Talk:Carolina Reaper/Archive 1

Needs re-written
This whole article needs re-written. Issues as I see them: 1. Ed curry has been quite secretive about what varieties were crossed, so we don't know what peppers were used. Jim Duffy (the cited source) is a competitor to Curry, and would have had no first hand knowledge of the crosses made in the creation of the pepper. Secondly it mentions in the article two different peppers than the ones mentioned in the entry for the Carolina Reaper (ghost and red hab vs pakistani naga and red hab). Others have speculated that the Primo was a progenitor. However Ed Remains silent, and so how can we say as fact any pepper is in the heritage?

2. Its a food, but no description of flavor. Every pepper contains a different blend of the five capsaicinoids, it is not mentioned which of the five this one manifests most strongly. Further each pepper affects different parts of the mouth differently - some burn the tongue, or the throat more strongly than the roof of the mouth, or other areas. This ought to be documented and included as well. 3. Unlike other peppers, the heat scale thermometer is not listed in the article. 4. There is controversy over the consumption record(s). Yet the article reads as though one won it, then the other, whereas the reality seems to be that there are two separate records. this is not mentioned. 5. Finally, it almost reads more like a press release from Puckerbutt than an article written by wikipedia. ~jsschrstrcks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.172.5 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed the infobox thermometer, added hottest to the template and updated, the scale should appear now. Check out the Bhut jolokia article regarding ghost vs. naga. You would need sources for everything else.Falconjh (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am finding nothing substantial regarding Primo being the progenitor; a blog post regarding hot sauces is the most "substantial" thing and a reddit post showing they are of a similar SHU (which is to be expected and why the records are based (now) on averages). I am also not finding anything at all other than on this exact talk page regarding consumption record controversy (which didn't provide any sources regarding the subject). Added a description of the taste. Sources are needed for the remainder of your problem points. Falconjh (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making some of the changes. I'm googling sources for stuff thats been part of the pepper head community common knowledge base for some time. Other than the link that cites Jim Duffy (a questionable source - a bit like asking Steve Jobs to explain how windows works... Or asking Google to describe an android) I can find no source reputable (non forum) sources that indicate any pepper(s) as being in the makeup of the Reaper. Tony Primeaux breeder of the primo pepper (And well known musician) is the source for the idea that the primo was part of the background - never the less that has reached almost gospel status in the pepper community by those who have raised both cultivars side by side based upon the phenotype. However, if you call Curry and ask him, he will say that he talked early on about what peppers he bred together, but after a meeting with pepperjoe (of the same named seed sales website) he had the parentage removed from the internet to the extent that he could, in favor of keeping it private. Here is a link that suggests the Reaper IS the same thing as a Primo. Thechileman is an authority on peppers. They have a database of every known cultivar of pepper with description and pictures where available. http://www.thechileman.org/naga_morich.php scroll down to the section that discusses the Carolina Reaper. Thehotpepper.com forum has as its member Tony P, and he talked pretty openly about its heritage.

RE ghost vs naga - that is true for some varieties, but (and read the ghost pepper page for your self) the Pakistani Naga is not a part of the ghost pepper label. The pakistani naga was discovered AFTER the ghost pepper had been certified by G. I have 17 cultivars of Naga in my personal collection, and yet only two cultivars with Naga in the name fall under the umbrella of Ghost (Red Naga, and a hybrid based on it called naga jolokia). Further the Pakistani Naga is a unique cultivar from Pakistan, and not India (red naga being from India). Even though Pakistan and India are side by side, and share borders, both landrace varieties have been undergoing domestication and selection apart from each other for a number of years now - so even if they were once picked from the same field (and they were not), genetically they are now distinct from each other. The long and short of it is, that the connection to the ghost pepper is furtive at best.

As to their being multiple capsaicinoids, the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin) is pretty clear on that front. The sixth capsacinoid mentioned in that page is synthetic and as such not found in nature. As to the different chemicals having a different effect, its late and I'm tired.

