Talk:Cincinnati chili/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Cincinnati chili. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The ethnicity of the inventor.
According to Claude Fischler, Chapter 40 (The “McDonaldization” of culture') in J.L. Flandrin and M. Montanari, eds., Food: A Culinary History, Arts and Traditions of the Table: European perspectives, publisher Columbia University Press, 2013, ISBN 023111155X, p. 544: Cincinnati chili was invented by Tom Kiradjieff, a Bulgarian immigrant who was born in Macedonia. According to the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups by Thernstrom, Stephan; Orlov, Ann; Handlin, Oscar, eds. (1980). Harvard University Press. pp. 690–694. ISBN 0674375122: Almost all of Macedonians in the U.S. until World War II classified themselves as Macedonian Bulgarians or simply as Bulgarians...The greatest advances in the growth of a distinct Macedonian-American community have occurred since the late 1950s. The new immigrants came from Yugoslavia's Socialist Republic of Macedonia, where since World War II they had been educated to believe that Macedonians composed a culturally and linguistically distinct nationality. This inventor was not an ethnic Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your second source does not mention the individuals nor Cincinnati Chili at all. As you can see in the article, however, multiple sources describe the inventor(s) as Macedonian: "Slavic Macedonians" "Macedonian-American". --Local hero talk 04:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The second source just clarifies the issue, i.e. till the 1960s, there were almost no ethnic Macedonians in the US. Jingiby (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay well it does nothing for our discussion here. We have sources that describe them as Macedonian and sources that describe them as Bulgarian. So, let's state both in the article. --Local hero talk 05:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- First, let us clarify that Macedonian has different meanings. One of them is a Macedonian Bulgarian, another is an ethnic Macedonian, a third is a Macedo Romanian, and so on. Secondly, according to Paul Robert Magocsi in many circumstances this might seem a normal phenomenon, such as by the residents of the pre–World War II Macedonia, who identified as a Macedonian and Bulgarian (or "Macedono-Bulgarian"). According to Loring M. Danforth at the end of the World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. Almost all of Macedonians in the U.S. until World War II classified themselves as Macedonian Bulgarians or simply as Bulgarians. The greatest advances in the growth of a distinct Macedonian-American community have occurred since the late 1950s. Now for the biography of Athanas and John Kiradjieff. Athanas Kiradjieff was in the Bulgarian Army during the WWI. Afterwards he moved to the Bulgarian capital Sofia, where he worked as as accountant. He left Sofia and arrived in Cincinnati in the early 1920s. His brother John Kiradjieff also was Bulgarian Army soldier during the Great war and later emigrated to the US. A lot of Academic sources describe them as Bulgarians from Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay well it does nothing for our discussion here. We have sources that describe them as Macedonian and sources that describe them as Bulgarian. So, let's state both in the article. --Local hero talk 05:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, again, we have sources describing them as Bulgarian and sources describing them as Macedonian. So, we'll state both with the appropriate sourcing. Not sure what else there is to figure out here, this is a minor point in a food dish article. --Local hero talk 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The quote: "Almost all of Macedonians in the U.S. until World War II classified themselves as Macedonian Bulgarians or simply as Bulgarians [...]" is absolute synthesis in this context. All sources used should be a 100% in the context of Tom and John Kiradjieff. It is important to establish consensus by relevant and reputable sources around those figures and highlight that consensus in the lead (which is a contrast to the current locked version of the article). It is also important to not override the meaning of "Macedonian" by authors. If they meant it in a regional context, then they would have elaborated on it. Without elaboration, it is clear they mean it in an ethnic sense. Wikipedia should be driven by reliable and relevant sources, rather than editors personal interpretations of them. Kromid (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- In 1981, an anthropologist, Timothy Charles Lloyd, published a scholarly paper in the peer-reviewed journal Western Folklore titled “The Cincinnati Chili Culinary Complex” as part of a special issue on “foodways.” Later it was edited by Shortridge, Barbara Gimla, and James R. Shortridge in "The taste of American place: a reader on regional and ethnic foods", published by the academic publishing house Rowman & Littlefield. Timothy Lloyd is Senior Advisor for Partnerships for the American Folklore Society. He also serves as a Visiting Research Scholar at The Ohio State University’s Center for Folklore Studies and at Indiana University’s Department of Folklore. Dr. Lloyd explicitly mentioned in his study: "It should be noted that the Kiradjieffs, who are from Macedonia, consider themselves to be Bulgarian". That means simply that the whole family has Bulgarian identity. Check on p. 52. The Kiradjieffs brothers Athanas and Ivan (Thomas and John) were born in the late 19th century in Hrupishta, then in the Ottoman Empire, today Argos Orestiko in Greece. According to the statistics of Vasil Kanchov ("Macedonia. Ethnography and Statistics") in 1900 Hrupishta had 2690 inhabitants, of which 1100 Bulgarians, 700 Turks, 720 Vlachs and 170 Gypsies. Kiradjieff brothers were soldiers in the Bulgarian Army during the WWI. Afterwards they moved to the Bulgarian capital Sofia, and then left for Cincinnati in the early 1920s. As may be seen from the advertisement from 1922 to the right, the Kiradjieff brothers have been part of the Bulgarian community in the city since their arrival in the United States. According to a 25-year anniversary almanac of the Naroden Glas newspaper published by Vasil Stefanov in 1933, some of the most successful Bulgarians in Cincinaty were the Kiradjieff brothers, owners of a large and modern restaurant in the city center, check here, pleace. Naroden Glas was a Bulgarian newspaper, an agency of the Macedonian Bulgarian emigrants to the United States. Published daily in Bulgarian in the period from 1907 to 1950 in Granite City. The Bulgarian community in the city still considers them part of it, as can be understood from this publication here: Bulgarians Are Part of Cincinnati. There is pointed that according to Cincinnati Magazine, in 1923 the patriarch of “Cincinnati Chili” – Bulgarian-born Athanas Kiradjieff – opened a chili stand on Vine Street, called “The Empress”. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
suggested revisions
- I'm going to argue the exact ethnicity of the inventor isn't even worth including in the lead. We can deal with it in a sub of the origins section with all the argument sources there. valereee (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- As an essentially uninvolved drive-by editor I agree that this is the best way of resolving this rather silly dispute. I would remove the content between "by" and "immigrant" in the first sentence of the lede and move whatever discussion of the matter is necessary to the "Origins and history" section. If there are multiple conflicting sources of equal reliability it might even be best to have the discussion of the Kiradjieffs' ethnicity in a footnote. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- So the suggestion for the revised lead would be:
- Cincinnati chili (or Cincinnati-style chili) is a Mediterranean-spiced meat sauce used as a topping for spaghetti or hot dogs ("coneys"); both dishes were developed by immigrant restaurateurs in the 1920s. In 2013, Smithsonian named it one of the "20 Most Iconic Foods in America". Its name evokes comparison to chili con carne, but the two are dissimilar in consistency, flavor, and serving method; Cincinnati chili more closely resembles Greek pasta sauces and spiced-meat hot dog topping sauces seen in other parts of the United States.
