Talk:Cincinnati chili/Archive 1

New Image
I added the image of the 4-way from Skyline Chili. This article could benefit from a better photo, however (perhaps one that shows the contents of the dish more). I wish I had used the camera's flash. --TheDapperDan 08:31, 25 January 2006

Redundancy of this article with contents of Chili con carne article
I started this Cincinnati chili article ignorant of the fact that it repeated most of the information already contained in the Cincinnati-style chili section of the Chili con carne article. Should whatever unique contents that are in this article be incorporated into the section at Chili con carne and this article deleted, or should the section on Cincinnati-style chili in that article be given its own separate article here, with wiki links from the main Chili con carne article?

I will search for whatever standards for this situation already exist at Wikipedia before I do anything. In the meantime, suggestions are welcome. (unsigned by Rohirok, posted January of 2005)

This should be seperate as it is a very different implementation as it uses more savory than hot spices. --Rakista 03:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rakista. Actually, the issue has been resolved, though I failed to note it on this page. The Cincinnati chili section of the chili con carne article has been merged with the contents of this page. Rohirok 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Recipe
The recipe would probably be more appropriate at the Wikimedia Cookbook. – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's allowed, can someone add the recipe in the 1970's Joy of Cooking, which more closely resembles what is served in the restaurants. 128.42.159.11 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The is no recipe for Cincinnati chili in that book, just a recipe for chili con carne. I found a good recipe in "The Best Soups and Stews" but am unqualified to comment on its authenticity. OliAtlason (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to use the recipe in Jeff Smith's The Fugal Gourmet Cooks American (1987) until I found I could buy cans of Skyline chili online. OwenSaunders (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eggs and cole slaw on Cincy chili?!
Where on earth is Cincy chili served with cole slaw and a fried egg? (unsigned)


 * Good question. I've wondered that myself. I'm sure such abominations are served on chili places elsewhere, but never have I seen offered or served that way at Cincinnati chili places. I'll go ahead and delete that. Rohirok 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How can people call this chili?
Chili has beans. Chili has chunks of beef. Chili has visible tomatos, not just sauce. Chili does not have cinnamon or chocolate.Cheezymadman 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anybody can call it whatever they want. I call it "delicious", "scrumptious", "yummy", "food for the gods", etc. Casey Abell 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are alot of places where one would be shot for putting beans in chili, too.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still in withdrawal. Last time I came through Cincy airport, there wasn't a chili parlor - has this been fixed? Karanne (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a Gold Star in the food court, I think.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
I added the "unencyclopedic" template to the section entitled "The dining experience". I intend to it to apply to this section only (however, the template does not allow for "section" to appear instead of "article"). Patrons seating themselves, waitresses taking orders, bringing the check to the table, getting refills on soft-drinks, and paying at the register are not notable enough to be included here. Also, it is customary to leave a tip at just about any sit-down restaurant in the United States. It is also POV to say that beer goes well with this chili. If anyone wants to try to salvage the original meaning about what was intended to be said in the first paragraph, have at it. Otherwise, I'll probably delete all but the first sentence (of that paragraph) and rename the section. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't see a need to eliminate all but the first sentence. Many of the comments apply specifically to Cincinnati chili parlors, so I'll trim the paragraph down to those comments. Casey Abell 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thought about changing the section title, but really couldn't come up with anything better. Casey Abell 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Beer and chili
I may not be a Nobel-winner, but I'm smart enough not to get into an edit war over beer and chili. Still, the comment that beer and Cincinnati chili make an "excellent pairing" is exactly the kind of subjective POV opinion that should get pruned from an encyclopedia article. At most, the article could say that some people like Cincinnati chili with beer, though even that might be unnecessary trivia. I like Cincinnati chili with Pepsi, but I'm not going to dump that into the article.

Also, it's sufficient to say that alcohol isn't served at most chili parlors because it might become a nuisance for some customers late at night. The comment about people stopping at chili parlors after visiting bars is unnecessary stuffing. People stop at the parlors after going to all sorts of places. Are we going to say: "People have been known to eat at Cincinnati chili parlors after visiting grocery stores, clothes shops, booksellers, veterinarians, churches, political meetings, football stadiums, amusement parks, barber shops..."

But somebody else will have to fight this battle. Casey Abell 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't provide any official sourcing, but I'm a born and raised Cincinnatian and attended the University of Cincinnati (recent graduate). While the above commenter's point is valid, the Ludlow Skyline location and a few others near the University and downtown stay open until 4 am on weekends, specifically to cater to the after-lastcall crowd - and it's typically a crowded and pretty rowdy atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Four way beans or onions
This source Cincinnati Chili says "To test a restaurant for authenticity, ask for a Four-Way. If the server asks you whether you want beans or onions, you know this is fake Cincinnati chili, since Four-Way always comes with onions." --Gbleem 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. That is just an opionion. Mind you, it is an opinion that I fully agree with, but just an opinion none the less. It is just like how I have refrained from adding the phrase "God's perfect food" to this article. :)  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheddar Cheese
This article said that Cincinnati chili comes with mild cheddar cheese. I corrected this. It is always shapr cheddar.
 * I'm pretty sure that Skyline uses mild.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 13:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Youngamerican is correct; in fact, if you examine the recipes posted on the official site, they specifically call for "Skyline shredded mild cheddar cheese" - BGilkison 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Verified that Gold Star's recipes also call for mild cheddar, but Dixie Chili's recipes don't say either way. - BGilkison 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Empress chili
Correction:  The name of the burlesque theater in Cincinnati was the Gaiety, not the Empress. The Karajieff's chili parlor was called the Empress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.183.109 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The first paragraph and "Tri-State"
The first paragraph is in need of a rewrite:


 * There is no need to repeat "Cincinnati" in each sentence... and that has nothing to do with the chili!
 * The term "Tri-State area" should be replaced by something much more specific as there are similarly-named regions in the United States, with the Greater New York City area (New York-Connecticut-New Jersey) and the region centered about Huntington, West Virginia (West Virginia-Ohio-Kentucky).

In addition, all the various details mentioned in the article need to have their references cited (most of them have nothing to do with the three external links at the bottom).

