Records' decision to award the title of "Hottest Chili" to the Naga Viper, and so we now have 2 links to competing claims in the "External References" section - one of which (with a possible commercial interest) describes Warwick University (one of the top 10 universities in the UK, and a leading horticultural research establishment) as "Just an average college. Not a qualified food lab or Agricultural lab like New Mexico State." Should we include these competing claims on this page, or should we assume that GWR have done the work necessary to verify their record award before awarding it? Ic451uk (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And there is now another pepper competing for the "hottest chili" record. I suggest that the two pages for Naga Viper pepper and Trinidad Scorpion Butch T pepper stay as they are with regard to the world record unless and until Guinness World Records pronounce on this issue; i.e. the Naga Viper remains the World Record holder, the Trinidad Scorpion Butch T has delivered a hotter test result, but the claim has not yet been verified and the record awarded. It took the Naga Viper some weeks to get from test result to award of Guinness World Record.Ic451uk (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And can we get some mentions and a page for [Texas Scorpentis], which is similarly unverified?

What is it?

OK, here we go again, according to the first article reference Hottest chilli in the world – it’s official, the Naga Viper is a Capsicum chinense cultivar which throws the article's factual accuracy into dispute again. I'm not going to re-tag it pending more discussion here. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:22, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Another user (see my talk page) "would like to know who has the authority to call the cnaga [sic] viper unstable?" Anyone got an answer? Ic451uk (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a smartass but the authority lies with scientific fact, any f1 hybrid of more than 1 variety of anything is going to be "unstable", that's how hybrids are. You have traits that are non-homogeneous, when you plant seeds from a hybrid these traits segregate out in the offspring. tell him to go here and here and tons of sites online. The information about instability is freely available for those willing to look for it. You might also want to point out to him that the term "unstable" simply relates to the fact that seed from this plant will not perfectly recreate the parent plant due to segregation of alleles and traits. It is not an insulting term as he seems to be thinking. --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nashville Monkey: Nice response - I have linked "unstable" appropriately. Thanks! ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:48, Sunday February 27, 2011 (UTC)

User Request

copied from User_talk:Philg88

Hello can the naga viper description not be listed the same as the infinity chilli? "The Infinity Chilli pepper is a chili pepper created in England by British chili farmer, Nick Woods of Fire Foods, Grantham, Lincolnshire.[1]. For two weeks in February 2011, the Infinity Chilli held the Guinness World Record title for the world's hottest chilli with a Scoville scale rating of 1,067,286 Scoville Heat Units (SHU). On February 25th 2011 it was displaced by the Naga Viper pepper which registered 1,382,118 SHU.[2]" Thanks Gerald Fowler--User talk:Chilliarbitor (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this request. The first line of the lead follows the pattern of the Infinity Chilli article, mentioning both you and your company. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or self-promotion and this is already pushing it to the limit. I suggest you read WP:COI before making any edits to this or related pages. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:17, Monday February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the request either, neither article "follows" the other. They are both currently stub articles and fairly decently written. If you are complaining that they both use the same phrase "created in England by British chili farmer", well, those are the facts, right? But I can make a small wording change --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Nashville Monkey

IF you could see your way to getting rid of the (unstable) that would be great. Nick Woods Infinity chilli was bred the same as we did ours, by accident. All these problems started because a chap Jim Duffy wanted to get in the Guinness Records before any chilli from the UK so the hoax article is written by him. He has a financial interest in all this.--Chilliarbitor (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not worried about the word unstable, the plant is unstable, it is not true breeding. Once you have the plant stabilized as a variety (That usually takes about 6-8 years), the wording can be changed. May I suggest, in the meantime, that you quit worrying about exact wording of an article that's only purpose is to promote your accomplishment. You have your pepper listed at wikipedia, most people would be happy with that accomplishment. Give it a rest Gerald. Mission accomplished.--  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the term "unstable" because you are trying to market the pepper to potential investors and the term may put some of them off when you send them to the page to read about your pepper. However, if you educate them about the work going into the pepper, the continued breeding and segregating of offspring, and the nature of hybrids in general, their issues should go away. The truth in the matter is that you, Nick, and Jim all have a financial interest in holding the record for "Worlds Hottest Chili", a little transparency in your motives from the beginning could have eased some of the frustration you are now feeling.--  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nashville Monkey, I must point out I'm a simple man, of very simple words! Your last paragraph sums up what I should of done from the very begining. The Naga Viper is a work in progress. Is there any way you could elaborate on what you were saying so I could use it to explain to people and link back to you. It's a very technical subject at the best of times.Thanks a bunch for your help --Chilliarbitor (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Gerald

I'll give it some thought, I've already done some work on the article itself. Lemme think a bit... --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Best I can come up with --  Nashville Monkey  talk  -- 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Nashville, I've tweaked the first sentence but apart from that the content is accurate and WP:NPOV. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:24, Tuesday March 1, 2011 (UTC)

File:Naga-Viper-Chilli.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Naga-Viper-Chilli.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

'cuntish'?

Hi I don't want to do the editing myself, but the article says that the chili won the "Guinness World Records "Most Cuntish Pepper Ever" record as of 25 February 2011."

I'm not sure if 'cuntish' is a proper word for it, or is a proper word at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.34.165 (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naga Viper 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/20121006194734/http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/hottest-chilli-in-the-world-it-s-official-1.812499 to http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/hottest-chilli-in-the-world-it-s-official-1.812499

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

spamsite

I tried to remove "browse-read.com" and was reverted.[12] Another source was removed, but that one should probably be kept. The site is a spam site that covers its tracks. Try a search on Google like site:browse-read.com and you will see that there are several subcatalogs but only the one you are visiting from is visible. From what I found they use a few valid articles to attract legitimate use. Jeblad (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what spamming has gone on with it, but I don't see any reason to think it is reliable. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

= spamsite?

You think every blog, start with hundreds of categories? and thousand of posts? So you are wrong, if you know what are sources you will check article. I hard work to write this article... and I put a lot of sources which I used to write it. It is sad that people delete links before read article and check sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.2.193 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear what you're saying. Sounds like you are trying to use the site to promote your work. If that's the case, it might be best to have it blacklisted. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)