Talk:Chili con carne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misc comments

Re: Controversy over ingredients; This article is not about San Antonio. Neither is it about Texas. Can someone who knows Wikipedia edit it to reflect the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.159.238 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So what would vegetarian Chili be? (and should it be listed under the Chili 'with meat' article?)
~ender 2003-09-12 04:32:MST

I think that's just the conventional name. I added an intro which explicitly mentions meat substitutes. You can make any ground beef dish using a substitute, so I don't think that that fact is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article or a name change. -- AdamRaizen

I disagree with the assertion that chili is a 'ground beef dish' and the collateral assumption that vegetarian versions are 'a ground beef dish using a beef substitute'. (I'm a native of Texas if that means anything - which it shouldn't) I think Chili should be a hub article about chili in general, with links to Chili verde, Chili colorado (small c), Chili con carne, Chili dog, Cincinnati chili, Chili powder etc, Pedant 00:02, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

In my experience vegetarian chili is sometimes called "chili sans carni", chili without meat. I don't know how common this is though Daibhid C 20:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that would be "chili sin carne", though I've never heard either. By the way, I think being from Texas does count for something, as opposed to being from, say, New Haven. :) Timothy Chen Allen (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The description of chili powder I wrote was rightly reduced to the a link to the already extant and adequate article "chili powder" at one point, but that defining link should be restored. As writers tend towards bias in this subject, at least in some areas, special efforts should be taken keep this Wikipedia article functional.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.152.112 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Saying "A packet or two of chili mix. NOT chili powder" is far from helpful. What herbs, spices, and seasonings are involved in "chili mix"? –Hajor 22:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)'

---

Real Texans would NEVER cook their chili with the beans in it. First, they would use dried pinto beans, soak them overnight in water, and then boil them (separately from the chili). Second, they would add the beans (without the bean juice) AFTER the chili is completely cooked. Otherwise, you have a homogeneous mess. You might as well mix a can of pinto beans and a can of Wolf Brand "Chili" (chili-flavored oatmeal). How long has it been since you had a bowl -- not long enough! H2O 04:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Chili made with ghee? "Ghee?" No, folks -- not even butter goes in chili. And regarding the "Texas Chili" recipe: Where's the masa? Where's the chiles, for pete's sake? (That's where the name comes from, you know.) This article is going on my "major overhaul" list.
--- Michael K. Smith 19:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) [Native of San Antonio, lifelong resident of Austin and Dallas, now in retirement exile in Louisiana -- and collateral relative of H. Allen Smith, co-founder with Frank Tolbert of the Terlingua International Chili Cook-Off]

Hmmm.. The "simple chile con carne recipe" looks to me like a variation of "Chile Colorado" as one might find it in New Mexico and surrounding areas. While I haven't seen a recipe with ghee before (usually maize oil or olive oil), there are as many variations on chile as there are chile cooks (I have seen recipes calling for shortening - I'll stick with vegetable oil, thankyoverymuch). The "texas chile" recipe in the article *does* call for "masa harina", BTW

Logotu 22:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right -- I was so blinded by the idea of butter in chili, I missed the masa reference. I'm presently in the middle of completely revising and greatly expanding this article (my patriotic duty...), to include origins, "canonical" Texas chili, New Mexico verde, Cincinnati-style, LBJ's Pedernales River Chili, the San Antonio "Chili Queens", the chili parlor culture, the several organizations devoted to competitive chili-cooking, and the Chili Prayer. And maybe some other stuff. It'll be a few days. And then you guys can all join in with corrections and additions. Chili deserves an expert Wikipedia entry. ---Michael K. Smith 17:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And regarding the "Texas Chili" recipe: Where's the masa? Where's the chiles, for pete's sake?

I'm afraid that I wrote up the Texas Chili recipe while in a state of shock over the notion of some godawful bean stew served over rice being labeled as chili. By "red pepper", I meant chilis -- myself, I grind smoked jalapenos I grow myself. I've got no time to help out much in the overhaul -- best of luck! Ben 04:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Austin, Texas)

---

Okay -- I have finished and uploaded a completely overhauled version of this page. I've tried to keep the actual recipes to a minimum ("wikipedia is not a cookbook", I'm sure), concentrating on the "original" and on representatives of the various types. (I've cooked all of these many times, by the way.) I don't think the NPOV principle has been offended -- but with chili, there really is sometimes a "right" way and a "wrong" way.

I'm not sure of the etiquette in virtually replacing an entire page like this,... but, to be frank, there was relatively little I could justify keeping. I hope the previous contributors to this page will believe that I wasn't looking for toes to step on.

There also are a few formatting points I'm unsure about, having to do with source citations and footnotes vs. in-text notes. Because this page is now rather lengthy, I didn't want to push all citations to the very bottom. If that's the overriding Wiki preference, though, I'll change it (or one of you folks can, of course).

As I said earlier, I trust all of ya'll with chili experience will correct errors, elaborate where useful, and expand the thinner sections. (There are a few in-text comments noting what I think those are.) And I will shortly be adding new, and much shorter, pages on chili powder and maybe the two chili societies.