Cheers! 147.70.242.40 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chili Parlors
I'm surprised that there is no mention of the term "chili parlor," which seems to be unique to Cincinnati. OwenSaunders 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)OwenSaunders
 * The term sneaks into the article once. Casey Abell 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was born in the area and have lived here for 20-some years, and have never heard it referred to as a chili parlor. It may be something the older generations say, but here in Cincinnati "Skyline" is pretty much synonymous with Cincinnati chili. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of article for WikiProject Food and Drink
Hi,

Just wanted it to be known that I have assessed this article with a "B" rating for the WikiProject Food and Drink- It is well written and conveys it point, however it needs more citations. As a highly regional US cuisine that has little impact on American or global cuisine overall, I assessed it has having a "Mid" level of importance.

I also tagged it as being associated with the Cincinnati WikiProject, but did not assign it any ratings as I do not feel qualified to rate that project's articles.

Keep up the good work, Jeremy (Jerem43 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC))


 * I looked at this article beyond my original assessment, and found it is seriously flawed. (I was a noob at the time) The references are poor, with only two meeting the standards required. Also several of the sections were not about the Chili but about the chain Skyline Chili. Several of the passages were not supported by the citations provided, but were in fact original research or synthesis. I have removed the passages that were uncited, original research or synthesis and downgraded the articles rating to a start.


 * I am also proposing a merge of this article to the main chili article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Balkan?
Is it more accurate to say the dish is Balkan because some claim Greek origins and others claim Macedonian origins? RegeEtLege (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the dish was Cincinnatopolitian? Please do not import the Macedonian issue, with all its attendant nonsense, here. Cite a source that says "Balkan". Otherwise, please leave it be. Aramgar (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that an article about chili is no place to get into an argument about semantics, especially pertaining to countries on the other side of the world. Chili (the dish), is a term which is uniquely American, but as varied as our ethnic makeup.  Ask 100 Americans what Chili is, and you will get 100 different answers.  That said, I was not surprised to read here that Cincinnati-style was created by someone of Mediterranean descent.  Growing up, I always thought of Cinci-chili as a cross between traditional Tex-Mex chili and spaghetti sauce.  If anyone has any more insight into this, I think it would be a good addition to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Title not Capitalized properly
As it should be plain to anyone to see the title of the page is Cincinnati chili, not Cincinnati Chili as it should be. I am not very experienced on wikipedia so i dont know if i could change it but i just wanted to bring this up so someone could change it. And this entire page is poorly written poorly referenced and generally poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.100.128 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is properly named per WP:Name. It is not a proper noun like Coca-Cola; it is akin to a New York strip. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what's in it?
Even after reading the entire article, I still have no idea what the hell this "chili" is made out of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Her Majesty the Rat (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a savory meat stew consisting of a mix of Mediterranean spices (such as cinnamon and clove), shredded beef, and chili powder served over spaghetti and traditionally garnished with Shredded Cheddar Cheese, Fresh Chopped Yellow Onion, and/or Kidney Beans (which, if used, are prepared separately from the chili and placed on or under the spaghetti before the chili reaches the plate). In most true Cincinnati chili parlors you would order the garnishes by "Way" (IE if you wanted to order the barebone way of having Cincinnati chili, just the chili and spaghetti, you would ask for "two-way"). Oyster Crackers, little hollow 6-sided crackers, are typically also served (as opposed to saltines). Of course, specific ingredients vary by who's preparing it (I never heard of using chocolate in Cincinnati chili until I read this article), but those are the basics. Other than the name, it has little in common with the better known Chili con Carne.

68.113.41.247 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Chili Company?
Is the Chili Company still around? They were never as popular as Skyline and Goldstar, but there was one down in the west end that was open all night and used to be our favorite place to eat when drunk at 3AM. I'll see if I can find a website or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found some directory listings, but not much else thus far. I look forward to hearing more about it.  young  american  (wtf?) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is in it
Here are the ingredients I got more than 25 years ago from a friend from a friend for Skyline Chili. Ground Beef, onions, tomato sauce, garlic powder, cinnamon, red pepper, allspice, white vinegar, chili powder, bay leaves, salt, pepper, Worcestershire sauce, water. No chocolate and no cloves. It works. The key to it's unique flavor seems to be the vinegar and cinnamon according to me. Served on an oval plate. Also, when ordering, it is amazing that the waitresses call out the orders ala that SNL skit from years ago and no mistakes are made. An example is: when ordering Coneys the waitress will yell out the number of Coneys and the number of plates and the toppings for an entire table and cook repeats it and you get the right order. 3 on 2, one no cheese; or 5 on 3, 2 no onions. It is amazing to listen to. Also, in the article, a 4-way is said to be either beans or onions. This would lead to confusion. My understanding is a 4-way is with onions and in a 5-way beans are added. No confusion. If you ordered a 3-way with no cheese, you could get onions or beans if there was no pecking order to those toppings. Also, refried beans are never used, just kidney beans. Maybe they meant whole pinto beans. Also not true. Someone stated that the onions were not in the recipe but reserved for the topping. Again, not true. They are cooked in the recipe and raw as a topping. signed g3gcubed