Finally an additional gripe. On the Ghost Pepper page is a list of characteristics of the ghost pepper (eg size, shape, color, etc). This information is not listed in this article. Seems an encyclopedia would strive for some symmetry across articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.172.5 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that the Chileman link should be enough to mention the suggestion of them being the same pepper. The forum however doesn't usually meet sourcing requirements. Regarding where the pepper comes from I added yesterday the PRI link which has that it was a cross between the Naga and Habanero and includes a recent interview with Currie. Even your Chileman link suggests that Naga and Ghost Pepper are referring to the same type of pepper, separating by landraces would not in general be a helpful thing to do; updating the displayed text to be accurate seems reasonable though. I wasn't questioning the different Capsaicinoids but rather asking for properly sourced information regarding the Carolina Reaper on the subject; I can find non-reliable sources that suggest that it is something like NDC 1.8%, C 70%, DC 30% and I imagine the average is close to that; but what is needed are not individuals posting pictures of their own samples from testing but preferably a paper on the subject and barring that, getting a newspaper to write it up (though if med decides it counts as MEDRS then it would basically never be able to be posted). Obviously there should be more of a description of the pepper. The page isn't currently under edit protection btw so you are able to edit it yourself. Falconjh (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much like a commercial?
I'm thinking of adding http://puckerbuttpeppercompany.com/ to references. However, it's an e-commerce site. I'm not sure that's OK, so letting next person to read this talk page decide. It does seem reasonable to provide a link to varietys' breeders, though. 2601:1:9280:155:987C:1CA3:CA3D:8599 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion
Thought the trinidad moruga scorpion was the spiciest pepper. Can we go ahead and up front say _____is the spiciest pepper as to make it less confusing?

Let me know if you have a reply.

Yours,

Johannon (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Spam for Crazy Hot Seeds I removed a link to www.crazyhotseeds. com. It was obviously someone trying to sell seeds by saying they have something hotter than the Carolina Reaper. If the Chocolate Bhutlah turns out to be hotter fine, if folk want to include its mention, fine. But to point a reference to a commercial site selling seeds for that pepper is just plain abuse of Wikipedia.

You want to advertise your seeds, you go out and buy some advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B111:58C2:158A:2996:B45C:D9EA (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

actual capsaicin concentration?
At 1.6 million Scoville units, and using the very old, very approximate rule of thumb that every 100,000 Scoville units = 1% capsaicin resin by weight in fresh (not dried) fruits, would it be accurate to say that these are around 16% capsaicin resin by weight, before they're even dried?

If that's true, then these peppers, fresh off the stalk, have a greater concentration of capsaicin in them than the pepper sprays that are sold to law enforcement for riot control.

And if THAT is true, that is in my opinion certainly an encyclopedia-worthy fact to mention about this cultivar of pepper.

So, does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.153.75 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the question of whether the measurement is by dried or by wet is something I am wondering myself and have been trying to find out; The Chile Pepper Institute tends to measure things via dry measure, not wet, so when people give the measure of a jalapeno for comparison if it is by dry they are very wrong as there is a ~10x difference between the two measures, it wouldn't be quite so large for this type of pepper but it would still be nice to know if apples are being compared to apples or not and what the SHU measure actually means in this case. Falconjh (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In looking for references to the suggested idea that the Carolina comes from the Primo there was on reddit a post that shows that the measure is the dry, not wet and that the wet measure is in the 200,000 SHU total. Obviously, someone's photo of a chemical SHU test isn't the best source, and having similar SHU says nothing whatsoever regarding Primo vs. Carolina.Falconjh (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * at what point will we develop a chile pepper that is so hot, no one can safely eat it. would we still put it in the food and drink project, or shouldnt it be in the dissociatives/delierients projects, as i believe the endorphin rush can cause hallucinations.2602:304:CFD0:6350:B8EC:8977:40FE:3CE7 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
The infobox lacks the heat meter, and because the other pepper pages have it, I want to add the "| heat= Exceptionally Hot" code to the infobox code.

2606:A000:6785:1900:D570:4C7C:6E30:2F05 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 21:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2016
Jason McNabb's record time as beating Russel Todd is in dispute with the Guinness Book of World Records, as the two competitions reflected different rules and, therefore, different records. According to the rules set by the Guinness Book of World Records at the New York Hot Sauce Expo on March 30, 2014, each competitor was required to (1) thoroughly chew each Carolina Reaper and (2) show the Guinness representative his or her empty mouth after swallowing each Reaper. At the competition, Russel Todd won with a time of 12.23 seconds. At the competition that Mr. McNabb competed, which was recorded, the rules of his competition required only eating the Carolina Reaper; it did not require chewing each Reaper or showing an empty mouth to any representative. As such, Mr. McNabb's time reflects a record distinct from that achieved by Russel Todd, not a replacement of the earlier record. Guinness can confirm that this challenge.

