Talk:Capsicum pubescens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

You say tomato, I say locoto[edit]

Erm- isn't this a Locoto- not Rocoto.

It seems that both forms are in use: [1]. The jar of sauce I have definitely says Rocoto. --Iustinus 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Rocoto is the name used in Peru for this pepper. Locoto is the name used in Bolivia. It is the same pepper, and very similar to manzano chiles of Mexico.
Rocoto pepper gets almost one hundred times the google results of locoto pepper, so is probably a better primary name to use in the article. --Kaz 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified (Quechua vs Aymara) as to why the name (spelling) varies in Peru/Bolivia. HOWEVER...This rocoto entry is horrificly "un-cited" in my opinion. Lots of well-intentioned, lovingly made claims, but not a lot of sourcing!

I will wait some time before hitting it hard in "edit/cleaning" to see based on my edits today how large the interested/active rocoto community is so we can reach consensus in this wonderful spicy gift pre-posting, rather than fight about "details" with unneccesarry undo/redos.

Among other things (for example) are assertions that Rocoto Relleno is a "South American" dish. My decade of eating it tells me its not! To me, it is at BEST Andean, and probably just Peruvian/Bolivian. Furthermore, the assertion that "most" rocoto goes to Ceviche (although in my opinion it make the BEST ceviche) seems a significant (and at least unsubstantiated) stretch. Not ready to formall claim this, but much like the bell pepper, I BELIEVE (but dont know) that red is the mature color of rocoto having statred out green. not at all sure about yellow/orange.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinchPeru (talkcontribs) 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am (trying!!) to add my signature via the 4 tildes method to my above post, and am clarifying my grammar etc. GrinchPeru (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (hope this works!)

since no one has fixed this issue I am going to go ahead and tag the article rather that put a bunch of [citation needed] in there. I agree that this is a very informative article which is what I was hoping for when I read it but I would like to see some of the language cleaned up and ref's added -Sykko-(talk to me) 17:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

SEPT 2010 --- After a long absence I made a couple of (hopefully) non-controversial "changes," today mainly begining to add some citations (more to come!) and touching on the "size does matter" issue related to Bolivia & Peru varieties. HOWEVER: Awaiting to see if there are any quick observations from you folks, I have not YET made changes in some things that might be more controversial, or in fact "errors of commision" of my own doing if I "fix" them! To Wit:

- a) in the "System" header (whatever THAT means!) the following sentence appears and I simply dont know if the "Art." at the end is a orphaned typo or some scientific way of citation. "It follows the assumption that the Bolivian Capsicum pubescens, both biologically and geographically closer to the original Capsicum pubescens lie elsewhere than domesticated plants of Art. "

- b) The following makes no sense TO ME, and furthermore seems to imply that rocoto are both "multi-colored" (true) and only "red" (untrue): "With the exception of the large and variable in color fruits of Capsicum pubescens have all kinds of small, colored red, spherical fruit."

- c) Manzana vs Rocoto: WOW what vivid proof that a picture is worth 1000 words - I have never seen any "proof" that the Rocoto is found in Central America (and would have removed the claim), but based on the FASCINATING foto of Manzana offered by our spicy friend "Piano non troppo" in March 2010 showing something availible in North America (namely Mexico) that at a minimum is VISUALLY very similar in form (though a color COMBO I have not found in Peru) furthermore Piano non troppo´s example is a size similar to the Rocoto de Monte grown here in Peru. So: If this South American fruit has traveled/evolved to North America from South America, it does not seem unreasonable that some cousins might have dropped off in Central America along the way.

- d) Another sentence that seems confusing TO ME, and at least is a good candidate for a citation is the apparent claim taht non-domesticated versions are extinct. " Although no wild form has been found and there are only semi-wild or cultivated plants, it is assumed that Capsicum pubescens is a separate species. Through the long domestication by human selection and thus were the fruits of the plants over time is larger, the wild form is true even be extinct."

Thoughts? (also: please forgive multiple "corrective" self-posts as I learn proper symbols etc!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinchPeru (talkcontribs) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

The text I just removed is a close paraphrase of a section in "Red Hot Peppers". (Down to the use of Ruiz & Pavon). It's so close, I had to check the book to make sure it wasn't word-for-word.

Ironically, the clue to the above discussion about names is in a sentence that was not copied from the book: "There are many varieties of C. pubescens ... but they do not have individual names".

Nice that someone is checking copyrights and copied text. Thanks for that. But would you mind giving a bit more information about the book? "Red Hot Peppers" is a very widely use name, so it's difficult to figure out exactly what you mean.
Also, a search on Google for the beginning of the text you removed, comes up with 1640 results, as of today (). I didn't check closely, but at least a few of them has the addition "with yellow spots" that I added (and I'm sure is not part of the original copyrighted text), but this in itself only proves that the text was copied from Wikipedia to many other places. Luca (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Before suspecting that Wiki used a different name for the pepper article, I just spent an hour writing a draft of an article called "Manzana". I have three sources hardcopy, and it was quite interesting trying to reconcile them -- it's obvious that at least two very different plants are called "Manzana". One grows upright like a shrub or small tree, the other is a vine. One is described as mildly hot to very hot, the other is described as hotter than habanero.

Shall I put my version in a sandbox where we can all hammer on it? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure a total rewrite is the way to go. What about adding parts of your article to the current article? Anyway, sandboxing it somewhere for review would certainly not hurt ;) Luca (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There are (at least) two different plants, still C. pubescens. But not all C. pubescens are called rocoto.
I wrote an article "Manzana", because I walked into my local Mexican grocer yesterday, picked them off the shelf, walked up to the counter, and said "What are these?" She said "manzanas".
manzana illustration
I got them home, looked them up in "The Great Chile Book". Sure enough, there they were. Oh, but wait, they're also called six other things. Then I got out two other chili reference books. Trouble. What names *aren't* these chilis called? In Costa Rica, apparently, they're called jalapeños -- why? Because all hot peppers in Costa Rica are called jalapeños. Trouble. We've got a problem here with fuzzy, overlapping word meanings.
The reason the Wiki article text jumped out at me as copyright infringement is that it makes many of the same points, even using the same words, as "Red Hot Peppers" by Jean Andrews (Macmillan Publishing). It was published 18 years ago, so possibly the Internet versions are all taken from her original. At any rate, that could be "fixed" by selectively citing her.
What seems to be needed ... Careful citing of sources, with pictures where possible, demonstrating the range of C. pubescens appearance, as well as common names applied to each appearance. That may not be entirely successful, but at least the article can make it clear that there are ambiguities, and where there are ambiguities. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a Southamerican Chef I can tell you that some of the facts in you article are not accurate. The Rotoco o Locoto (yes you can use the Peruvian name or the Bolivian) is not in any way similar to the Mexican Chile Manzano ( no Manzana). The South American Rocoto/Locoto is very spice but wirh a lots os flavor with differ with the Mexican Chile Manzano that, like most of the mexican chiles, is only irritant with out any flavor at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.160.203 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Capsicum pubescens. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)