- valereee (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- As an essentially uninvolved drive-by editor I agree that this is the best way of resolving this rather silly dispute. I would remove the content between "by" and "immigrant" in the first sentence of the lede and move whatever discussion of the matter is necessary to the "Origins and history" section. If there are multiple conflicting sources of equal reliability it might even be best to have the discussion of the Kiradjieffs' ethnicity in a footnote. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The suggestion for the revised section would be:
- Cincinnati chili originated with immigrant restaurateurs who were trying to expand their customer base by moving beyond narrowly ethnic styles of cuisine. Tom and John Kiradjieff, variously described as Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian Greeks or Macedonian Bulgarians, immigrated from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece), fleeing the Balkan Wars, ethnic rivalries, and bigotry, in 1921.
- (And I'd totally support having all the ethnicity stuff go into a footnote, as suggested by Wham2001. It just isn't important.)
- valereee (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Easily the best solution. Anything else is just allowing irrelevant (and fundamentally idiotic) nationalist chest-beating into an article where is has zero place. An acknowledgement of the Balkan roots of the creators is needed to explain the distinct flavors of Cincinnati chili, but beyond that attempts to have modern disputes frame the origins of a sauce developed 100 years ago is pointless and obnoxious. Frankly, the article was perfectly fine until some axe-grinding IP decided to show up and push nationalist crap. oknazevad (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because this is a historical dispute over circumstances from 100 years ago, I think that the political correctness is completely inappropriate here. The self-identification is the most important marker in this case. Since these people have identified themselves as Bulgarians throughout whole their lives, it is not necessary to expose the incompetent opinions of different modern journalists ignorant of the matter and writing in the tabloids. The Macedonian question is a rather very complex matter and I think that its experts on the English-language Wikipedia are counted on the fingers of both hands. Since I have the courage to say: I am one of them, I do not recommend such a mess. Rather, somewhere in the text, but not in the introduction of course, it can be mentioned that the discoverers of the sauce were Macedonian Bulgarians. If you try to read the last article itself, you may find out what it is about. Please, listen to the interview of the inventor's son Tom Kiradjieff, US Army veteran, whose name is Joe Kiradjieff here. Between the first and second minute he describes his parents and their origins. He claims that his parents are from Bulgaria. In response to a clarifying question from the interviewer, he claims that Macedonia is part of Bulgaria. In fact this idea is a pillar of Bulgarian irredentism. Basically his birth name is Asen "Joe" Kiradjieff. Asen is the name of Bulgarian tsar's dinasty and popular Bulgarian name. Keep in mind his mother Sika was born in Bulgaria. Check here. Compare with the biography of the director Ted Kotcheff, which is quite similar and for which there was the same controversy. Per Kotcheff himself, there is not a difference between Macedonian and Bulgarian. In February 2016, Kotcheff applied for Bulgarian citizenship via the Bulgarian consulate in Los Angeles, and was granted this one. It is unacceptable to hide the names of the inventors to the footnote, as well as their complete deletion from the article, or the description of several mutually exclusive versions of their ethnicity, which will cause complete confusion to the readers. Let's stick to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- So from that, can I assume you are okay with the suggested changes? valereee (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because this is a historical dispute over circumstances from 100 years ago, I think that the political correctness is completely inappropriate here. The self-identification is the most important marker in this case. Since these people have identified themselves as Bulgarians throughout whole their lives, it is not necessary to expose the incompetent opinions of different modern journalists ignorant of the matter and writing in the tabloids. The Macedonian question is a rather very complex matter and I think that its experts on the English-language Wikipedia are counted on the fingers of both hands. Since I have the courage to say: I am one of them, I do not recommend such a mess. Rather, somewhere in the text, but not in the introduction of course, it can be mentioned that the discoverers of the sauce were Macedonian Bulgarians. If you try to read the last article itself, you may find out what it is about. Please, listen to the interview of the inventor's son Tom Kiradjieff, US Army veteran, whose name is Joe Kiradjieff here. Between the first and second minute he describes his parents and their origins. He claims that his parents are from Bulgaria. In response to a clarifying question from the interviewer, he claims that Macedonia is part of Bulgaria. In fact this idea is a pillar of Bulgarian irredentism. Basically his birth name is Asen "Joe" Kiradjieff. Asen is the name of Bulgarian tsar's dinasty and popular Bulgarian name. Keep in mind his mother Sika was born in Bulgaria. Check here. Compare with the biography of the director Ted Kotcheff, which is quite similar and for which there was the same controversy. Per Kotcheff himself, there is not a difference between Macedonian and Bulgarian. In February 2016, Kotcheff applied for Bulgarian citizenship via the Bulgarian consulate in Los Angeles, and was granted this one. It is unacceptable to hide the names of the inventors to the footnote, as well as their complete deletion from the article, or the description of several mutually exclusive versions of their ethnicity, which will cause complete confusion to the readers. Let's stick to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Easily the best solution. Anything else is just allowing irrelevant (and fundamentally idiotic) nationalist chest-beating into an article where is has zero place. An acknowledgement of the Balkan roots of the creators is needed to explain the distinct flavors of Cincinnati chili, but beyond that attempts to have modern disputes frame the origins of a sauce developed 100 years ago is pointless and obnoxious. Frankly, the article was perfectly fine until some axe-grinding IP decided to show up and push nationalist crap. oknazevad (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion for the revised section is slightly different:
- Cincinnati chili originated with immigrant restaurateurs who were trying to expand their customer base by moving beyond narrowly ethnic styles of cuisine. Its inventors, Tom and John Kiradjieff were Macedonian Bulgarians from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece). They immigrated via Bulgaria to the US in 1921, fleeing the Balkan Wars and First World War ethnic rivalries, and bigotry there. Jingiby (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy with this version (with the sources from your post yesterday referenced at appropriate places) and would slightly prefer it to valereee's version (though I'd be happy with that too). Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Wham2001, why do you you think Bulgaria/Bulgarian needs to be twice in the lead of an article about an American food item TWICE? Literally the only important thing is their names and the fact they were immigrants, even the fact they were fleeing the Balkan wars, the town they emigrated from, etc., could probably be left out of the lead. It's an article about a food. valereee (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jingiby, no, there is absolutely zero reason to put the exact ethnicity of the creators into the lead, and having a mention of it there (and you want 'Bulgaria/Bulgarian' in the lead TWICE?) has been attracting disruption for years as we've gone back and forth between Greek, Macedonian, and now Bulgarian. It doesn't actually matter what the men considered themselves in this article. It would matter in the article about them.
- IMO mentioning this in the lead is trivia. This is an article about an American food item, not about the Balkan wars. And honestly the sources you seem to want to use are pretty synthy and primary. You're literally interpreting a 20-second exchange in a 2019 interview with the creator's son -- who, btw, can't remember the name of the village his parents emigrated from -- to force this into the article. That is looking very much like POV-pushing, and you need to stop. valereee (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, look at my previous 2 posts to find the reliable secondary sources. In my today post are a lot of primary ones, which confirm the secondary ones. I agree that second and third sentence i.e. Its inventors, Tom and John Kiradjieff were Macedonian Bulgarians from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece). They immigrated via Bulgaria to the US in 1921, fleeing the Balkan Wars and First World War ethnic rivalries, and bigotry there. may be put into the main body. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but now we have to deal with the fact different sources are calling them different things. They are indeed variously called Greek, Macedonian, Slavic Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Bulgarian Macedonian. It's silly to mention every one of these. I'm also not sure it's important -- why not just give the name of the village? Also when did 'via Bulgaria' and WWII creep in? valereee (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just heading out of the door, but how about "Its inventors, Tom and John Kiradjieff from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece), immigrated to the US in 1921," with a footnote following the parentheses which lists any of the nationalities / ethnicities that can be reliably sourced? Or indeed the footnote could be omitted; a reader who wants to know about chili is unlikely to care about the ethnicity of its inventors. Regarding WWI, is that sourced? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- GMTA. Yes, the WWI is actually in the same source as the Balkan Wars, I just checked. I must have just missed that part when I was first putting it in. valereee (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just heading out of the door, but how about "Its inventors, Tom and John Kiradjieff from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece), immigrated to the US in 1921," with a footnote following the parentheses which lists any of the nationalities / ethnicities that can be reliably sourced? Or indeed the footnote could be omitted; a reader who wants to know about chili is unlikely to care about the ethnicity of its inventors. Regarding WWI, is that sourced? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but now we have to deal with the fact different sources are calling them different things. They are indeed variously called Greek, Macedonian, Slavic Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Bulgarian Macedonian. It's silly to mention every one of these. I'm also not sure it's important -- why not just give the name of the village? Also when did 'via Bulgaria' and WWII creep in? valereee (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I understood Jingiby to be suggesting this paragraph for the article body, not the lede. @Jingiby, is that correct? I agree that it's inappropriate in the lede. Wham2001 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's inappropriate for the leading section. Jingiby (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry then, not enough coffee yet! valereee (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources as for example:
- Fischler, Claude “The ‘McDonaldization’ of Culture” in Food, A Culinary History, Jean-Louis Flandrin and Massimo Montanari eds., English edition by Albert Sonnenfeld, (2013) Columbia University Press, pp. 530-548. ISBN 9780231111553
- Lloyd, Timothy Charles (January 1981). "The Cincinnati Chili Culinary Complex". Western Folklore. 40 (1): pp. 28–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i266249.
- Cincinnati chilly an article by Lucy M. Long in Deutsch, Jonathan, Benjamin Fulton, and Alexandra Zeitz. (2018). We eat what?: a cultural encyclopedia of unusual foods in the United States. pp. 91-94. ISBN 1440841128 Jingiby (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- And what are we using those sources for? valereee (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- In support of the thesis exactly these brothers were the inventors of the sauce and their specific destiny and origin. Jingiby (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, happy to use it for them being the inventors, no one anywhere disputes that. The Long article says Kiradjieff was from Macedonia. Ditto the Lloyd. The Fischler says 'Bulgarian born in Macedonia'. Still seems a bit murky to me, given that other sources do say other things.
- How about this?