I gotta get back to Austin and make a pilgrimage down to 6th Street!
---Michael K. Smith 20:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'SOK. Wikipedia engourages you to be bold in editing, anyway. I'll have a look at it when I get the chance. -- Logotu 14:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have inspired me to continue a project I started a while ago and never really did anything with. Back when Hajor asked (above) what the difference was between chili powder and chili mix, I decided that it was needed info, but neither probably deserved a whole article. I started searching the web and compared with my own experience to make an article about blended spices. I went ahead and posted a new spice mix article today, and redirected chili powder to it. Feel free to edit & add to it. -- Logotu 19:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not move the recipes to Wikibooks? WhisperToMe 20:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you mean to copy them to the cookbook which I believe is being compiled over there, please do (I don't hang out there and don't know the ropes). But if you mean we should excise the recipes from this article and have them appear only there, I would protest strongly. You can't define chili or describe the history of its development and expansion into previously chili-less areas of the country without those few representative recipes. --Michael K. Smith 20:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been fiddling with this article, after having some chili - bought in Tesco, decanted from a can, served with pilau rice as God intended chili to be served. With regards the recipes, the article needs to show why they are significant. A sentence stating why Lyndon Johnson had a preferred recipe might belong as a footnote on Lyndon Johnson's page, but the inclusion of the entire recipe lends Johnson a global significance he does not warrant; 'Jailhouse chili' needs a source which proves that this is a formal standard throughout the Texan penal system, otherwise it's nothing. The recipes need to be rewritten as information rather than instruction (i.e. 'At this point the mixture should be tasted' rather than 'Do a lot of tasting during this time'). All of the recipes need sources, although I understand this might be hard for something which is akin to oral tradition / folk art. In general, the article needs to be less enthusiastic, more objective, less 'fan'-ish and with fewer brackets, and a picture of a Chili queen would be excellent - were they men dressed in drag? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The article has been sliced and diced by a Brit who eats store-bought chili over rice and who can't understand the historical context of regional cuisine in Texas -- which I thought I had made pretty clear, having spent some considerable time on making the rewrite of this article as objective as possible. Who thinks LBJ doesn't have "global significance" and who seems not to understand the distinction (also pretty clear, I thought) between culinary traditions and legislated requirements in Texas peniteniaries. Who capitalizes "chili queen" as if it were a corporate job title and thinks enthusiasm is incompatible with expertise. Who has never heard of the Chili Prayer and therefore assumes it has no part in Southwestern social history (the Southwestern U.S., that is -- not Cornwall.)

And then someone else strips out the handful of near-generic recipes -- which is like discussing geography without maps or art without pictures. I don't have time to repair this carnage right now, and I wonder if I should bother. --Michael K. Smith 19:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

What do you folks think of making the Cincinnati-style chili section into its own article, naturally with a mention and wiki link in the Chili con carne article? It seems like the style (served as a sauce over spaghetti and on hot dogs) and origins (from Macedonian and Greek immigrants in a midwestern city) are distinct enough from the Tex-Mex style that is primarily represented in this article for a separate article to be justified. I say this, having in my ignorance already started a separate article called Cincinnati chili, and then stumbling across the section in the Chili con carne article.

If consensus is that the Cincinnati chili should remain within the larger chili article, I will add what little original information is in my newly written article to the already existing section, and then write a redirect to Chile con carne from Cincinnati chili. If, however, consensus agrees with my own opinion, or if days pass without comment, I will go ahead and split Cincinnati-style chili off into its own article, leaving a brief descpription and a wiki link to where readers can find the more exhaustive relocated material. Rohirok 01:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and break Cincinatti chili out to its own article. Real chili is not a sauce or topping, in my opinion. As for LBJ and his significance to chili, I think that there might profitably be a section entitled Presidential chili or the like, as there are quite a few chili tidbits related to US presidents. Pedant 23:50, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

I split the Cincinnati chili info into its own article, merging all of the unique information from its section in chili con carne into what had already been written in Cincinnati chili. On a totally irrelevant note, I take issue with the implication that Cincinnati chili is not "real" chili. I also find it peculiar that so many people have strong feelings against beans in chili. Chili without bean strikes me as something that would be too heavy, and too hard on the digestive system. Rohirok 01:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh yeah cause beans are sooo easy on the digestive tract! The things in Chili that cause problems on the digestive tract are things that ferment such as: Onions, garlic, and well BEANS!!! That is why excellent Texas chili (which is the only thing that should ever be called chili by name)is very simple and does not have a bunch a superfluous sh.... uh stuff in it! Contrary to popular belief, Chili should not be instantly hot at the 1st bite either. This is a myth and if it does, your just trying to show your Yankee buddies how tuff you are! Your forehead should start sweating after you get into it a little and keep building(slow burn). However, your stomach should thank you for eating good Texas chili. Your rectum on the other hand......well that is a different story.

B. Roth Austin, Tx Sept. 2 2006

Hello world :-) I question that chile originates from Mexico. I've read quite a bit on the subject and many articles point to Spain and Portugal. I was wondering why Wiki doesn't refference any of these articles and why?

Ken Zimbleman, Phildelphia PA 12/20/2008 Kennzim (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chili Types?

Michael:

I notice that the article doesn't mention the types of chili peppers used for the various chiles, while some considerable attention is paid to meats. Could you add some info commenting on what chiles were typically used? For example, I'm curious, did the chile queens of Old San Antonio use chipotles, arbols, poblanos, anchos, or what?

