Talk:Naga Morich

Credibility of references

I added a bunch of refs including dot coms to help show that it is at least a separate variety from Bhut Jolokia. I'm not sure if it achieves that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

Search Bhut Jolokia here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And the Fins just complicate things: [1]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This ref says it is a synonym. But the ratio is 5:1 for this variety being distinct. I guess the only way to tell is to eat three or four really fast, see through time and space, and gain enlightenment on the way to hospital. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: [2] I found this image on a site that tries hard to kill my computer (diamantesydolares.com). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naga Morich. 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://archive.is/20120721205335/http://www.chilipepper.com/ScovilleScale/tabid/59/Default.aspx to http://www.chilipepper.com/ScovilleScale/tabid/59/Default.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

“Naturally occurring”

> the only naturally occurring chili pepper that measures 1 million SHU

How can a domesticated species be “naturally occurring”? All superhot peppers are Capsicum chinense with a genetic introgression from C. frutescens — both of those species are domestic by definition. Where they occur in a natural context, they are escapees. 72.14.109.17 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Culinary usage section issues

The culinary usage section looks like either it was copy pasted from a food review site in which case it needs to be rewritten and cited, or someone decided to give their personal opinion on the chilli in which case it needs to be deleted. Not sure which it is so I left a tag and leave a more knowledgeable person to make the choice Mr tiny details (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree and found only this semi-adequate source that might be used to rewrite the section. Good references on this and most hot chilis are rare, based usually on the subjective experience of one or two bloggers (which is not WP:RS). The culinary section should be removed if we can't provide sufficient objective information from this or another source. Zefr (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I will cite WP:BOLD here and delete it. The edit that created the culinary section was all the way back in 2012 and checking the source in the wayback machine the very earliest crawl of the entire website was in 2013 so it could not have been used as a source. Mr tiny details (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistent regional spellings

This article inconsistently uses both American and British spelling. 2600 etc (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)