- Cincinnati chili originated with immigrant restaurateurs who were trying to expand their customer base by moving beyond narrowly ethnic styles of cuisine. Tom and John Kiradjieff emigrated from Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko), fleeing ethnic rivalries and bigotry in the fallout from the Balkan Wars and World War I, in 1921. valereee (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pinning down the exact nationality isn't really important, and since we have to do some sort of original research or synth to get there, and since it's been a constant magnet for disruptive editing, I think it's reasonable to just go with "they were from this village and were fleeing the Balkan Wars/WWI". That's accurate. valereee (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- In support of the thesis exactly these brothers were the inventors of the sauce and their specific destiny and origin. Jingiby (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- And what are we using those sources for? valereee (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources as for example:
- Oh, sorry then, not enough coffee yet! valereee (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's inappropriate for the leading section. Jingiby (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, look at my previous 2 posts to find the reliable secondary sources. In my today post are a lot of primary ones, which confirm the secondary ones. I agree that second and third sentence i.e. Its inventors, Tom and John Kiradjieff were Macedonian Bulgarians from the town of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko in Greece). They immigrated via Bulgaria to the US in 1921, fleeing the Balkan Wars and First World War ethnic rivalries, and bigotry there. may be put into the main body. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy with this version (with the sources from your post yesterday referenced at appropriate places) and would slightly prefer it to valereee's version (though I'd be happy with that too). Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- valereee (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Belaboring the ethnic origin is unneeded because it's a level of detail irrelevant to the topic of the article, the specifics are in question and unclear, and it is simply put a magnet for disruption and POV-pushing. This article already has to deal with the burden of the question as to whether this sauce should even be called chili (lol). It doesn't need to be a battle ground for nationalist junk. oknazevad (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. All the 3 articles above have the same agenda. Fischler clearly states: Cincinnati chili was invented by Tom Kiradjieff, a Bulgarian immigrant who was born in Macedonia. The Long's article claims: After World War II, Kiradjieff began expanding the Empress parlor with his son, Joe, but it remained a family business and emphasized its American rather than its ethnic identity, which they considered to be Bulgarian. Dr. Lloyd explicitly mentioned in his study: "It should be noted that the Kiradjieffs, who are from Macedonia, consider themselves to be Bulgarian". Jingiby (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Which is fine, but why do we even need it? Why include "from Macedonia, but according to X considered themselves ethnic Bulgarians" in this article about Cincinnati chili? Why is it even important? If it were a biography about these men, it would be important. Here it's just a distraction, as there are plenty of other descriptions of them as Greek or Macedonian or Slavic Macedonians. They didn't invent the stuff in (whatever country claimed their village at the time). They didn't use Grandma's authentic Bulgarian recipe for ghivetch as a basis. According to Lloyd we have to "look at foodways of the Levant and the Balkans" for a clue as to where the sauce even came from. After that they basically let their customers invent the dish. So how is the fact they were born in Macedonia (in a town that is now in Greece) but considered themselves ethnic Bulgarians even important to include? valereee (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with valereee and Oknazevad on this. The details of their nationality are irrelevant to the dish, which is the topic of the article, and a magnet for trouble if we make a passing reference to them. So it's better not to. I would go with valereee's formulation at 13.59 above. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've made that revision. If everyone is okay with it, we can ask for the protection to be lowered to semi, I think? valereee (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee The very start of "Origins and history" needs trimming, but otherwise looks good. I'd be happy with lowering protection to semi. Wham2001 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The brothers were born into the Ottoman Empire. The spicy Ottoman cuisine is the key for the souse. At the time they were born Macedonia was not a separate entity. It became such a half century later. Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we do understand how complicated things are in the area. valereee (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Have I got it now? (Sorry, after this many edits and revisions my ability to proofread drops to almost nil). valereee (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The brothers were born into the Ottoman Empire. The spicy Ottoman cuisine is the key for the souse. At the time they were born Macedonia was not a separate entity. It became such a half century later. Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee The very start of "Origins and history" needs trimming, but otherwise looks good. I'd be happy with lowering protection to semi. Wham2001 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've made that revision. If everyone is okay with it, we can ask for the protection to be lowered to semi, I think? valereee (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with valereee and Oknazevad on this. The details of their nationality are irrelevant to the dish, which is the topic of the article, and a magnet for trouble if we make a passing reference to them. So it's better not to. I would go with valereee's formulation at 13.59 above. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Which is fine, but why do we even need it? Why include "from Macedonia, but according to X considered themselves ethnic Bulgarians" in this article about Cincinnati chili? Why is it even important? If it were a biography about these men, it would be important. Here it's just a distraction, as there are plenty of other descriptions of them as Greek or Macedonian or Slavic Macedonians. They didn't invent the stuff in (whatever country claimed their village at the time). They didn't use Grandma's authentic Bulgarian recipe for ghivetch as a basis. According to Lloyd we have to "look at foodways of the Levant and the Balkans" for a clue as to where the sauce even came from. After that they basically let their customers invent the dish. So how is the fact they were born in Macedonia (in a town that is now in Greece) but considered themselves ethnic Bulgarians even important to include? valereee (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
suggested footnote
- Nope, in my opinion, it would be correct that the commentary at length and extensively above is reflected at least in a footnote as follows: the brothers were born in the Ottoman Empire. They are of Bulgarian origin and initially moved to Bulgaria, from where they later emigrated to the United States. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't actually have an objection to a footnote, in principle, and I don't think Wham does either. For one thing a footnote is less likely to attract disruptive edits, I think. If you'd like to come up with a very specific suggestion? (With code if possible, I'm not sure I've ever added one myself.) valereee (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, then the note will be as follows:
- I don't actually have an objection to a footnote, in principle, and I don't think Wham does either. For one thing a footnote is less likely to attract disruptive edits, I think. If you'd like to come up with a very specific suggestion? (With code if possible, I'm not sure I've ever added one myself.) valereee (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, in my opinion, it would be correct that the commentary at length and extensively above is reflected at least in a footnote as follows: the brothers were born in the Ottoman Empire. They are of Bulgarian origin and initially moved to Bulgaria, from where they later emigrated to the United States. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Tom and John Kiradjieff emigrated from the village of Hrupishta (today's Argos Orestiko), fleeing ethnic rivalries and bigotry in the fallout from the Balkan Wars and World War I, in 1921.[1] [note 1]
- I believe that this footnote is quite adequate. Apcbg (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
discussion of note
- The source doesn't support Ottoman, soldiers in the Bulgarian Army, moving to Bulgaria. I don't think we probably need anything about one of the most successful Bulgarians in Cincinnati or owners of a large and modern restaurant in the city center, but at any rate that doesn't seem to be supported by this ref? valereee (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The cited source describes them as Slavic Macedonians and part of the Greek immigrant community of Cincinnati. --Local hero talk 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Instead of spinning in a circle here, I am going to create a separate article about this man with sources supporting everything mentioned above in the next week. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Spoiler alert: Jingiby's article will only incorporate the sources that describe them as Bulgarian. --Local hero talk 04:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will certainly not use comics as that above. I can't believe my eyes that such sources can be used in a selected article on Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's from one of Cincinnati's major local news outlets. In any case, if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see the article cites "The Authenic History of Cincinnati Chili" (Google books) which also describes Kiradjieff as Macedonian. Maybe your eyes will believe this. --Local hero talk 05:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Arcadia publishing is not an University publishing press and its reliability is questionable. Moreover the author of this book Dann Woellert is a food etymologist, who eats and researches how our food came to be what it is, whatever that means. He is neither a historian, nor an antropologist. Jingiby (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's from one of Cincinnati's major local news outlets. In any case, if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see the article cites "The Authenic History of Cincinnati Chili" (Google books) which also describes Kiradjieff as Macedonian. Maybe your eyes will believe this. --Local hero talk 05:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will certainly not use comics as that above. I can't believe my eyes that such sources can be used in a selected article on Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you are building the article on your sandbox @Jingiby:, here are some sources to help you out:
- American Cuisine and How It Got This Way (2019) by Paul Freedman of Yale (Liveright Publishing):
- “developed in 1922 by Tom Kiradjieff, a Macedonian immigrant”
- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America (2004) by Andrew F. Smith (Oxford University Press), pg. 232 and 253:
- “two Macedonian immigrant brothers named Kiradjieff opened a restaurant”
- “Macedonian immigrant, Athanas “Tom” Kiradjieff, and his brother, John”
- “the creation of Macedonian immigrant Athanas “Tom” Kiradjieff”
- “Old Stock” Tamales and Migrant Tacos: Taste, Authenticity, and the Naturalization of Mexican Food (2014) by Jeffrey M. Pilcher (Johns Hopkins University Press):
- “created in the 1920s by Macedonian immigrant Tom Kiradjieff”
- Chain founded originally by the Kiradjieff brothers, Empress Chili’s own website:
- “In 1922, brothers Tom and John Kiradjieff, Macedonian immigrants”
- The Kentucky Fresh Cookbook (2011) by Maggie Green (University Press of Kentucky):
- “Macedonian immigrant Tom Athanas Kiradjieff settled in Cincinnati”
- Cincinnati Magazine (link) July 2004 edition, pg. 62:
- “Macedonian immigrant Tom (Athanas) Kiradjieff
- Cincinnati Magazine (link) July 2009 edition, pg. 57:
- “created in 1922 by Macedonian immigrants Athanas (“Tom”) and John Kiradjieff
- House Resolution 741, of the 117th Congress (2021):
- “Macedonian-American immigrants Tom and John Kiradjieff, using old Macedonian recipes passed down by their parents and grandparents, created Cincinnati chili”
- The Great American Hot Dog Book, by Becky Mercuri (Gibbs Smith):
- “Athanas Kiradjieff, a Macedonian immigrant, created Cincinnati chili”
- The Authentic History of Cincinnati Chili (2013) by Dann Woellert (Arcadia Publishing); this is probably the most detailed book on the subject of Cincinnati chili:
- Extremely detailed descriptions of the Kiradjieff brothers and their Macedonian background throughout the book.
You'll notice most of these are quite recent whereas some you are using may be quite outdated. --Local hero talk 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Local Hero. However, I will repeat that I do not like modern political correctness, but I prefer things to be presented as they really were. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what that means. Your personal likes and dislikes are of course irrelevant to editing on Wikipedia. WP:AGE MATTERS may be a good read for you. Thanks. --Local hero talk 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jingiby, you've used the term "political correctness" twice here, and to this native English speaker, that doesn't actually make idiomatic sense. Can you explain what you mean by political correctness in this context? valereee (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Better to stick to reliable resources than diving into WP:OR. Kromid (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with Valeree on the "political correctness" thing. I don't understand what it means in this context. I thought we had a long, pointless conversation over whether calling it "chili" is a misnomer, but this blows that away for sheer "someone please tell me why I should care" value. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Kromid (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- valereee, this means denying the Bulgarian identity of the majority of Slavo-Macedonian immigrants during the 19th and 20th century in the United States for political reasons. This means posthumously changing their self-identification by imposing current ethnic and political differences onto the past, when there were none. This is done using the opinion of non-experts and disregarding the opinion of experts on the Macedonian issue, which, as I noted above, is by no means simple. I give you examples. Per the food etymologist without scientific rank Woellert, Dann (2013). The Authentic History of Cincinnati Chili. The History Press. ISBN 978-1-60949-992-1: In the first half of 20th century they were identified as Bulgarians, but that ethnic designation is not correct. Further Dann has described them as Slavic Macedonians. That is political correctness. Per Chis Kostov, Ph.D. in History with specialization in Canadian Studies (History) at the University of Ottawa and former Historical Research Analyst of the Government of Canada and his book "The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996", Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 117: The most prominent non-Balkan scholars, who deal with the Macedonian diasporas, seem to be unanimous that until 1945, the majority of the Macedonian immigrants of Slavic origin identified themselves as Bulgarians and, more rarely, as Greeks. Victor Roudometoff acknowledges the ethnic identity of the early immigrants, pointing out that: "In the case of the Macedonian diasporas, there are three distinct groups holding out different images of Macedonia. These are the Greek Macedonians, the Bulgarian Macedonians, and the post-1945 ethnic Macedonians. The last group is by far the most recent addition to the list." The American anthropologist Loring Danforth, who became famous for his work on the identity conflict between the Greek and Macedonian diasporas in Australia, also confirms the observations of Roudometof. That is historical correctness. That too: Immigrants from Macedonia came to the United States in significant numbers during the early years of the 20th century. Until World War II almost all of them thought of themselves as Bulgarians and identified themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonian Bulgarians. Recently, however, for some this has begun to change. Although there are still perhaps 50,000 Macedonians who identify themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonian Bulgarians, a group of Macedonian Americans who identify themselves specifically as Macedonians is beginning to emerge as a result of developments in their Balkan homelands Thernstrom, Stephan; Orlov, Ann; Handlin, Oscar, eds. (1980). "Macedonians". Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. pp. 690–694. ISBN 0674375122.Jingiby (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, got it. No idea whether you're presenting the situation accurately, of course, but I get what you're saying. Wikipedia does consider recent well-regarded scholarship to be the gold standard for sourcing, though, so choose your battles. I don't think Cincinnati chili is the hill you want to die on. Are you willing to accept consensus here so we can ask that the article be returned to semi-protection? valereee (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing in your comment has to do with the Kiradjieffs. Please provide relevant sources, the rest is WP:SYNTHy. --Local hero talk 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- valereee, this means denying the Bulgarian identity of the majority of Slavo-Macedonian immigrants during the 19th and 20th century in the United States for political reasons. This means posthumously changing their self-identification by imposing current ethnic and political differences onto the past, when there were none. This is done using the opinion of non-experts and disregarding the opinion of experts on the Macedonian issue, which, as I noted above, is by no means simple. I give you examples. Per the food etymologist without scientific rank Woellert, Dann (2013). The Authentic History of Cincinnati Chili. The History Press. ISBN 978-1-60949-992-1: In the first half of 20th century they were identified as Bulgarians, but that ethnic designation is not correct. Further Dann has described them as Slavic Macedonians. That is political correctness. Per Chis Kostov, Ph.D. in History with specialization in Canadian Studies (History) at the University of Ottawa and former Historical Research Analyst of the Government of Canada and his book "The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996", Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 117: The most prominent non-Balkan scholars, who deal with the Macedonian diasporas, seem to be unanimous that until 1945, the majority of the Macedonian immigrants of Slavic origin identified themselves as Bulgarians and, more rarely, as Greeks. Victor Roudometoff acknowledges the ethnic identity of the early immigrants, pointing out that: "In the case of the Macedonian diasporas, there are three distinct groups holding out different images of Macedonia. These are the Greek Macedonians, the Bulgarian Macedonians, and the post-1945 ethnic Macedonians. The last group is by far the most recent addition to the list." The American anthropologist Loring Danforth, who became famous for his work on the identity conflict between the Greek and Macedonian diasporas in Australia, also confirms the observations of Roudometof. That is historical correctness. That too: Immigrants from Macedonia came to the United States in significant numbers during the early years of the 20th century. Until World War II almost all of them thought of themselves as Bulgarians and identified themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonian Bulgarians. Recently, however, for some this has begun to change. Although there are still perhaps 50,000 Macedonians who identify themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonian Bulgarians, a group of Macedonian Americans who identify themselves specifically as Macedonians is beginning to emerge as a result of developments in their Balkan homelands Thernstrom, Stephan; Orlov, Ann; Handlin, Oscar, eds. (1980). "Macedonians". Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press. pp. 690–694. ISBN 0674375122.Jingiby (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Kromid (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with Valeree on the "political correctness" thing. I don't understand what it means in this context. I thought we had a long, pointless conversation over whether calling it "chili" is a misnomer, but this blows that away for sheer "someone please tell me why I should care" value. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No problems, valereee. Jingiby (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! valereee (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Misnomer
@Agricolae, let's discuss misnomer. It seems to me that calling this stuff chili is clearly a "a wrong or inaccurate name". It's not chili/chili con carne. It's a meat sauce that is sometimes referred to as "chili", similar to the meat sauces referred to as chili by various greek restaurants around the country, but it's in no way chili con carne. That's a misnomer, it seems to me. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- One of the definitions of 'chili' given by Miriam-Webster (definition 2a in their online dictionary) is "a thick sauce of meat and chilies", with the example sentence "liked to cover her spaghetti with red chili", a separate subdefinition than (2b) "chili con carne". The problem is not that it is a misnomer, but the misperception that the word 'chili' only appiles to 'chili con carne'. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- But what does that have to do with Cincinnati chili? Anyone can put chili on spaghetti. That doesn't mean it's Cincinnati chili. I don't know what "red chili" even means, it's a strange thing to use for the definition without indicating where it came from. It sounds like someone just dumped actual chili on spaghetti, which is indeed a fairly common dish in the midwest. Steak and Shake offers a chili spaghetti that is in no way Cincinnati chili. "Bowl o' red" typically means chili con carne. Cincinnati chili, and the other greek sauces for topping hot dogs, aren't "chili". There's even a source in the article that says that if they'd called it something else, chili aficionados would be able to enjoy it because it wasn't being called chili. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like you are using a Justice Potter Stewart definition of chili, 'I know it when I see it', and Cincinnati chili isn't it, but the bar for labeling something a 'misnomer' is higher than simply 'it isn't what I personally think of when I hear the word'. One definition of chili is "a thick sauce of meat and chilies", so to call Cincinnati chili, which is "a thick sauce of meat and chilies", by the name 'chili' is entirely consistent with one of the word's dictionary definitions. By matching one of the formal definitions, it isn't lingustically incorrect - it isn't a 'misnomer'. Is the name confusing to a lot of people? yes, because most people's conception of 'chili' is more restictive than the word's full linguistic scope - serve an American a Yorkshire pudding and you will get a similar reaction, but that doesn't mean the Brits are misusing the language. Would chili con carne snobs react differently if it had a different name? Sure, but some of them also take offence at beans. For that matter, if you look at how Wikipedia defines chili con carne, as "a spicy stew containing chili peppers (sometimes in the form of chili powder), meat (usually beef), tomatoes . . . may include garlic, onions, and cumin", well, that also describes Cincinnati chili. If you simply called it a 'Mediterranean-fusion chili' and submitted it in a bowl (ugh!) to a chili competition, it wouldn't win because it would be viewed as too experimental and non-traditional, but it wouldn't be kicked out for not really being chili. 