 * My research also indicates that cloves and chocolate are both minority positions...and very tasty positions at that. The essential thing is cinnamon; no one leaves that out.  Worcestershire appears at some times and not at others; once in a while, you see something patently ridiculous like "a dash" of Worcestershire in half a gallon of chili.  That's like homeopathic medicine levels--no way you could taste it.  The best authorities seem to agree with you that a four-way, properly so-called, involves onions and not beans, but no less an institution than Skyline Chili (menu) characterizes a four-way as spaghetti, chili, cheese, and onions OR beans. So the confusion is real, and cannot be dispelled here.  Sklyine also offers one- and two- ways, without calling them that.--158.111.5.34 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we combine articles?
This article should be combined with the Chili con carne article. Both are really regional variations of the same dish. I am from Texas and consider "chili con carne" to be what I call chili. The dish that southerners call chili is different than people from the North would call chili but both are still similar. Just as with barbecue, people from each region would likely argue that their idea of chili is the correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.237.94 (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been some efforts in the past to combine the two articles but consensus was that this is a unique regional variation of chili and owes more of its lineage to Greek/Macedonian cuisine than to that found in Texas. When you add in the fact that this article is rather long for a section in the other article with the potential for even more expansion with some solid sources, I would strongly oppose any such merger.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cincinnati chili is significantly different from what most consider chili. It is more of a sauce than a separate dish like traditional chili is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It's absolutely NOT chili con carne. It has almost nothing in common with Texas-style chili or American-style chili. Cincinnati Chili is closer to a bolognese than it is to chili con carne. valereee (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Very Similar to the "Hot Sauce" used in Rochester NY Restaurants
Also seem to be from the Greek family founded restaurants - it is used to top Hot Dogs, Hamburgers, and "Garbage Plates" Made from ground meats with lots of spices, usually beef based, and cooked for hours, if not days, in the same pot. see (http://www.rocwiki.org/Hot_Sauce) Jackgzero (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading up on this sauce, I would agree -- it seems to be very similar. The recipe I found doesn't include chocolate or chili powder, but both of those are missing from many Cincinnati Chili recipes, too. valereee (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Absence of chili peppers or chili powder"
I have removed the claim that Cincinnati chili has neither chili peppers nor chili powder. I really can't imagine where that even came from. I have reviewed dozens of recipes from published cookbooks, cooking magazines, websites, and even the odd postcard from Ohio--every single one of them has included chili powder, whole chilies, and/or powdered chilies (such as "cayenne pepper"). Two examples: Food Network, Saveur Magazine. It is true that chili peppers are not generally the predominant flavoring, but of course they're in there.--Craigkbryant (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The nearly whole chili pods I pick out of my Empress chili must be a figment of my imagination if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.237.71 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are recipes without chili powder -- some of the oldest recipes, definitely. Here's one: Laurent's Cincinnati Chili Now, we can't call that one a reliable source, but they're definitely out there.  I've lived in the area all my life, and Cincinnati Chili doesn't necessarily include chili powder -- in fact, since it was developed in the 1920s by Greek immigrants from a Greek dish, it's unlikely to have originally called for chili powder or chili peppers, probably? I'll keep looking for one in a reliable source. valereee (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm.. the recipe you linked to calls for cumin and cayenne pepper. And those are the main ingredients in chili powder. --Kraligor (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cayenne pepper is explicitly a variety of chili pepper. Cumin is often in commercial chili powders, too, but it's the inclusion of a variety of chili, specifically cayenne, that makes it chili. oknazevad (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to deal with the fact that 'Cincinnati Chili' is not actually a chili con carne
It's a greek-inspired meat sauce typically served over spaghetti or on hot dogs. The name is Cincinnati Chili, but it's not actually chili. I think this is something we need to deal with in the article, and there's plenty of support for this. Here's one example: The Great American Menu: Foods Of The States, Ranked And Mapped which ranks it dead last of 52 food ranked, saying:

″The only thing "chili" about it is the shiver that goes down your spine (when you watch people eat it).″

There are any number of other supports for this, too. When people here in Cincinnati describe it to out of town visitors, we often tell them NOT to expect American-style chili. Support for that: 5 Reasons Cincinnati Chili Is Misunderstood:

"It can be hard to explain what Cincinnati chili really is, especially when most devotees start their descriptions with, “Well, it’s not really chili in the traditional sense…it’s made with chocolate and cinnamon and stuff.” Unlike your more traditional red bean or Texas-style chili, Cincinnati chili is essentially made up of three things: ground meat, spices, and stock. Coupled with a long cooking time and some other forms of magic that science hasn’t yet decoded, you end up with chili that’s closer to a sauce than it is a stew"valereee (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There's significant support both here on the talk page and from reliable sources that Cincinnati Chili is very different from chili con carne. valereee (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still made with meat and chili pepper (powder). That's all that chili con carne is or has ever been. It's still called "chili" for a reason. It's an explicit claim that it's a regional version of the dish. Therefore the call for a citation is patently absurd, as it falls under WP:BLUE.. There's tons of variant recipes that include or omit ingredients (like beans, or particular spices), so the inclusion of other such seasonings in Cincinnatti-style does not disqualify it. Nor does the thinner consistency (which isn't specific to Cincinatti). Is it Texas-style? No, but the term "chili con carne" does not mean only Texas-style by any stretch. It's like Pizza in the United States; there's numerous regional style variants that have major differences, but are still variations on the same basic idea, and are still all called pizza. Or the differing regional styles of barbecue. It's the same here. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everything that has meat and chili powder in it is chili con carne. The reason it's called chili is that the Greek immigrants who invented it were trying to find a name for their Greek-inspired and -spiced sauce that would appeal to Americans, and chili was the closest they could come up with.  There are more differences than the thin consistency -- it's served as a sauce nearly 100% of the time, literally almost never in a bowl.  Not sure when I last saw anyone eating a bowl of it -- chili con carne is almost always eaten by the bowl.  Other cities have similar sauces that are poured over hot dogs which are then called chili dogs or conies.  Locals tell out of towners, "Don't expect chili."  Chicagoans and New Yorkers might argue over whose pizza is best, but neither of them would call the others' 'not pizza.'  Not all recipes for Cincinnati Chili include chili powder.  There are more differences than similarities, and it's not my opinion -- there's reliable sourcing for all of this.  People here in Cincinnati pretty much agree it's not the same as chili con carne.  Here's a recipe without chili powder: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/laurens-cincinnati-chili/valereee (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is standing precedent that recipes are unreliable sources to provide verification. The link to allrecipes.com is especially a poor source because it is basically a blog for posting recipes. I'm sure that you can find all sorts of similar recipes all over the web, but since they're all self published they are inherently unusable as sources. If you wish to find a recipe source that is reliable, I would look in a published source from a reputable source such as a Julia Child.
 * Yes, I thought self-published recipes were unreliable sources -- that's why I put it onto the talk page, just as a way of showing that it's NOT WP:BLUE to ask for citations from reliable sources saying that Cinci Chili -is- chili con carne. I'm finding plenty of reliable sources saying it's -not- chili con carne. I didn't realize even reliably published recipes would be an unreliable source for traditional ingredients though, thanks!  I won't bother looking for those, will look for citations in newspapers etc. simply listing ingredients instead.  valereee (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, as a major contributor to this article from some time ago I agree with the points raised by Oknazevad. There is considerable consensus that Cincinnati chili is a variation of traditional chili con carne. (A particularly nasty one, but a variation all the same.) --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see references for the opposite...and on this talk page, there is support for the opposite, also.  valereee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And there's strong questioning about the reliability of those sources (blogs, really), and your interpretation of them (as noted above, that recipe explicitly contains chili powder.) Frankly, the outright removal of any link to chili con carne in the lead is strongly objectionable, and a link needs to be restored. oknazevad (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okazevad, the sources saying it's not chili con carne are Fodor's, the Woellert book, the Cincinnati Enquirer, NPR, the New York Times, and a single blog that had already been included in the article's references by a previous editor. I didn't add that one. valereee (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, hit my tildes too fast -- there -is- still a link to chili con carne, in the misnomer section. But I'm willing to add a link to chili con carne back into the lede as part of the whole 'what is it' question, which maybe does belong in the lede? valereee (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * wow, wasn't trying to be disingenuous. I'm trying to find somewhere we can agree. I sincerely don't have reliable sources for calling Cinci chili "chili con carne"." It's just not. Let's try to work together. valereee (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Macedonian vs. Greek?
Two reverts of Macedonian (from the same IP) back to Greek by two different editors. It does seem reasonable that in the lede this should be Greek. The fact they were from the Macedonian region of Greece is covered in a section. valereee (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another revert to Macedonian. I'm going to suggest a compromise, something that may be the most accurate too:  how about it's a Greek-inspired, by Macedonian immigrants?  The flavors of the dish are Greek (which today includes the Macedonian region) but the immigrants were at the time they immigrated from Macedonia, an area that was being fought over by several different countries. 2605:A000:C7C0:CE00:81B8:D299:E1E7:6E6E (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC) valereee (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet another revert to Macedonian, even after the compromise. valereee (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a issue that goes beyond the article and falls into a highly regulated subject concerning the Macedonia naming dispute. The changes may violate established guidelines found at Naming conventions (Macedonia) that are official policy on Wikipedia regarding the subject matter of Greek & Macedonian interaction. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An explanation of the heavily referenced 'Misnomer' section
I wanted to leave an explanation here for the reasons behind the fact the 'misnomer' section is referenced to the point of affecting readability. It's because this section contains information that is likely to produce contention: the assertion that Cincinnati 'chili' is not a regional variant of chili con carne. While this is unlikely to be considered contentious by people who are familiar with both Cincinnati chili and chili con carne, those who are familiar with only one or the other may need multiple reliable sources to support this assertion due to the confusion caused by the name, as per several previous discussions. valereee (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