BTW, I vote in favor of having an example recipe of each type of chili. It seems very odd to have a recipe for vegetarian chili and not for the other, more traditional types.

--Josh Berkus, once of San Antonio, now of California and a vegetarian.

I agree. Why should there only be one single recipe for "vegitarian" chili, and no others. If no one adds any other recipes, I will remove the recipe three days from now. Rsm99833

Per previous notification I am removing the vegitarian recipe. Rsm99833

I changed the picture

I changed the picture to the one used for the chili template since you can see the ingredients - meat, beans - better and I thought it looked better than the one with the pot. If you want to change it back, go ahead. --Blue387 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Blue. I couldn't bear to look at that crap from a can that Ashley posted. And the whole Wikipedia picture policy these days is demoralizing. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Weather.

Texicans never say "northern". A cold front moving into Texas is always referred to by Texans as "norther" without an "n" on the end. The quote of Ladybird Johnson is obviosly in error.

67.128.188.29Don Granberry.

More on worldwide variations?

I've always had chili con carne with red kidney beans and rice in the UK. Never thought of it as a stew-like dish, but more as a Mexican dish. Well, well, you live and learn! But it would be nice to have some of the regional variations in the article. Carcharoth 07:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of Chilli ala UK. Can anyone else confirm this? Rsm99833 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Every culture has its own "stew," Carcharoth -- although in Mexico, that culinary niche is mostly filled by guizo. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing a look-around, and frankly I can't find any sources that would justify keeping U.K. chilli in as a catagory. If no real objections are raised by Friday, I'm removing it. Rsm99833 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly if I put it back? The variant, as it was described in the article, is a pretty authentic artifact in British pubs, student unions, and the like. See here, for instance, or a comparison of various ready-meal chilli-con-carnes here (loads of kidney beans, and invariably served on a bed of white rice). Bolivian Unicyclist 16:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Having spent considerable time in the UK in an earlier phase of my life, I have a strong suspicion that the attitudes of Texans toward a "British version" of their national dish would be very similar to the snide remarks I always heard around London and Oxford regarding "American versions" of fish and chips. Really, you can find local adaptations of any sort of ethnic food in every other part of the world. Pizza in Tokyo often comes with squid on it. My Vietnamese daughter-in-law rolls her eyes at my rendition of spring rolls. My Cajun mother-in-law is adamant that I can't really make jambalaya, since I wasn't born here in Louisiana. And God knows, chefs in Mexico City justifiably bristle at what we Texans call "Mexican" food. There are thousands of similar cases, almost none of which are actually "variations" worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Which drinks go best with Chili con carne?

Any ideas and suggestions? Bernburgerin 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerveza (Beer), Rojo Grande (Big Red), Water,

10:22 B. Roth Austin, Tx Sept. 2 2006

Big Red? Are you nuts? Far too sweet. Dr. Pepper is better. Beer is good, Shiner Bock recommended. —SWalkerTTU 06:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

People are going to think I'm crazy or blasphemous but the best drink for chili is a tall, cool glass of milk -- unless your lactose intolerant. Especially the spicier ones: the creaminess cools off and takes the edge off of it. And young children can poor a little bit into their bowl to cool it down quicker if it's fresh off the stove. 69.95.235.226 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Milk is indeed traditional. It's something in the chemical reaction, which is why you also keep milk at hand if you're eating jalapenos out of hand. But beer is the thing in Texas (Shiner or Lone Star, but NEVER Coors). Or iced tea, which all Southerners drink, all year round, with everything. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

chili con carne to chili. Then move the current chili to chili (disambiguation). By far the most common term for this. Also, there are plenty of types of chili that don't contain meat. Voortle 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the dismbiguation page should stay. I believe the most common use is the actual pepper, anyway. -- Beardo 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Chili by itself most commonly refers to chili con carne. Voortle 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It might be most common in the US but not in Australia, for example - 'chilli' refers to the chilli pepper there. Remember that wikipedia represents (or is supposed to aim for) a world view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support definitely the most common term. Recury 16:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to move it. Rsm99833 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dab page good; land grab bad. If the potential meatlessness is an issue, look for alternatives like chili (dish). Bolivian Unicyclist 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, and just FYI, Chili without meat is known as Vegtable soup. Rsm99833 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and WP:UE -  AjaxSmack  18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The existing article is excellent -Ben 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per my reasons above. Also, all most chili cans and restaurant menus say simply "chili" . Voortle 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I mentioned before, chili refers to the dish mainly in the United States. It means different things in different locations and keeping it as-is allows everyone to get to the article that they'd expecting with the least fuss. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's some Google results:

"Chili" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22chili%22&btnG=Search 88,700,000 results

"Chili con carne" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22chili+con+carne%22&btnG=Search 1,120,000 results

"Can of chili" 23,700 results

"Can of chili con carne" 1,970 results

"Bowl of chili" 113,000 results

"Bowl of chili con carne" 5,160 results

"Chili can" 27,100 results

"Chili con carne can" 23 results

"Wendy's chili" 2,000 results

"Wendy's chili con carne" 0 results

It seems clear by these results that "chili" is the right term for this article. "chili con carne" is quite rare. This article should no more be at chili con carne, than piano should be at pianoforte, cello should be at violoncello and bus should be at omnibus. Voortle 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All cans? All menus? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Chili pepper", on the other hand, gets 8,550,000. Nobody's disputing that "chili" is the most common name for this dish -- just that "chili" most commonly refers to the dish rather than something else. -Ben 22:18, 13 September 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.