Additionally, Russel Todd is also the Guinness World Record Holder for eating the most Carolina Reapers in three minutes, a record earned the following year on April 26, 2015, at the Guinness-hosted event at the 2015 New York Hot Sauce Expo. Deirdre Kamber Todd (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9zB8O6HdeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9zB8O6HdeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9zB8O6HdeE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.51.25 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carolina Reaper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701135227/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/worlds-hottest-pepper-grown-south-carolina to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/worlds-hottest-pepper-grown-south-carolina

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name?
I came here to find out what it is, and why it is so called. My first question was answered. Any clues about the second: "Reaper"? --08:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This WIKI page contains potential Guinness TRADEMARK violations?
I am proposing adding to this page the following-- Since Guinness owns the US Registered Trademark on the term “world records” for “record breaking events or occurrences, whether relating to human beings, natural phenomena or otherwise occurring, record breaking attempts and outstanding and unusual achievements, failures and occurrences”, then any claim for the world’s hottest pepper must be confirmed by Guinness to be valid, and any claim not confirmed listed on this page, could be a violation of their US registered trademark. (The reference is --TESS - U.S. Trademark Search System, Registration No. 2966190).

I added this paragraph a few days ago, but was removed. I think that the Wiki pages should respect all registered trademark owners, when any postings potentially violate those trademarks--it should be noted, or the potential violations completely removed? In this particular trademark's case, it would be any claims for the world's hottest peppers, that have not been confirmed by Guinness, including any higher claims over the already confirmed 1.5 million Scovilles for the Carolina Reaper, that also have not been confirmed by Guinness? Otherwise we are encouraging a wild, wild West situation for these unconfirmed claims that potentially violate Guinness' registered trademark?CraigCarlton (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton
 * No. The purpose of the article is to talk about the pepper, not promote a trademark. It was rightly removed, and if found on other articles, it will be removed from them as well.  We link to sources which substantiate the claims.  That's all.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After discovering that the only thing your account is doing is adding this same boilerplate warning about trademark issues to articles, I've left a warning on your talk page. Adding this material back when it obviously has no consensus is disruptive editing, and will be treated as such.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please


 * 1) prove your claim that "world record" is a registered trademark. I would be very surprised if this is correct. "Guinness World Record" is very likely a registered trademark, but I doubt very much that "world record" is.
 * 2) discuss why (in the unlikely event that your claim is correct) that Wikipedia should ignore all other reliable sources. We just had a Winter Olympics. World records were set. You seem to be saying that no-one can refer to these new records as world records until Guinness gets around to publishing them. Meters (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC) copied and modified from users talk page at 20:51, 25 February 2018
 * I'm tired of this. Since you don't seem to understand what the problem is, or how to do things properly, and since I don't believe your claim in the fist place, I'm going to look into this and see if I can end this. Meters (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC) copied and modified from users talk page at 20:51, 25 February 2018
 * Yes, as I expected, your claim is completely incorrect. The trademark discussed in TESS Registration No. 2966190 is 'Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of an oval with the words "GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS" bordering the interior portion of the oval; a single star positioned over a pedestal appears in the center of the oval'. So, "World Record" is not a trademarked term. Don't make this claim again, and don't remove material from add material to Carolina Reaper or Pepper X or Dragon's Breath (chili pepper)  or any other article again based on your misunderstanding of what the actual trade mark is or what rights it gives the trade mark owner.  Hint, it does not prevent people from using the term. Meters (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC) replies by Meters were originally posted to user's talk page with these time stamps, and were slightly modified when copied here 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping me if he continues this and I will block him myself. This is ridiculous.  I hope he will just find something useful to do, but if not, then it will be his own fault.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