removing wikilinks?
Hi! I see that you'd prefer not to discuss this on your talk page. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to figure out what your rationale was, as I'm always trying to learn more about what is and isn't best practices in Wikipedia. You didn't include an edit summary on the edit, so I didn't have that as a clue as to why you removed the links. valereee (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen, and look at the edits again. I did not remove a single wikilink, I added two. This is your mistake. Look again.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks, my bad!  valereee (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

moving citations from lead to subsections
I've moved a citation from the lead into the subsection for ease of reading the lead and because the statement of the dish's history doesn't seem to me controversial. Totally willing to discuss, though, if other editors believe the dish having been developed by Macedonian immigrants in the 20s is a controversial assertion. valereee (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. Assertions are sourced.
Let's please discuss before you remove content again from the lead; everything you have removed is sourced within the sections, as is required by WP:MOS. valereee (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm....
So, it's ground beef mixed with tomato stock, with flavoring added and poured on top of spaghetti? Around here that's called "spaghetti sauce". I guess that doesn't sound local and interesting enough though. Gotta think of those tourists. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By your definition, anything you put on pasta is spaghetti sauce... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cincinnati chili. 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 tag to http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-33127-so_you%E2%80%99ve_pr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117191631/http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/w/anomalisa.aspx to http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/w/anomalisa.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cincinnati chili. 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/20130603190231/http://www.meltcincy.com/main/?page_id=19 to http://www.meltcincy.com/main/?page_id=19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610135444/https://s3.amazonaws.com/desktop_assets/gold-star-chili/pdf/menu.pdf to https://s3.amazonaws.com/desktop_assets/gold-star-chili/pdf/menu.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711032647/http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/watch-all-star-games-gives-city-chance-to-introduce-nation-to-cincy-chili to http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/watch-all-star-games-gives-city-chance-to-introduce-nation-to-cincy-chili

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cincinnati chili. 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/20150829022545/http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/how-skyline-chili-became-a-cincinnati-icon to http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/how-skyline-chili-became-a-cincinnati-icon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Chili Mac
I see very little connecting Cincinnati chili and chili mac, besides being two of many dishes with meat and pasta. As the article makes very clear, Cincinnati chili is not a traditional chili. I think the removal has been reverted 5 times by User:Oknazevad. Rather than remove again, I'm hoping to get some consensus here..... Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, both are midwestern dishes featuring a chili-seasoned meat sauce served over pasta; that regional connection and use of seasonings makes it more than just yet another pasta-with-meat dish. More importantly, though, I see no reason to remove it based on WP:SEEALSO. Per the guideline see also links are allowed to be weaker connections; indeed, if there were a stronger connection than it would be likely linked in the article already and therefore wouldn't be in the see also section. Most importantly, however, is that the link has been in the article for over three years until an anon removed it two weeks ago without explanation, and has since edit warred (presuming that the near-range IPs are the same user) to try to remove a long-standing item in the article without explanation. oknazevad (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) PS, I would also like to note that the chili mac article includes a reciprocal see also link to Cincinnati chili. oknazevad (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a type of chili, not original research
The assertions in the lead are fully supported in the body, and we've had extensive discussion on whether Cincinnati chili is a type of chili. Let's talk before you make any more major changes, thanks! valereee (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Whoops, and just realized I rollbacked instead of reverting, so sorry, that was absurd. Should I try to correct that? valereee (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. ——  SerialNumber  54129