Weasel Words

Many sections of this article are swarming with Weasel Words. I plan to help fix this problem in the near future, anybody who would like to help me is more than welcome. Dunne409 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Only in U.S.?

I think this misses the point that variations of chili exist in Middle and South America (e.g. pozole and locro - links needed). There should also be a link to burgoo.

^ Yeah, I agree. Chili Con Carne is very popular not JUST in the US. There should definitely be more about the Central and South American variations. Also, in the UK - it's never eaten without rice as far as I know. I've never even encountered the notion that you would eat it without rice here.

This article is extremely US-centric, it should be more international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.91.106 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RIIIIICE???!!!!

In Southeast Texas people eat chili over white rice, much like one would eat gumbo, this is due to the proximity to Louisiana. This is also common in the United Kingdom.

I am from the very heart of Southeast Texas, and I am a Cajun. However, I'm also a Texan, and I therefore know that it is actually illegal to eat chili and rice together. I've lived here all my life, and I've never seen anyone do this. Ever. Blech. --Jfulbright 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How else does one eat it ? -- Beardo 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

With a spoon. If you need something else, roll up a soft corn tortilla and dunk. But no rice. Not with chili. Not EVER with chili. Also, Brits buy their chili at Tesco and their comments regarding chili should be politely ignored. (And I won't make comments about the "right way" to make fish and chips. . . .) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm... No. The comments of other people from other places on what they mean by chili con carne (or what it means to them) needs to be taken into account and represented here in this encyclopaedia. The original comments to the effect that this is a far to Yankee-centric entry are completely correct (and if you do not like the term Yankee used to describe all USA then do not slip into use of 'Brits'). The role of chili con carne in Texan culture ought (perhaps) to take centre stage but the rest of the world ought to be represented. Consider the alternative versions and presentations in the hispano-phone ([1]) or the germano-phone ([2]) wikipedias. The german wikipedia entry on chili con carne has featured article status, something this entry is a very long way from, and could be used as a model for how to make this entry worth-the-candle.Rykalski (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Also, Brits buy their chili at Tesco" What the hell were you on about? Since you're talking utter bollocks I suggest in future that 'your' comments regarding chili be politely ignored. I also detect there's a bit of insecurity regarding your status as a Texan on your user page. Perhaps that's why you're so keen to inform everyone else as to what the Texan state food should consist of. The amount of times I've seen an American make an awful Chili on youtube and an Italian completely balls up Bolognese Ragu indicates to me that ones place of origin means bugger all when it comes to cooking something 'authentically'. Also, I'd be willing to bet there are a vast amounts of brands that sell canned chili in Texas alone compared to what you'd find in a market in the UK. If you want to see an abomination of a traditional dish go over to the Cottage Pie page and see the anemic US version of it. Cheers. 78.151.34.140 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, I know plenty of Americans who eat chili with rice. I've been to several diners and restaurants that serve it that way. It might be frowned upon in Texas, but I think Texans occasionally need to be reminded that the way they do things there is not necessarily how things are done in the rest of the U.S.

Personally I prefer to eat it with corn bread -- which is another common/traditional way I've seen it served. —BMRR (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I eat chili with rice all the time. The white rice is a neutral flavor and provides a starch to accompany the protein and fat in the chilli. Long grain rice on bottom, chili on top, shredded cheese and maybe a splotch of sour cream in the middle. And then some lousiana hot sauce for extra heat around the bowl. I can't say if people in Texas eat it that way though. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.73.174 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

official dish ?

"Chili con carne is the official dish of the Mexican Culture"... How is that?? Who make it the Official dish of the entiiiireee mexican culture??? :S

Residual vandalism. Reverted. Bolivian Unicyclist 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mushrooms?

"If you substitute chunks of fresh mushrooms for the beans, you will cut the calorie content of your favorite chili recipe by at least a third, without sacrificing taste"

I can't be the only person to take issue with this appearing more than once. I wouldn't mind if it were just saying that mushroom can be a substitute for beans (though I wouldn't eat it) but saying that the calorific content will be decreased without mentioning the drawbacks of removing beans (I'm no nutritionist but I'm lead to believe that nearly all types of beans are considered miracle foods of sorts in their general goodforyouness) as well as suggesting that taste and texture wouldn't change. I'll put too many mushrooms in next time I make some, just to make sure--Shadebug 22:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? Vandalism?

I think the entire 'Similar Foods' section should be removed. I think anyone who has tried many of the culturally significant foods listed in this section would not see a similarity beyond the ingredient chilli. For example, 'Indian Curry' - although Indians eat a great deal of pulses, they do not typically eat pinto beans and for the majority hindu population, eating beef is offensive!

---

Greetings--

I'm the one who added the information to chili con carne regarding its similarity to serbian bean soup. I would very much like to know how you came to the conclusion that this represents vandalism or nonesense. I'm a reputable user, thank you, and I resent this implication. May I suggest you look at this rather typical recipe:

http://www.techsoup.org/community/souprecipe_detail.cfm?souprecipeid=103

and consider whether it is not considerably more like what is generally referred to as "chili con carne" than he Hungarian gulasch which you judged to be entirely acceptable? Yes, I think the reversion should be reverted, though I do not wish to enter an edit-war.