CraigCarlton's reply--

It is always up to the trademark owner to enforce their trademarks. And Guinness has always been the final word on which pepper is currently the World's Hottest, at least since 1983, originally called in their book, the "World's Hottest Spice." Since 1983, there has not been any "World Record" hottest pepper official arbiter, other than Guinness. So, any "World's Hottest Pepper" claims since then, have always been decided by Guinness, currently with a lab test presented to them, to confirm those claims.  I am just asking questions about the three "World's Record" hottest claims on WIKI that have not yet been confirmed by Guinness--the Carolina Reaper 2.2 million Scoville unconfirmed claim, the Dragon's Breath unconfirmed claim, and the Pepper X unconfirmed claim The WIKI community should be the ones to decide what is included or taken out of WIKI. Apparently the "World Record" hottest pepper is important enough of a WIKI topic, to expend this much time to write all of this text to discuss it? That is why I am suggesting, we let the WIKI community decide what to do about the three unconfirmed "World Record" hottest pepper claims on WIKI, and also let Guinness' trademark lawyers decide what they want to enforce, if any enforcing is needed? Respectfully submitted to the WIKI community.CraigCarlton (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)CraigCarlton
 * Guinness only has a very specific trademark, they can't have a general trademark. They are also not the only organization to have determined the record heat as the New Mexico Chile Pepper Institute has also had their own record holders and unlike self submitted lab results they grew many varieties of peppers and compared the results. Falconjh (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research
The section below was removed because it is WP:OR, is news (see WP:RECENTISM), is off topic per WP:OFFTOPIC, and is not supported by WP:MEDRS reviews. It is original research-speculation. --Zefr (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In April, 2018 an unidentified 34 year old man was hospitalized after consuming a whole pepper. Scans of his brain revealed that his left internal carotid artery had narrowed "substantialy" resulting in a diagnoses of RCVS. Previously, this syndrome had only been found in cases associated with ergotamine or triptans as well as illicit drugs. Although this case was the first to be associated with eating chili peppers, previous scientific literature had found that eating cayenne pepper was linked to a sudden constriction of the coronary artery. The effects of RCVS have led to strokes (very rare) in some patients if the condition is severe enough.
 * This is covered in multiple sources and has been medically diagnosed.... I also do not approve of your edit warring. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not encyclopedic information supported by WP:MEDASSESS reviews. It is overinterpretation and hyped news. --Zefr (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't a medical article, so WP:MEDRS isn't as issue since no one is claiming the pepper to be medicine. I've added back the text and source.  CNN is a good enough to source to make the claims made, ie: that the pepper put someone in the hospital.  While that is an extreme outcome and not common, so is the pepper itself.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this thread when I undid a recent removal of this material that cited original research. I fail to see how material that is accurately sourced to CBS and CNN can be construed as original research by the editor who added the material (and of course that is what WP:OR pertains to). I did remove the final sentence "The effects of RCVS have led to strokes (very rare) in some patients if the condition is severe enough." since it seemed to me to be outside the scope of this article. There's no need to discuss a relatively rare possible outcome of the syndrome when we are discussing one particular case which did not result in that outcome. the link is there for anyone who wished to read about the syndrome. Meters (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the modification, but it is silly to call it original research when it is sourced to CNN. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted it back yet again. WP:MEDRS isn't at issue here, as no one is making medical claims.  The article speaks of an event, not that it is a drug.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again I've reverted someone who won't discuss and instead wants to just warn me and template me.  No rationale has been given as to why this requires MEDRS, just an unsubstantiated claim.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since won't discuss and only wants to threaten to report me (by all means, report if you must...), lets see how this plays out.  I've reverted all I expect to for today, but I still haven't seen any rationale given for his claim.  All I've seen is an unwillingness to do anything but revert so far.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is not a news feed, WP:NOTNEWS, which is all the content you want to add represents. You are trying to make a "mountain out of a mole hill" concerning health effects, and are using WP:RECENTISM as if the content had substance. Consensus on a Talk page occurs if more than 3 editors agree on a topic after fair discussion with everyone concerned. You do not have consensus, and are not adding durable encyclopedic content. Also, you have violated WP:3RR and will be reported. --Zefr (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please report it, where your math can be checked and corrected. You have not forwarded an argument why MEDRS applies, as a matter of fact, it took goading to even get you to reply here at all.  I'm willing to listen to WHY MEDRS is needed, but you refuse to do anything but make unsubstantiated claims and revert editors.  