 * Not sure how, I'll go try now valereee (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, think I did it! valereee (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill
This article is suffering from MASSIVE WP:Citation overkill, some of the citations (the ones with ranges) are broken. 2/3 of the citations could easily be cut with no ill-effects. Readability is badly impaired. -2601:484:C001:1D83:BDB3:419B:8BD:BD32 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the section here Talk:Cincinnati_chili for an explanation of the heavily cited 'Misnomer' section and references to 'poor example of chili,' and see the history, which shows multiple citation needed tags dropped on this article over the past few months. I am not seeing broken citations, and I'm not clear on what you mean when you see "the ones with ranges" -- can you clarify for me? I'm happy to fix these if I can figure out which ones you're referring to. valereee (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to agree with the anon. There's no reason a sentence should ever have 6 citations. That's the textbook definition of WP:CITEOVERKILL. You rarely need more than two, which establishes that the claim isn't just one author's opinion. When 6 or 7 citations are here for one sentence, it makes it look like the claim requires putting together multiple unrelated sources to come to the conclusion, which is WP:SYNTH. I know these are not actually SYNTH, which is why I say we can safely ditch some of the citations. There is simply a point where more citations actually makes the sentence weaker, not stronger. 7 citations is definitely past that point. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * u|Oknazevad I agree with anon, too, which is why I added a section to this talk page explaining the overcitation. But stop me if I'm wrong -- it was you I was trying to convince with the multiple multiple citations -- we discussed it at length in this section: Talk:Cincinnati_chili  I would never have supported this assertion with so many citations if it weren't for the fact I was getting very strong pushback from you over whether or not the stuff is a type of chili con carne; I was providing what seemed to be necessary evidence to you and others who kept arguing that it is a type of chili con carne. valereee (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who has brought several articles to GA status that other editors actually tried to have deleted as being non-encyclopedic (I'm not saying this article is), I understand needing to provide multiple citations to independent sources to bolster statements used in showing WP:N and WP:V. However, 5-6 citations on every fact is overkill, especially when they're to the same set of sources. You could really trim them down to a few at the end of the paragraph, or at the end of a certain sentences that may make a specific, contentious claim.


 * Also as someone who disagreed with you over claims regarding the status of Cincinnati chili (I still think its yucky, and will until the day they chuck me into the ground ), I think you've more than proven you contention regarding it not being traditional chili con carne. Please trim it back at to make it more readable.


 * BTW, good job on bringing this to GA!. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And, thanks, re: GA! That was actually kind of fun to go through. valereee (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Jeremy said. I was indeed someone in need of convincing, and you certainly did, but you overdid it, and trimming out the overkill is a way to improve the article. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy to trim it back if we're all agreed on the content. :) It'll likely take me a while to get to this, as it likely requires me to revisit the references and figure out which are the most important supports for each assertion.  But FTR, there are only two assertions in this subsection which include more than four references (the two that were the most challenged -- that it's not chili con carne, and that it's a meat sauce), another that includes four, two that include 3.  I think it reads as overcited simply because so many assertions in this section were challenged that I often had to support multiple different assertions within a single sentence, which meant many sentences required multiple sources to support. Not that I'm arguing it's not overcited; I'm only explaining that it came to be overcited for a reason.  valereee (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried to trim those citations, and only succeeded in breaking the entire references section. Can anyone help? valereee (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, figured it out! Better? valereee (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Better, still a little heavy. The one that really jumps out at me it the part with the "It's not really chili" quote, as that quote only appears in one source yet the sentence has three citations. That's actually problematic. I think the sentence needs a full rewrite to not make it a quote, as the excess citations there (that is, the ones that aren't there to support the exact wording of the quote) are a misattribution. I'd probably also reduce any other refs to no kore than two a sentence, unless three is absolutely necessary. Beyond that is the very definition of citations overkill. But it's certainly in better shape than before. oknazevad (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me go look at the various citations. LOL I wonder if I removed ones where that was more clearly stated...I was trying to lean toward removing ones in the most overcited spots that had been used multiple times in other spots so as to maintain the list of references where appropriate. I'll have to go check the refs for that on a previous version valereee (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've slashed and burned. I'd sincerely appreciate it at this point if someone would recheck references in this section to check my work! I've gotten to the eyes-blurring point on it. valereee (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Much better, I say. Honestly think we can get away with fewer quotes and more paraphrasing, but that's less about citation overkill and more about writing style. oknazevad (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * literally the minute I remove all the citations showing it isn't chili, someone wants to say it is hahaha valereee (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos
It may be chili, but the photos in the article just show piles of cheese. Jonathunder (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought that photo showed the chili pretty well -- you can see it all along the edges of the plate. I even turned the plate to make sure I got the chili, and zoomed as much as I could. The photo you had provided was from a national restaurant chain that ladles chili con carne over spaghetti and calls it a two-way. You could literally see the beans in the chili. Cincinnati chili does not contain beans in the sauce. Beans are a topping. Also the photo showed onions on top of the cheese; no cincinnati chili parlor puts anything on top of the cheese unless you order it 'inverted.' So while I understand your point -- maybe we need a photo of the pot of cinci chili so people can see what it looks like -- the photo was misleading. ETA: I could also try ordering a two-way next time I get cinci chili, that would show the chili better. Nobody really orders is that way, though. Three-way is minimum most people order, and that's cheese. I'm afraid that a big pile of cheese is what the dish looks like. valereee (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can just see a tiny bit of it along the edge, not enough for the reader to distinguish it from other dishes. The others in the article have the same problem. We need photos that are not so cheesy. Jonathunder (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But as usually served, the dish just looks like that -- a huge pile of blaze-orange cheese on a plate. I don't know how to make it not look like a big pile of cheese other than to show a pot, or a bowl (which is never ordered) or a two-way (which I've never seen anyone order). That's just what the dish looks like. I do have a photo of a dish half-eaten. valereee (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You may never have seen someone order two-way, but that's original research. If it's on the menu, that's a source. As far as images not hidden by cheese, Commons:Category:Cincinnati Chili has a few. Jonathunder (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I didn't mention I hadn't ever seen it in the article. Are you talking about the slowcooker cinci chilis? We could use one of those somewhere in the article, maybe a section for homemade cinci chili? I wouldn't think it was appropriate for the main article photo since again it would be misleading as to what the dish looks like. The coneys don't work because they aren't cinci chili coneys. valereee (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And looking at those other photos closer...those are from a home cook who isn't using a traditional recipe. No traditional recipe browns the ground beef -- all cincinnati chili parlors crumble it raw into water or stock, there's many citations for that. And the way it's served is not traditional, either -- that home cook is putting onions and beans on top of cheese, not the way it's served so again misleading. valereee (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A photo that just shows a piece of bread might be how sandwiches look from above as usually served, but to illustrate them we might open them up or cut them in half and show them from the side. We might have to do something similar with this dish to get a really effective photo. Jonathunder (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Next time I'm in a chili parlor, I'll ask if I can take a photo of a cook ladling chili over a plate of spaghetti. valereee (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

