Talk:Capsicum frutescens

Facing heaven pepper
Is the Facing heaven pepper C. frutescens? Badagnani (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible synonymy with Capsicum annuum
Is this the case? If so, shall we merge? What of the content here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Anna, it's quite a complicated matter to put together a lot of citations for this. So far, I've just added the Flora of China reference because it is readily available online. If you look here, though, since 1993, taxonomists are in agreement that it doesn't make sense to separate out C. frutescens. I haven't yet been to the library to follow up on those other books.
 * If you'd rather go a different route, using the older literature, just let me know and I'll step away from the Capsicum pages.
 * If we carry on in the direction that I've been pushing things so far, it will take a while to figure out where every one of the individual cultivars belongs.
 * P.S. I couldn't see anything of particularly compelling value in what is on this page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it retained at an infraspecific rank?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Curtis. The combination Capsicum annuum var. frutescens (L.) Kuntze has been made, but it isn't accepted by TPL, though C. annuum var. glabriusculum is accepted. An illuminating paragraph about this appears in the Flora of China treatment, here, the last paragraph in the introductory text. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sminthopsis84: Please don't step away. We need you on this. It is I who will step away because I have no expertise in this matter. I will watch from the sidelines and learn. Let me know if you need merge help or anything else. Good luck, and may the spice be with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes considered?
The article states "Capsicum frutescens is a species of chili pepper that is sometimes considered to be part of the species Capsicum chinense..."

And then I guess, sometimes it's not. I'm a computer scientist - so I guess I don't deal well with ambiguity. But come on. Is this really science? Is this the best we can do? This is PRECISELY how we get 'flat earthers' and folks who deny science. Because apparently people who decide things like "species" (and no, I am not calling them 'botanists' or 'scientists' or anything else) - get to change their minds on a whim. In my world of science and physics, we either Know or we Don't Know. We don't have the luxury of saying "sometimes" and or "maybe". And I don't think those words are appropriate for an "encyclopedia" - even if it is WP and free. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with your assessment. Even if the main source is a plant genetics paper outside your expertise, you could apply Wikipedia's open editing policy and go ahead with a grammatical edit, likely stimulating experts (not me) to review for WP:V of the sentence, as I attempted here. The encyclopedia is intended to be dynamic, so it is usually improved when an editor makes a good faith attempt to write for clarity. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)