So please do tell why MEDRS applies here.  NOTNEWS certainly doesn't apply here, because that applies to subject matter, not individual content within an article that has already passed WP:GNG.  RECENTISM obviously doesn't apply as it doesn't change the neutrality of the article as there are zero other incidents listed in the article.  So again, provide a rationale other than you don't like it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree with Dennis Brown's analysis, and I see no 3RR violation by Dennis Brown. I also see no consensus that this well sourced material should not be in the article. If anything I see consensus that the objections to its inclusion (raised here by only one editor) are not valid, I'm restoring it. Meters (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We're writing content for an encyclopedia, not a journal or a newspaper. That's why MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS exist to guide choice of high-quality, evidence-based reviews or a meta-analysis of completed clinical trials. The news items you're trying to add are WP:RECENTISM, i.e., sensationalized news items unworthy of an encyclopedia. We also depend on consensus on a Talk page to confirm among editors that new content is warranted and adequately supported. The WP:BURDEN is on you. --Zefr (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What clinical trials? I don't think you understand the policies you are quoting, at all.  This is not a medical article, nor is anyone making medical claims.  MEDRS is irrelevant.  I've already explained that recentism is irrelevant as well.  Have you actually READ these policies?  Again, recentism is about NPOV.  How does the inclusion violate the neutral tone of the article? Saying it is "unworthy of an encyclopedia" has no basis in policy.  The burden is met when multiple people want the content and only one is deleting it.  You really, really need to read these policies and not just read the header, then link them.  WP:3RR is a good example.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the world does this constitute consensus to include this? That the person suffered something shortly after having eaten a pepper is not proof that the pepper actually had anything do with it (as is covered in the MEDRS guidelines, you are attempting to put up something that is the absolute worst level of medical evidence into an encyclopedia. Falconjh (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was medically diagnosed as suffering RCVS from eating the peppers. CNN reported that. We are reporting what the source said. The CBS source confirmed the report. Meters (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't even go as far in the article as the sources do. Meters (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From MEDRS: "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Is this biomedical information? Yes, absolutely it is based on news reports of a case (which incidentally is using a different case report to justify what they are saying: that cayenne pepper "was linked to a sudden constriction of the coronary artery" as stated is also biomedical information therefore MEDRS and under what has been cited is also not established enough for inclusion). CNN may be a reliable news source, but it is not a reliable medical source, and even the cited medical sources are not reliable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In ten years (per recentism) that one person suffered a medical incident shortly after consuming this pepper (out of everyone that has consumed superhots (or even peppers, not bell, generally per the Cayenne statement)) will either be an oddity suggesting misdiagnoses of the causation or more cases will emerge and studies will demonstrate the validity of the diagnoses, which those studies would more likely be reliable sources; in either case this case report will not be by itself of interest in ten years. Falconjh (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec with following post) Notability has nothing to do with whether material is included in articles, and a few hours ago you removed this claiming it was original research. I'm not very confident in your current analysis. Meters (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the Project Medicine page for the edit and conversation to be reviewed. It is original research as already described on this talk page, but hopefully others will better be able to clarify this matter. Falconjh (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the article User Meters. I wish to draw your attention to this conversation as well. I and User:Knowledgekid87 had not long ago with User:Zefr. GharouniTalk 04:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I maintain my opinion that the information presented in the news article of a "first of its kind" is noteworthy enough for inclusion. I am fine with rewording the paragraph though per below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am very hesitant to support the use of the popular press for anything medical as they more often than not get it wrong.
 * We have reviews for the condition in question. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28456915 but does not mention peppers.