promotional photo?
Sorry to be dense, why do you call it a promotional photo? valereee (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the photo that was promotional but the caption that included the name and address of the restaurant. MB 13:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, got it! I didn't realize that wasn't allowed, thanks! valereee (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of the restaurant is fine, if space permits. The address is unnecessary here, but would not be out of place in an article about a notable restaurant. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks...not sure it's really more than mildly interesting info in this article, and it's probably assumed in the restaurant's article. valereee (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is NOT about a restaurant, it is about a type of food. The same photo is used in Camp Washington Chili where the name is in the caption.


 * Oh, totally. I wasn't meaning to suggest this article was about the restaurant, and was trying to say I =didn't= think the restaurant name needed to be mentioned in this article's photo caption, sorry I was unclear valereee (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Filipino spaghetti
I'm not sure this is actually a similar dish -- it sounds like it was developed from an American-style bolognese recipe and uses banana ketchup and brown sugar to make a sweet sauce, then tops the sauced spaghetti with sausages...the only similarity seems to be that it's a spahetti dish topped with cheese? valereee (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's in the See also section, not the Similar dishes section. In my opinion, they're related topics, as both are unconventional adaptations of spaghetti sauces that are controversial to Italian purists. Both originate from the early 20th century US (the Philippines was part of the US from 1898 to 1946), and both are fusion cuisines.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * lol, I was also going to point out that it wasn't in the similar dishes section...well, it's an argument. I'll be interested to hear what other opinions there are. valereee (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * MOS:SEEALSO says we "should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" which may apply here. Jonathunder (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see much of a connection besides, you know, spaghetti. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the connection, despite the above argument in favor, seems very tangenital. I would suggest that both dishes being in Category:Spaghetti is sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the connection. They're spaghetti. Weird spaghetti. Basically, every other spaghetti dish is Italian. Both Cincinnati chili and Filipino spaghetti are the only outliers (if you don't count canned spaghetti or spaghetti pizza), both roughly based on Americanized Bolognese sauce (i.e. with tomato sauce and ground meat). Both are distinctive enough and popular enough locally to become part of the regular local cuisine. I think that's apparent enough for MOS:SEEALSO. Even the dishes in the Similar dishes section aren't as similar, since they're mostly focused on hotdog toppings and/or do not use spaghetti. The only exception is the Green Bay chili, which does not have an independent article. The reason why I placed it in the See also is purely because of the national differences and independent origins.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  02:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's there it should have an annotation as to why, per the Manual of Style. Jonathunder (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe a subsection called 'Other unusual spaghetti dishes' or something like that? valereee (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That becomes too much of a laundry list. Honestly, I don't think the two dishes have enough in common to warrant even a see also entry. If the rationale for including it isn't obvious to someone who looks at the leads of both articles, it's probably too far afield for such an entry, and is better served by a category. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh, a category is an idea -- what do you think would work? valereee (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just Category:Spaghetti (as Beeblebrox suggested above) or Category:Pasta dishes. We don't need any other than that. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also the contention that they are "both roughly based on Americanized Bolognese sauce" is directly contradicted by sourced content in the article. I'm not seeing anyone supporting this except the person who added it, therefore it seems appropriate at thsi time to remove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both are based on tomatoes and ground meat. That is a Bolognese sauce in terms of spaghetti, regardless if it isn't in its original form. As for a "list of unusual spaghetti", what laundry list? You will literally have only these two entries for that, which is again, why I added it in the first place to the FS article and this article. Per MOS:SEEALSO, a See also section is a list of tangentially related topics, which is why it is not the same section as the Similar dishes section. And FS matches that qualification for CC, and vice versa.


 * A reader looking for non-Italian spaghetti versions would be interested in both topics. At least I know I would. As I've said in my first reply, that is the main reason why I added it when I realized Filipino spaghetti wasn't the only spaghetti originating outside Italy that are controversial for Italian pasta purists. I never even knew CC existed until yesterday and was under the impression that our spaghetti was the only one that Italians found offensive. But sigh. Consensus wins. Removing it from the Filipino spaghetti article as well. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose it being listed in See also, which can be for fairly loosely connected things. All I've been saying is that if it is there, it should have a short note as to how it's relevant. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't object to it being included here, either. Just want to do it in a way that makes sense. valereee (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way. Just seems nonsensical that a See also addition garner this much opposition for something obviously similar in other ways than ingredients. These two dishes are obviously in a category different from Italian spaghetti (which is basically every other spaghetti in existence), and that alone justifies the See also as tangentially (but not directly) related topics. For the same reason I added Hawaiian pizza in the Filipino spaghetti article's See also section.