The reversion also restored the redundancy of mushroom-based chili, which I don't think is much of an improvement. Rather than get into flaming, I'll leave it to somone else to revert the reversion. DavidOaks 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What you added was, at best, a POV/commentary.Rsm99833 18:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no -- or at least not more so than the references to gulasch, etc. I take it you wish those removed as well? DavidOaks 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote: "Though not secret, by any means, if you substitute chunks of fresh mushrooms for the beans, you will cut the calorie content of your favorite chili recipe by at least a third, without sacrificing taste. The blandness of the white button mushroom soak up the flavors of the chiles, tomatoes, chili powder, etc. while helping the chili retain its consistency."

That's POV/Commentary.

If you want to take out the Goulash or re-write both, go for it.Rsm99833 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not write any such thing. In fact, I deleted the repetition of that. Please pay attention. I affirm that Serbian bean soup is held (in Austria) to be something like chili. At least as much like chili as goulasch is. Geez-looo-eeze, is this such a big hairy deal? DavidOaks 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Goulash is goulash, chili is chili. They're both regional (or local, or ethnic) versions of soup or stew, that's all. But saying somebody's bean soup is like chili is like saying Wienerschnitzel is just the Austrian version of chicken-fried steak. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chili Beans

I can see merging Chili Beans into Chili con carne. This is a regional dish in the easter united states that, as the article states, is very different from Texas-style Chili. Chili Beans is also very different from most canned "chili with beans" due to the high vegetable content and the fact it is unknown by this name as a homemade dish. I would like to see the content preserved though. If Cincinatti-style chili is given its own page, then I feel Chili Beans should continue to have its own page.

I think Chili (food) would be a better title for Chili con carne. But I agree that Chili should continue to represent the vegetable, as it is a far more common use for the term in a majority of countries.

As a 66 year old native texan with family Texan roots going back to the 1850's ... the whole mystery of what 'Texas' chili is defeats me. The mythical 'accepted' canon is that if it contains beans its not Chili, yet having eaten chili all over Texas from home made to greasy spoon dinners I have had it both ways from people who had no agenda about bean less vs 'beaned' chili. But a lot of passion is expended on arguents about chili.

Chili Burgers/Chili Size

Why is it considered appropriate to mention Cincinnatti-Style over noodles, UK and Louisiana style over rice, and various kinds of Chili Dogs but not Chili Burgers or Chili Size? Lots more people eat Chili Burgers than Cincinnatti-chili, and the Chili Size could be considered the defining dish of Los Angeles folk cuisine. A chili-burger is a hamburger with a small scoop of chili as a topping. It may have other ingredients in the bun like lettuce, tomato, jalapenos, onion, cheese, egg or condiments. A chili size is an open-faced chili burger with lots of chili, topped with chopped onions and grated Cheddar (preferred) or sliced American cheese (cheap). The name comes from using the same size ladle as used for a bowl of chili instead of using a small gravy ladle to dip the chili onto the burger.

Also, the people who complain that this article is too US-centric should go read a few cheese articles, most of which are absurdly UK-centric. The dish called chili in the US is not the same as similar dishes in most of Mexico or points south, it is a US dish originating in the cattle ranches of Texas and New Mexico and surrounding areas. It is appropriate that it center on discussion of the dish in the US. How can it possibly be too US-centric when it doesn't mention two of the most common ways of eating chili outside of Texas? Halfelven (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, it's a matter of WP:Undue. If you've got WP:RS indicating not only the existence but signficance of these two items, put them in. Sounds like these belong in the section on condiments? DavidOaks (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

South Park

Uhh, that South Park mention is kinda gross. Is it really necessary? 74.122.220.46 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on article

Folks,

I am a native Texan. I grew up in the 1950's with my mother making chile (we used to spell it that way)in our kitchen, along with barbeque on the grill, fried tortillas and homemade tamales. I'll save the rest for another time, but the chile discussion needs to be put to rest. By the way, I've got a scratchbuilt pot of red going on my stove as I write this. The original chile con carne was a ranch dish designed to allow Mexican cooks to feed hungry cowhands without too much concious thought. It varied with what the cooks had, which usually ran to dead cow of whatever description, chili peppers, garlic, onions, oregano, salt, dried beans, tomatoes if available, along with whatever else might be handy, such as sagebrush, masa harina, or double handfulls of suet. This is why there is no agreement on what the original recipe was. There wasn't one. The " Chili Queens" merely adapted this dish to their own needs.

The original "crackers" were hardtack or ship's biscuits which were commonly used in field diets in the 1870's. Consult Galton's Art of Travel. These were allowed to dissolve in the stew to make it more "ribsticking".

The classic Texas dish demands beef, suet (when cold, it should have an orange layer of this on top, this is not a health food), chili peppers in quantity, garlic, onions, cumin (lots, and of great fresh authority), and plenty of salt. Tomatoes and beans (pinto only, not anything else)are not abominations, but merely optional. The beef should be browned in the the suet, the onions and garlic should be browned with the meat, the other spices should be added with some water when it is put on to simmer. Beans should be soaked and boiled before being added so they are tender. What you do with the bean juice is a matter of taste.