'Pineapple chili', 'chocolate chili', and even 'Asian-fusion chili' are all still called chili except by the hard-core chili purists. If it is still legitimate to call the last of these 'chili' when it is seasoned with chinese five-spice and hoisin sauce, it can hardly be disqualifying to instead throw in some cinnamon, allspice, cloves and a bay leaf and call it Cincinnati chili. Agricolae (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- That all seems like a ton of original research you're doing and completely irrelevant to the question here of whether calling the stuff "chili" is a misnomer, which is defined as "a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term". Every source agrees this isn't chili. The fact you disagree with those sources and think they're incorrect because there's pineapple chili out there and the dictionary definition of chili could included this sauce is original research. The dictionary definition could include a spicy bolognese, too. Sources comment on the fact the name is confusing because it's not chili -- that is, that it's a wrong or inaccurate name. That's literally the definition of a misnomer. Changing the section head from 'misnomer' to 'name' just makes it less precise and more vague as a description of what that section is about. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it is a lot of Original Research - brought on by your own. When presented with a dictionary definition, you spun all kinds of reasons why that must be referring to something else, anything else, introducing the irrelevant fact that certain midwesterners put chili con carne on spaghetti (irrelevant because as stated the dictionary had a separate definition from the one encompassing chili con carne, so not what this definition was about) and mentioning other sauces put on hot dogs - I figured turnabout is fair play and gave you my own two cents. Goose ... Gander. If you want no original research, let's do that. Several (not all) sources do comment on the fact that the name is confusing. I have no problem with that. I don't see any source calling it a misnomer, so that would be you doing original research. Likewise, though, even if there is a single source that uses that specific word, I think it would fall short of the standard for declaring it as such in Wikipedia's voice, meaning a) it should be attributed, and 2) the article shouldn't have a whole section named based on the most extreme description of the situation one has found. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can you show me what you think I did that was original research? Because I thought I was using reliable sources. No, let's definitely not do OR. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have multiple sources that call the term 'Cincinnati chili" a "misnomer" - specifically a "misnomer", not them referring to the naming issue some other way and you then deciding it represents a "misnomer"? Agricolae (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a fair standard. Two of the definitions of misnomer are "A term that is misleading, even if it may not be incorrect." and "A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense" and I think it has been clearly established that the term "Cincinnati chili" meets both of those definitions regardless of whether the sources have used that exact wording. I just don't see this is an issue worth the level of fuss being made here about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it meets both, let alone that it has been 'clearly established'. That said, though, I agree it is a lot of fuss over something not very important in the grand scheme of things, but here is what I just do not understand. What is the mystical significance of the word 'misnomer'. I would be hard pressed to remember any other instance on Wikipedia where a word has been considered so sacrosanct (except maybe 'pseudoscince') that when someone made it clear they really didn't like its use in a particular circumstance, the response has been an absolute refusal to even consider the possibility of using anything other than that exact word. What's with that? Agricolae (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agricolae, but you haven't given us anything other than "Name" to consider. "Misnomer" is descriptive, precise and accurate. "Name" is vague and gives no clue as to what it is about the name that even needs to be discussed. If you can come up with something you feel is better than "Misnomer", I'm am happy to consider it. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- And you haven't given anything but 'misnomer'. You reject mine, I reject yours - how is that entirely my problem to fix? Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agricolae, but you haven't given us anything other than "Name" to consider. "Misnomer" is descriptive, precise and accurate. "Name" is vague and gives no clue as to what it is about the name that even needs to be discussed. If you can come up with something you feel is better than "Misnomer", I'm am happy to consider it. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it meets both, let alone that it has been 'clearly established'. That said, though, I agree it is a lot of fuss over something not very important in the grand scheme of things, but here is what I just do not understand. What is the mystical significance of the word 'misnomer'. I would be hard pressed to remember any other instance on Wikipedia where a word has been considered so sacrosanct (except maybe 'pseudoscince') that when someone made it clear they really didn't like its use in a particular circumstance, the response has been an absolute refusal to even consider the possibility of using anything other than that exact word. What's with that? Agricolae (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- So you seem to be saying that using the word "Misnomer" as the section head instead of "Name" qualifies as original research on my part? To me that's naming the section precisely by paraphrasing all the "it's not really chili" type quotes into a single word. All I'm trying to do is come up with a section head shorter than "The name is confusing because it's not really chili" but less vague than "Name". "Misnomer" was what I came up with. —valereee (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- For a section heading, if you want to convey that the name is confusing, then the most straightforward way to do that is with 'Confusing name'. Now it is your turn. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that seems a little clunky for a section head in a Good Article, especially when we have an actual word that means precisely that, but I'll make that change for now as better than "Name" while we continue to try to find something both precise and unclunky. —valereee (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Except it doesn't mean precisely that. I am not going to play the game of just repeatedly serving up alternatives for automatic rejection - it is your turn now. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not playing a game. I'm trying to find consensus. I literally just changed the section head to the one you'd suggested that for me was at least a step in the right direction. Clearly I'm operating in good faith. Would you like to discuss what you think 'misnomer' means that isn't this? To me it really does seem like it's exactly what the word was coined for. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Been there, done that - all it earned me was instant dismissal and accusations of original research. I had hoped the discussion had finally progressed to a different phase, one of trying to find an alternative we both found acceptable, but here we are right back at 'misnomer'/'not misnomer' as if the past weeks' discussion had never happened. Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- As the apparent consensus here is that misnomer is the correct term, with two editors arguing that it is and one that it isn't, I feel like we could go back to Misnomer just on the strength of that. I also feel like I'm being patient here by offering to continue to discuss. If you no longer want to discuss, that's fine, I'll put it back to misnomer. I guess you could open an RfC if you feel it's important enough to do that. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Of course you did. "If you no longer want to discuss, that's fine" - I have asked multiple times for you to actually work with me in identifying an alternatives, only to be met with complete intransigence. You have offered exactly zero alternatives. None whatsoever. Abject inflexibility. And now you simply say, 'I am putting it back my way, if you don't like it take it to RfC' as if that was an appropriate substitute for both sides being flexible enough to find a mutually acceptable outcome. Good faith indeed. So I ask, yet again, is there not some other word or phrase in the entire English language you would entertain as an acceptable substitute? Agricolae (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "Of course you did."? Of course I did what?