 * Per here and the list of stuff that can potentially trigger RCVS is long and varied. But also not mention though catecholamines are listed which I am sure eating one of these would trigger.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that there are many triggers for RCVS, this particular case though had to do with this exceptionally hot chili pepper which wasn't known before. I suppose the section could be moved to Chili pepper to describe the health effects in general regarding the food rather than single out this one case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "an unidentified 34 year old man was hospitalized after consuming a whole pepper" ... So, are these peppers always exactly the same size? Wouldn't the reaction depend on how much chili was ingested? Or is there more variability in reactions between different people? Nevertheless, I'd suggest the general reader would find this report interesting, regardless of the exact medical science behind it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is one of the points, it is of general interest. I'm not opposed to being cautious in how we present the information, so we aren't making medical claims, but I don't think that is hard to do.  The fact that a pepper can cause a reaction strong enough to require hospitalization is noteworthy in the article on the rather unique pepper.  I could understand debating the wording, but making random claims of policy violation for the sake of reverting isn't the same as discussion, it is tendentious editing.  It is noteworthy, now lets discuss how to include where the majority are comfortable with the wording.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was so angry I almost had a fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the actual medical case report states: "it is plausible that our patient had RCVS secondary to the ‘Carolina Reaper.’" They aren't even claiming that it was absolutely the cause, that the news reports that covered the case went much further than that is not justified, news reports are supposed to be secondary sources and them making claims beyond the case report should never be considered something reliable. The takeaway from the case report doesn't actually mention Carolina Reaper but cayenne pepper; the last two sentences certainly don't belong on this article but either on Chili Pepper or possibly Capsaicin, assuming they are reliable enough for inclusion in either. Falconjh (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear here, we are talking about two different cases. One dealt with the Reaper while the other linked cayenne pepper to coronary artery issues in the case of a 25 year old male. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the case with Carolina Reaper has as a take away cayenne pepper not Carolina Reaper and the quote is from the Carolina Reaper article.Falconjh (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this isn't clear at all. Assuming that we are not considering any "secondary" popular press reports at all, which is the one medical case report source, which you are quoting, that we are meant to be using exclusively? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2018/bcr-2017-224085.full Falconjh (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is not a reliable source per MEDRS. Kim D. Petersen 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion feels a bit ridiculous. This isn't a medical article.  It has been reported, in numerous generally-acceptable secondary sources, and in a medical journal, that a man ate a Carolina Reaper, and subsequently was admitted to hospital and received a particular diagnosis; with all the sources linking the diagnosis (whether or not with 100% confidence) to the eating of the pepper.  We are simply reporting the event.  I don't think that is making medical claims; it is reporting an event, as covered in the ordinary reliable sources as per core Wikipedia content policies.
 * Any given event will not necessarily ever be covered in a systematic review. If Christiano Ronaldo falls over and fractures his fibula, technically that is medical information; but there is unlikely to ever be a peer-reviewed systematic review of The Ronaldo Leg Break. That doesn't mean we can't mention it until there is.
 * Yes, we need to make sure we aren't making specific medical claims we can't justify, or going beyond the sources, but it sounds like it is being suggested that we can't mention any event that could be described as medically-related unless it has been covered by a systematic review. That would be ridiculous.
 * If anything many of the arguments above feel like they are the ones engaging in WP:OR - several editors seem to disagree with what is in the sources, so argue for non-inclusion even of what is in the TSP (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is clear is those who have participated in MEDRS debates and those who have not, per MEDRS: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article" so that this isn't a medical article is not at all relevant. Christiano Ronaldo fracturing his fibula is not notable because it is a fractured fibula but because Christiano Ronaldo is himself notable, nor could much of anything be inferred by a reasonable reader regarding fractured fibulas from him doing so. We don't actually know if the person who the case report is notable or not as his name is withheld so that someone suffered a medical condition after eating a pepper would have to be notable by itself. Given that the article currently has the medical speculation included then any reasonable reader would make the inference that there is an established causal relationship between eating the pepper and the medical condition, which isn't established at all in the source material (which source material is as many have pointed out not a reliable source per MEDRS. Falconjh (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From MEDRS: "Case reports, whether in popular press or peer-reviewed medical journals, are anecdotal and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." and "For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources." and "They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Falconjh (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Falconjh, I think it's pretty safe to assume the individual concerned was not notable. Thanks so much for the patronising "seriously" there. I was merely trying to make thnigs clear to everyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC) The source is this one:

I accept that in an article as short as this, the anecdote about a possible case of RCVS a few days after a chilli-eating contest is likely to be one of the most interesting points to a general reader. We must be careful however, not to draw a conclusion beyond what has already been accepted as fact by significant medical evidence – and that is what the spirit of MEDRS is intended to ensure. In this case it would be quite wrong to give the reader the impression that eating the pepper caused RCVS. A single report of one event following the other is a very long way from establishing causality, and we should not be encouraging the reader to draw that conclusion. I've tried to copyedit the paragraph slightly to emphasise the lack of other evidence, but I'm still not really happy with it. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At a minimum I would suggest removing the Health effects heading and present it within the general text. This would help differentiate 'interesting trivia' from what the casual reader would read as 'health warnings'. My preference though would be to leave it out. There is no documented causative agent/mechanism. The only linkage is that, as far as is known, one abnormal event (eating a really hot chili) was followed by another (a possible case of RCVS) . The authors do not go beyond noting a possibility of linkage because of this so, from a policy perspective, there is a WP:UNDUE argument for exclusion as well. Weighing in on the general question of MEDRS; It applies here because the basis of the report is a case study and that would tend to lend, for the average reader, an 'air of authority' to the report which is not appropriate to the facts as we know them. MEDRS exists, in part, to prevent Wikipedia giving inappropriate credence to one-off 'gee-whiz' reports like this. The maxim correlation does not imply causation is well known to medical professionals (and others) but not so much to our general readership.  Jbh  Talk  21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, removing the Health effects heading would probably be a good idea, as this elevates what may have been a single episode, for a single individual, seemingly into a pattern of medical effect far more general and widely agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree this is trivia. Do we include interesting trivia? Meh I guess it got a fair bit of press.
 * Would not accept it here though as basing something on a case report within a medical article is undue weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor even here, I would suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The content about cayenne peppers was not OK. Linking that case report with this one was classic WP:SYN.  I trimmed the popular media reports. We can just carefully (as it is now, which is nicely done), source this from the case report. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The case report itself referenced and discusses the other case report regarding cayenne. Falconjh (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does but the content wasn't written and sourced that way. With respect to what the case report itself says, part of the whole "caution with primary sources" is sticking very close to it, which in my view means not broadening beyond this case to talk about others.  I imagine that in some time, there will be a review dealing with such issues.... Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe that the title "Adverse effect" and in paragraph "adverse event" are not correct here as they are medical terms usually used for medicine not food. Food allergy can not be used in this case as well. I suggest "Unexpected event/s /or Unexpected incident/s". We made the same title in the Farsi article. Gharouni<i style="color:orange">Talk</i> 02:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources define the incident as a clinical adverse event/effect apparently caused by consuming the pepper capsaicin, similar to an adverse reaction to a drug. If it was the stimulating substance that caused the vasospasm, capsaicin acted through pharmacological mechanisms. There is no implication about an allergic reaction, something entirely different. --Zefr (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source does not state a causal linkage between the pepper and RCVS onset. It certainly does not make a direct pharmacologic linkage. Due to the events proximity they suspect there may be a linkage but it very well could be a secondary or tertiary effect e.g. vasoconstriction from catecholamine release secondary to chemical trauma i.e. pain response or some other unknown medical condition which predisposes the subject to RCVS events. In other words the same thing may have happened if the subject suffered an analogous trauma e.g. a burn, electric shock or a different chemical irritant. They do not propose any mechanism of action which would indicate this is anything other than idiopathic response unique to a single individual. Jbh  Talk  06:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your objective conclusion that the mechanism of effect is idiopathic and the incident is simply a non-definable circumstance remotely related to eating a hot pepper, with no evidence that the pepper capsaicin – the chemical characteristic giving Carolina Reaper worthiness to be an article – is a cause. My comments throughout the discussion section above and my original reason for removing all the content show this. I objected to the content because the sources provide no encyclopedic information to support anything other than news novelty. The effect cannot be verified, is not notable, is given undue weight, and its presence in the article is the very definition of WP:OR. The section should be deleted. --Zefr (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you see the BMJ case reports as adding no weight at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Zefr: Apologies, I read your comment as supposing a direct action and did not notice you were the editor who originally challenged the addition. Careless reading on my part... Jbh  Talk  14:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has the discussion from others that the diagnoses might be wrong, that if right the pepper itself is probably not the cause but that the pain reaction could potentially be, and that millions of people eat peppers daily without adverse effect. Falconjh (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . Good article from WAPO, with thanks for adding to the perspective. : the BMJ case report is a single observation on one person's condition days following consumption of a chili when all pepper chemicals would long ago have been metabolized. There's no scientific reasoning to link eating a pepper to vasospasm and headaches. Undue, unreasonable weight and original research are sufficient justification to delete the section. --Zefr (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * u|Zefr, thanks for clarifying. Seems there's little left to justify inclusion of this incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Falconjh's link directly above does call into question the issue of causation, but it also makes me wonder if doing some mythbusting is due, linking both sources and saying the issue of causation isn't established, per the sources. There are already plenty of urban legends associated with it, and providing some fact (or at least presenting information that says the jury is still out) may have merit.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair suggestion. Despite, WP:GREAT CHILI TAKEAWAY WRONGS, I would have no objection to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. The WaPo article also allows the event to be moved out of its own sub-heading and into Pungency as they propose the RCVS being brought on by the pain response. I think decreasing its prominence by including it as a paragraph under Pungency helps some with UNDUE as well. Jbh  Talk  16:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)