The chile should be allowed to be cooled and reboiled over several days at least for premium taste. The finest chile I have ever eaten was at the Richelieu Grill (unfortunately out of business)in downtown Fort Worth in the early 1980's. Their pot had been going, like a solera port, for around ten years.

The thick versus thin argument is asinine. I personally prefer well boiled chile of some age. Others don't. Suit yourselves. Why not have different contests?

The one place that I won't yield on is on is about non-traditional fillers in chile. Green anything except hot green chili peppers shouldn't be there. There is a traditional Mexican border recipe for hot green chile con carne. It can remove paint, as they say, I love it, and have great respect for it. It's primarily from southern New Mexico. Olives, celery, etc., make great spaghetti sauce, not chile. Same for rice, kernel corn, and so forth. Tasty, but not chile.

I won't try to cite any authorities except Galton for the above. Where I come from, all of the above is common knowledge. It's also all true.

Regards,

Jim Sparr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.142.137 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, rationality and truthfulness, who let you in here? Likely people will find excuses to keep all this out of the article (original research, etc.), but this is good information. Thanks for sharing it. MrBook (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the notion; Mr. Sparr's common sense combined with knowledge are admirable. This article, although amusing, needs much work. The "origins" of certain foods tend to be drowned in regional nearsightedness across the board, and care should be taken to bypass these biases. As an example, I heard someone claim that pizza was "invented" in Italy. I mentioned that I thought attribution, of leavened flatbread with generic tasty items on it, to that region was not historically borne out. I believe such was being eaten a thousand years before the establishment of Rome, in places such as Sumeria. But I digress. I will maintain that any meat and chilie pepper stew (meaning cooked in a pot)is chili con carne, and that variations of it MUST have existed, by all anthropological knowledge, from ancient times in Mexico. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

merger proposals

Ok, I've proposed that Frito pie and Chili beans be merged into this article, mostly because they don't have enough information to stand on their own (though in the chili beans case, it's also ambiguous because chili bean is a kind of bean). I would also propose the following rule of thumb for the page: If you put it ON the chili, it's an addition (eg, cheese). If you put it UNDER the chili, it's a dish made with chili (eg, chili dog). If you mix it INTO the chili, it's a variation (eg, beans). Comments? FiveRings (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added Chili sin carne and Chile al lado la carne to the proposed merger. Cincinnati chili is a huge article and can stand on its own. The issue isn't the worthiness of the dish, its the amount of information currently recorded. FiveRings (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the separation of chili con carne and chili sin carne is a little counter-productive, and would also agree that as most people know the dish as "chili" (or if they know it as "chili con carne" then they still just mean "chili" with meat...) moving the articles would be justified. As the chili plant itself gets the most legitimate claim for the "chili" title, we could make a "chili_(dish)" article which mentions the "con carne" name and has a "sin carne" section somewhere. --Dgianotti (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Trivia Section

I have removed the trivia section and the accompanying trivia warning (11 months old). The contents are here in case of dissenting discussion:

"The Real Group made a song, entitled "Chile con Carne", detailing the process of making the dish."

The Real Group does have an entry, and although it is far from sparse, it does not seem to find this song significant enough for mention. The existance of the song does not lend insight to those interested in encyclopedic information on chili con carne.

"The country music duo Big & Rich refer to Skyline Chili, a type of Cincinnati chili, in the song Comin' to Your City."

Skyline chili is mentioned in the Cincinnati chili article, which is referenced by this article. This should be an adequate avenue to the relevant information for those interested.

"Apu from The Simpsons mentions "ancestor chili" as his favourite food."

Although it should go without saying that Simpson's references almost deserve to be deleted without the slightest consideration, I did look through the Apu article (which has been heavily edited and re-edited), which did not find this information significant enough to warrant mention. Again, as this gives no information about chili con carne itself, and as "ancestor chili" neither has an article nor a clear definition even in its stated context, it is not beneficial to this article.

"Chili dogs are the favorite food of the popular video game character Sonic the Hedgehog in his Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog TV series incarnation."

Similarly, this doesn't tell us anything about chili con carne. At best it would go in the chili dogs article... but no. It doesn't belong there either.

"A video game for the PSP titled Chili Con Carnage was released in 2007"

Even PSP isn't defined... but the video game doesn't have anything to do with chili con carne aside from the name, and the existance of the game does not help those with an interest in the dish.

"DC Comics superhero Green Arrow has a reputation among other heroes for scalding chili recipes, a source of regular humor in his stories."

Same as the above, and equally unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgianotti (talk • contribs) 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Ensenada theory

An alternative and more widely accepted theory holds that chili con carne was born in [[Ensenada, Mexico]] in the 1880s as a way poor [[Tejano]]s stretched available meat.{{Fact|date=August 2007}}. However, this theory does not take into account that Ensenada and Texas are very far from each other.