 * Categories are not something the average reader sees or actively checks. This article isn't even in Category:Pasta dishes or Category:Spaghetti dishes for some reason (I guess it's more of a hotdog sauce?), and neither of those categories illuminate the uniqueness of these two versions. I get that people get defensive over regional dishes, but this is a bit overdoing it. I've outlined my reasons exactly. But again, consensus. So I concede.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think most of the editors here are actually in Cincinnati, lol, and the two that I'm sure are both are saying we don't object to it being included in some way and that we see your point. I'm fine to have it added back into See Also while we wait to see if anyone comes up with a better idea. I'm actually wondering if anyone out there has ever compared the two dishes in a meaningful way based on this.
 * I added both articles to category Spaghetti dishes, Cincinnati chili was already in pasta dishes. I also added Filipino spaghetti to the pasta dishes nav template and added that to the filipino spag article. valereee (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant American. And as far as I know, nope, they have never been compared directly. Which is why I was unaware that another traditional non-Italian spaghetti recipe (i.e. not invented in the last two decades or so) even existed. Both dishes, however, are routinely either made fun of and characterized as weird/gross by outsiders, or praised by people who grew up eating them. (e.g. CC:, ; FS: , ). Again, I think this has been enough paragraphs for one measly See also, lol. I'm fine with it in the category, since that's what at least 3 others want. Thanks for the nav addition. That's at least more visible than a category listing. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (For the record, I left Cincinnati 20 years ago, and this and Grippo BBQ chips are the foods I must have every time I go back) I tend to agree that this is a lot of discussion for such a small matter, but here we are. It seems to me that the above comments reflect a general attitude that a see also would be ok if it were more clear why it was there. At thsi point I can't disagree with that and would not pursue the matter if it were added back again in that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (For the record, I left Cincinnati 20 years ago, and this and Grippo BBQ chips are the foods I must have every time I go back) I tend to agree that this is a lot of discussion for such a small matter, but here we are. It seems to me that the above comments reflect a general attitude that a see also would be ok if it were more clear why it was there. At thsi point I can't disagree with that and would not pursue the matter if it were added back again in that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Grated vs shredded cheese
In the first paragraph of the "Origins and history" section, it says "grated" cheese was served on the dish originally in the 1920s. Since the modern dish uses shredded cheese, was grated cheese actually used in the 1920s, or is this a mistake, mis-naming shredded cheese as grated cheese? The citation is gone. UConnHusky7 (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)UconnHusky7


 * The source is the Woellert book, which first says a customer 'asked for grated cheddar cheese' to put on top. After that the book uses grated and shredded interchangeably. I doubt "shredded" cheese was even a thing in the 20s, as the food processor wasn't invented until the 40s. The restaurant was probably grating cheese by hand. They may have been grating it on the smallest holes of a box grater or similar, so it's possible their "grated" cheese looks like what is now commercially sold as "shredded cheddar" or something. How are you differentiating what is "shredded" vs. cheese that is grated on the smallest holes of a box grater? valereee (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I ever really considered the difference, I would call what is normally served on Cin. Chili to be finely shredded, and I am able to get the same effect from the small side of my cheese grater. As someone who worked in kitchens for a decade I'm kind of surprised at myself that I honestly don't think I know the difference between grating and shredding. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article on the grater helpfully says it's "also known as a shredder" so the words may be interchangeable. Jonathunder (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Typically, "grated" cheese has a small, granular consistency (think a shaker of Kraft Parmesean), while "shredded" is longer strands. But the dividing line is fuzzy, and many people use them interchangably, so the exact wording is a matter of semantics. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, parmesan is a much harder cheese, pretty sure if you tried to grate cheaddar that way all you'd have is a mess. That being said, the more I think about it and look into it it does seem the two are used interchangeably, regardless of whatever original culinary meaning they may have had. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries
please let's discuss here before you make any further edits. Please stop using misleading edit summaries; read WP:SUMMARYNO for why that's a problem if you don't understand. --valereee (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Flavored nation
So apparently the Flavored Nation event had Cincinnati Chili as its ‘most iconic Ohio dish’ …and then the event was changed from St. Louis to Columbus. Now the most iconic Ohio dish is Buckeyes. I would LOVE to find out what happened with this.

Original list for St Louis event

Columbus list

I am SO hoping someone picks this up and writes about it so I can heap shame on Columbus lol --valereee (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I got stuck on Alaska. The article makes the ridiculous claim that Alaskan reindeer were imported from Europe. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

yet another discussion of photos
That coney isn't partially eaten? There's only cheese on half of it? --valereee (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not. I photographed it from one end so you can see other ingredients below the cheese. Jonathunder (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Move of entire sections to lead
Hey,, I'm not sure all that info moved to the lead is an improvement. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Now it's nearly as long as the article and includes information not covered in the actual sections of the article. Let's talk. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's been a number of odd edits to this article in recent days, I've gone ahead and restored the previous, stable version while discussion is underway. Being bold is all well and good, but I agree with Valereee that this seems arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of a lead section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't keep notes (hand written or otherwise) when I edit and I have trouble understanding the various ways to view tracked edits and changes at wikipedia, but I will do my best to recap some of the reasoning behind my edits in order to address your concerns regarding lead length as well as inclusion of information not covered in the article present in the lead:


 * A section titled "Reception" seemed unnecessary in a small article about a dish, especially as some information held within (far down in the article as it stood) included information that defined the subject matter. I will agree that having all text from this section in the lead section likely has added some information that would be better placed elsewhere, and I do hope to see or provide edits in that direction.


 * Hopefully eventually editors can rework things so a reader finds that the lead satisfactorily defines the subject and that information introduced in the lead in short way is expanded on in the article. As for your statement about how the lead section now includes information not covered in sections, I would welcome an edit that splits up the info more appropriately. Some text was moved because it appears to be too important to have appeared in a different section of an article (ie: it provides a description that was not fleshed-out or even included in the lead, leaving Cincinnati chili incompletely defined).


 * The lead section is now four paragraphs long. I aimed to include useful information with the goal of complete coverage of the subject. The article may become longer (or shorter) at a later date and I don't necessary agree that a lead nearly as long as the current article means my edits didn't improve the article.


 * If you or anyone would like to provide links to standards/policy/opinion around the issues you brought up I would gladly examine them


 * (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Beeblebrox, some of the edits were due to a misunderstanding at User_talk:Lupin_VII -- a new editor thought Dixie Chili and Deli referred to two establishments, and that Deli was a misspelling of Delhi, a restaurant that closed a few years ago. --valereee (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * FHC, you can look at Lead dos and don'ts. What subject-defining info do you feel is in the sections and is needed in the lead? --valereee (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reference to the dish being american/quintessential/beloved/iconic/scorned.
 * The introduction of the issue of the misnomer, comprised of the 3rd lead paragraph as it now stands, is given an awkward amount of weight (or phrased with an unhelpful order); I felt like my edit addressed that a bit as well. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Scorned is covered, the lead refers to people concluding it's a poor example of chili. The others are all basically covered by 'it's the areas best known regional food,' but I'd support adding the Smithsonian mention to the lead. The misnomer section is what supports the lead's 'poor example of chili', which is a pretty big deal, possibly one of the more important issues for the dish, and I don't think it's undue weight. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Toppings
Why are they called "toppings" in the article, when in the photos the spaghetti is on top? And why is the spaghetti so yellow? Ericoides (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that's the shredded cheese, not the spaghetti. oknazevad (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it gets worse and worse. But thanks for the info. Ericoides (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What gets "worse and worse"?
 * The look of that meal. Only kidding, my gargoyles would lap it up. Ericoides (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