I removed the above from the origins section. The 2007 citation needed tag seems to have not been answered. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I am proposing that the article Cincinnati chili be merged into this one as it really only a local variant on of standard chili. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only thing that this notable regional dish has in common with chili con carne is the ground beef. This is a dish that has a completely different flavor profile and history and is served over pasta, not in a bowl. Expand & cleanup, sure, and I'm glad that you "took out the trash," so to speak, on some of the unsourced and poorly sourced comments, but cramming a few blurbs on this important food into a semi-related article would be a disservice. Cincy chili gets to the core of the Cincinnati culinary culture. For example, a resident of Cinti would, if craving "chili," still get some Texas-style con carne, but would consider Cincy chili to be a totally different food item. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Taxonomy notwithstanding, the Cincinnati Chili article is a complete entity unto itself (not just a stub). If it were still part of this article, I would be proposing a split-off. FiveRings (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Cincinnati chili is a unique local dish with its own style and flavor. It has very little in common with regular chili and deserves its own article. You really have to live here to understand it. Oldiesmann (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Cincinnati chili is not a variation of chili con carne. It is as Oldiesmann said above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.72.174 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - completely different sauces and flavor - chili con carne is spicy and savory, while Ohio chili is on the sweet side. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, far too different to warrant merging them into one article. J.H (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lentil chili in France

I've lived in France for many years and I've never come along lentil chili. The only thing remotely comparable they've got is a kind of lentil stew called 'salé aux lentilles', which never contains any pepper, and is usually eaten with sausage. --Valmi ✒ 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Cuisine

This is a Mexican dish. No matter what Americans would like people to think. Chili con carne or Chili as it's better known is a dish from Mexico. It's popularity in the America doesn't make it an American dish.

I disagree. I am Mexican and I consider Chile con Carne is a southwestern dish, and Chile con Carne, as is, isn't a well known dish here in Mexico. Wikifan21century (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AJI

Aji word is better than Chile, not to be confused with the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albedu (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed a lot of unencyclopedic diction and material, esp WP:OR and WP:cookbook. I tried to provide a few sources, tagged many spots where they are still needed. There's still a lot of cookbook-instruction left, but I hesitate to delete material that would provide a roadmap for people who want to source the ethnographic vairations on the dish and its status as a cultural icon. DavidOaks (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Space center

"Since 1995 chili has gained more and more popularity, especially after being referenced by 2010 Super Bowl champion Drew Brees. Sponsors of chili hope to have a basic layout and plans for an international space center drawn up by early 2013."

Excuse me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.59.163 (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Very dubious origins and history

It seems to me that whoever wrote the section on the origins and history section really wants it to seem like chili con carne originates from Mexico. Or at least that's the only way I can reconcile the Sister Maria de Agreda legend being displayed first with three citations, one from a cookbook (which I have not read, but I hesitate to consider a reliable source of history on its own), one from a restaurant website, and one from a website that actually claims as its very first point that chili almost certainly did NOT originate from Mexico. Now if the sources aren't dubious enough consider the story itself---Sister Maria de Agreda NEVER PHYSICALLY LEFT SPAIN. According to those sources cited, it's not even a Native American legend, it was invented by Spanish missionaries who claimed that Sister Maria de Agreda's spirit was the same figure as an Indian legend. And what does any of this have to do with the origin of chili? According to chili.com (one of the sites cited as a "reference"), "It is said that sister Mary wrote down the recipe for chili...". Says who? Citation needed? Anyone see a problem here? This dubious legend of dubious origin of dubious relevance from dubious sources---not anything resembling historical evidence.

The next item, the history of chili peppers, is barely relevant. Why not also give the origin of cows? The origin of a single ingredient does not determine the origin of a dish.

Then we have a definition of masa, without any reference to its relevance to the origins or history of chili.

These three items are the only bits I see that could possibly be construed as support for the Mexican origin of chili. As such, I consider the Mexican origin theory completely unsupported by any reliable evidence presented in this article. As such, I will delete these items even though I have no replacement, because I don't think misleading and irrelevant information is better than nothing.

This is all really shameful, people. Mexican origin proponents, if you're sure you're right, then get some real evidence. Don't just scour the internet for dubious sources and cherry pick them to support the conclusion you want.

66.31.30.145 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I see that the Sister Maria de Agreda story is actually in support of the Southwestern U.S. origin. not Mexican origin. My irritation was a bit misdirected. My apologies to Mexican origin proponents. This doesn't change the fact that the story is dubious and of dubious relevance and no evidential support has been given for Mexican origin.