1000 coneys in a year
I can't decide whether this is worth adding, and if so, where? --valereee (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

change to lede
Hey,, I'm not sure that's an improvement. Let's talk. --valereee (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. 1) the first part was clunky, with the 'leading some people to say it's not chili', but a lede should really focus on the big-picture, which is that the name causes misplaced comparison to chili con carne.  That some people say 'its not chili' is covered in the body but for the lede, which should be as stripped down as possible, it is basically 'color commentary' that is redundant with the statement that it is different from chili-c-c.  2) the prior sentence comparing to Greek pasta and chilidogs was a verbatim repetition of the text in the body.  This is just bad form on its face, but also the lede need not, indeed should not, go into the precise details such as naming individual states - anyone curious can read the body of the article.
 * There was a further change that I couldn't decide how best to execute, so I stuck with a two-way edit for the time being: once it was reworded, there is only one sentence, and one-sentence paragraphs are generally to be avoided, so the sentence should really be combined with another of the paragraphs. More broadly regarding the lede and what goes where, when Google provides a snippet for the page, it shows the first two paragraphs, so we should target the best/most explanatory material first, and I am not sure a list of ingredients, many of which will mean little to a non-culinary reader (Tell me something has allspice or bay leaves in it and I say . . . . umm, OK?) is what people most need to see. That being said, the extras/'ways' is really part of the cultural phenomenon so it probably should be there.  This all required more thought than I wanted to put into my original edit. Agricolae (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

removal of attribution
Hey, @Agricolae, both of those assertions have actually been challenged in the past. There are home recipes that call for browning the beef, and multiple people have questioned whether the dish is rarely ordered by the bowl. Beyond that, where does it say we never attribute unless something is controversial? That something is the opinion of a local food writer/editor is useful knowledge, I'd think? —valereee (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some recipes online put the onions on top of the cheese, some people use different beans, you can find recipes putting it on things other than coneys or spaghetti (sometimes even in a bowl [gasp!]), but these don't make the standard prep just 'one person's opinion' or we would have to in-line attribute every single step in the prep (in the process making the whole section unreadable). Boiling is standard, not just one food editor's personal opinion. Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't generally use recipes as sources except in limited cases. A food editor's opinion, even one, we'll use. I assume as you didn't ping me in either of the two above discussions that you prefer not to be pinged. I do prefer always to be pinged even to active convos, as my watchlist is quite long and I sometimes miss things going past. —valereee (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @—valereee, you are just making my point - Wikipedia doesn't care if there is an occasional online recipe that does one aspect of the prep or another differently. We already begin the paragraph by stating explicitly that the beef is used raw.  Having done so, we don't need to give an extra sentence to make it clear that 'we're not kidding, we really, really mean that it is used raw' because a specific food critic says so. It just takes this aspect of standard prep and makes it look like nothing more than some expert's personal opinion, due to our 'protesting too much'. Agricolae (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aight. Well, I'm not going to push over this. —valereee (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sentance
For everyones information, I have removed a sentance in the lead because I couldnt figure out how to make it sound nice. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve it, please drop them below. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 02:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the intent, the consequence was to remove the only lede description of what it is actually similar to. That is at least as important to the lede as indicating what it is different from. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

disruptive editing

 * @Beeblebrox, @Oknazevad, any idea what this is? —valereee (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These two IPs have been edit warring over whether a Greek or a Macedonian immigrant invented Cincinnati chili. Although I have been editorially involved generally in this article, I have no opinion on this specific matter and protected the page and reverted to a version from before these two started editing it while it is sorted out here. Personally, I think nationalist disputes about who invented specific foods are among the most pointless arguments on Wikipedia,in fact, hummus, Caesar salad, and ceviche are all featured at Lamest edit wars for essentially this same sort of bickering. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted because this has all the makings of a nationalist pissing contest. All of which are inherently wasteful and stupid beyond reason. And one I might add probably falls under WP:ARBMAC sanctions. As far as I'm concerned both IPs can buzz off and not return to this article. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, that's a long dispute. It's stupid. This is a move any reasonable admin would make, I do not think it matters that you've been editiorially involved, I'd do the same protection. I was just wondering where it came from all of a sudden, like some reddit or something? —valereee (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why my edits (that ive cited to reliable sources) are getting labeled as pov and removed. source #2 in this article is literally a blog site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.16.1 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

removal of cited info
everything in the page was cited to low quality blogs, to nationalist macedonian pages, or to other low quality pages. i have added 5 different (reliable) citations which claim that the dish is greek yet they got removed. i will reinstate them. 37.6.16.1 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC) see also context on thee article of Macedonian Americans. until the end of world war two they were bulgarians so its an contradictory to add them to this article of 1920s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.16.1 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tom Kiradjieff the inventor of this dish was an ethnic Slavic Macedonian.95.0.32.95 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

i have provided abundant sources which claim they were greek. also the modern macedonian ethnicity wasnt formed in the 1920s. nevertheless i believe that the ethnicity of the creators shouldnt be in the top of the article. it should be kept under the origins section.

This is not factual this is based on nationalism and propaganda. There was no source mentioned that this dish is based on Bulgarian cuisine due to the fact that they have been identified as Slavic-Macedonian period.95.0.32.95 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tom Kiradjieff was definitely not Greek he has a Slavic name.95.0.32.95 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In this interview Joe Kiradjieff identifies as Bulgarian. The interviewer tries to steer him towards Macedonia, however, Joe makes the point he is Bulgarian. I tried to cite the interview, however, it appears Wikipedia does not like YouTube links. The name of the video is “Veterans History Project - Joe Kiradjieff“. Feel free to look him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5581:8D00:5177:EFEA:5593:A9A3 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)