66.31.30.145 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the section needs a rewrite, but you're misunderstanding something really basic here -- what you deleted was information about a legend of origins, rather than claims about the fact of those origins. You seem to have some sort of separate and private concern about geographical origins, which I don't think is relevant to this particular question. It is clearly identified as such, sourced as such, and should remain. The relevance of masa and chilis is questionable; if someone sees the info as significant and can source it appropirately, they should do so. DavidOaks (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Been looking into origins a little more, and here's a comparatviely early one that definitely excludes Mexico: "Chili, which some condsider Texas's state dish, was unknown in Mexico and derived from the ample use of beef in Texan cooking." ; "the only persons who deny [Mexican] provenance more vehemently than the Texans, who claim credit for it, are the Mexicans, who deny paternity with something like indignation...This dish is believed to have been invented in the city of San Antonio some time after the Civil War; it grew in favor after the developement of chili powder in New Braunfels in 1902." "Frank X. Tolbert, perhaps the nation's leading historian on the subject of chili, indicates in his book, A Bowl of Red, his assurance that chili originated in San Antonio, Texas." And this one includes the bizarre legend: "Although archaeological evidence indicates that chile peppers evolved in Mexico and South America, most writers on the subject state flatly that chili did not orginate in Mexico. Even Mexico disclaims chili; one Mexican dictionary defines it as: "A detestable dish sold from Texas to New York City and errouneously described as Mexican." Despite such protestations, the combiantion of meat and chile peppers in stew-like concoctions is not uncommon in Mexican cooking...Mexican caldillos (thick soups or stews), moles (meaning "mixture"), and adobos (thick sauces) often resemble chili con carne in both appearance and taste because they all sometimes use similar ingredients: various types of chiles combined with meat (usually beef), onions, garlic, cumin, and occasionally tomatoes. But chili con carne fanatics tell strange tales about the possible origin of chili. The story of the "lady in blue" tells of Sister Mary of Agreda, a Spanish nun in the early 1600s who never left her convent in Spain but nonetheless had out-of-body experiences during which her spirit would be transported across the Atlantic to preach Christianity to the Indians. After one of the return trips, her spirit wrote down the first recipe for chili con carne, which the Indians gage her: chile peppers, venison, onions, and tomatoes." All of these sources were assembled already at foodtimeline.org[3] The upshot, I think, is that the concept of stew (i.e., put different things together with liquid and cook) comes pretty close to universality, and this particular stew gets a Spanish name, though it involves a key ingredient unknown to pre-columbian Europeans. Wikipedia is not the place for people to turf out culinary chauvinism; we should just report conflicting claims (including legendary ones, which, for something as obvious as stew, are as valid as any) DavidOaks (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for researching. I found your block of text somewhat hard to read due to lack of formatting but I read through it and I have some thoughts:

1. On the geographic origin of chili. So chili peppers may have evolved in South America and Mexico. What about cattle? I would say beef is as much a key ingredient of chili as chili peppers (sure some people substitute the beef, some people omit the chilis, and some people do both and still call it chili). Cattle do not come from the Americas. Do I get to say chili is of European origin because cattle were unknown to Mexico and Texas before the Europeans introduced them? No, one ingredient, even the key ingredient, does not determine the origin of chili. The recipe determines the origin of chili. And in spite of any resemblance to other stews or Mexican recipes, there is enough of a difference that Mexicans don't want it to be called Mexican. Now there are claims from Mexico that chili comes from Texas, and claims from Texas that comes from Texas, so at this point I am inclined to say Texas is definitely a better place of origin for the info box than Mexico. Call me chauvinistic or any other epithet you like, but I just don't see any serious support for the Mexico claim and I /don't/ think we should simply report every conflicting claim no matter how insignificant.

2. On the Sister Mary of Agreda story. OK, you seem to have found a source for this legend. It seems better than the sources that were there before (a cookbook, chili.com, and a restaurant website). I think the restaurant website at the very least should be removed---I don't think it's necessary to reference every single website that repeats this story. Now if I recall the article as it was before presented the story as a Native American legend (it's not---it's a chili fanatic legend), and implied that the Native Americans associated the "lady in blue" with Sister Mary of Agreda (the Spanish missionaries did, not the Native Americans), and didn't mention (or at least I missed it) that Sister Mary of Agreda was in Spain the whole time having these out of body experiences. All of which made the story seem more credible than it really is. If you think this incredible story is important to the history of chili, then put it in, but with proper attributions and in its fully incredible form. Personally, when I read about the origins and history of things, the first thing I am looking for is not a fishy tale spread among fanatics, but if you think that's what an encyclopedia should be I won't edit war anymore over this.

3. On the chili pepper blurb and masa definition. I deleted these because they are disruptive to the origins and history section, not because they aren't true. I think the history of chilis belongs in the chili pepper article (which the curious reader should read) and the masa definition likewise belongs in the masa article. Now, if these can be worked in non-disruptively into the section I have no problem, I just think they aren't necessary and are disruptive as they stand.

I honestly think my deletions improved the article. I don't think more is always better. I think an encyclopedia article should present a coherent introduction to a topic, enough to satisfy idle curiosity and sufficient as a starting point for research. I don't think it has to to be a comprehensive smorgasbord of everything anybody ever said on the subject. People who want that can do their own research. But if you really think the article was better before my deletions, go ahead and revert again; I won't continue an edit war over this.

66.31.30.145 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) )outdent_ I begin to see the origins issue in a new light. Given the fact that a dish like chili is authoritatively described prior to 1835, when Texas split from Mexico -- and I mention this only to hiughlight the artificiality of border distinctions for things like cookery -- maybe we need some option other than Texas and Mexico for that line in the infobox, and within the article be less border-oriented. DavidOaks (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to put Texas in the info box. It's geographically and culturally accurate. Sure, Texas isn't a country now and it wasn't when chili was first described (1828 if we're on the same page), but I think the problem is that the info box field is "country" and not simply "region". Technically, "Historical Mexico" and "Modern U.S." could both satisfy the "country" field but I think they're silly---more wordy, less accurate, and probably not what people want to know.

66.31.30.145 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chili con carne/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is, unfortunately, far too American-centric. There are numerous errors as soon as it strays outside the USA. As for saying that chili lentils are widely consumed in France, I live in France and have never, ever seen or heard of this. Lentils, of course. Chili, rarely. Together? Never.

Last edited at 09:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)