- My position is the consensus position here. I believe "Misnomer" is both precise and accurate, and another editor agrees with me. I'm willing to find a mutually acceptable outcome if you can just suggest something that's better than Misnomer. You've suggested "Name", which is not better, and "Confusing name", which is not better. I can't think of anything better than Misnomer. I've looked at a thesaurus, and nothing comes even close. I've said I'm willing to consider other suggestions, but you're asking me to find something better when I've told you I can't think of anything better than Misnomer. I'm not sure how that equates to intransigence, but I'll ask that you please assume good faith here. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, since you asked, I meant 'of course you declared yourself to be in the absolute right and put your phrasing back in'. When from the start your position has been 'I think my word is so perfect that I get the right to refuse any change, whether you like my wording or not', it was never going any other way. It hardly engenders good faith when you repeatedly frame the discussion in terms of your preferred version being default unless the other person can overcome its inherent perfection. True consensus involves (gasp!) compromise, allowing wording you may personally may not think is as good but is nonetheless acceptable, because it is less odious to the other person, not this 'the fact that you don't like it is an inherently less valid perspective' approach you have taken throughout. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- But it's not my word. It's the word that two editors have agreed is better than either of the suggestions you've made. I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard, but I just don't understand why you'd think this wasn't a matter for consensus and why me saying, "But consensus is against you" is somehow me being intransigent. You are the only editor so far to argue against that word, which has been in the article for 6+ years, and which was in the article when it passed GA. I've told you, multiple times, that I'm willing to compromise if you can come up with something better than Misnomer. I've told you I've even looked at a thesaurus. But I'm not going to try to come up with something I don't think exists. If you think it exists, you should be able to find it. —valereee (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, since you asked, I meant 'of course you declared yourself to be in the absolute right and put your phrasing back in'. When from the start your position has been 'I think my word is so perfect that I get the right to refuse any change, whether you like my wording or not', it was never going any other way. It hardly engenders good faith when you repeatedly frame the discussion in terms of your preferred version being default unless the other person can overcome its inherent perfection. True consensus involves (gasp!) compromise, allowing wording you may personally may not think is as good but is nonetheless acceptable, because it is less odious to the other person, not this 'the fact that you don't like it is an inherently less valid perspective' approach you have taken throughout. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Of course you did. "If you no longer want to discuss, that's fine" - I have asked multiple times for you to actually work with me in identifying an alternatives, only to be met with complete intransigence. You have offered exactly zero alternatives. None whatsoever. Abject inflexibility. And now you simply say, 'I am putting it back my way, if you don't like it take it to RfC' as if that was an appropriate substitute for both sides being flexible enough to find a mutually acceptable outcome. Good faith indeed. So I ask, yet again, is there not some other word or phrase in the entire English language you would entertain as an acceptable substitute? Agricolae (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- As the apparent consensus here is that misnomer is the correct term, with two editors arguing that it is and one that it isn't, I feel like we could go back to Misnomer just on the strength of that. I also feel like I'm being patient here by offering to continue to discuss. If you no longer want to discuss, that's fine, I'll put it back to misnomer. I guess you could open an RfC if you feel it's important enough to do that. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Been there, done that - all it earned me was instant dismissal and accusations of original research. I had hoped the discussion had finally progressed to a different phase, one of trying to find an alternative we both found acceptable, but here we are right back at 'misnomer'/'not misnomer' as if the past weeks' discussion had never happened. Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not playing a game. I'm trying to find consensus. I literally just changed the section head to the one you'd suggested that for me was at least a step in the right direction. Clearly I'm operating in good faith. Would you like to discuss what you think 'misnomer' means that isn't this? To me it really does seem like it's exactly what the word was coined for. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Except it doesn't mean precisely that. I am not going to play the game of just repeatedly serving up alternatives for automatic rejection - it is your turn now. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that seems a little clunky for a section head in a Good Article, especially when we have an actual word that means precisely that, but I'll make that change for now as better than "Name" while we continue to try to find something both precise and unclunky. —valereee (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- For a section heading, if you want to convey that the name is confusing, then the most straightforward way to do that is with 'Confusing name'. Now it is your turn. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a fair standard. Two of the definitions of misnomer are "A term that is misleading, even if it may not be incorrect." and "A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense" and I think it has been clearly established that the term "Cincinnati chili" meets both of those definitions regardless of whether the sources have used that exact wording. I just don't see this is an issue worth the level of fuss being made here about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have multiple sources that call the term 'Cincinnati chili" a "misnomer" - specifically a "misnomer", not them referring to the naming issue some other way and you then deciding it represents a "misnomer"? Agricolae (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can you show me what you think I did that was original research? Because I thought I was using reliable sources. No, let's definitely not do OR. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it is a lot of Original Research - brought on by your own. When presented with a dictionary definition, you spun all kinds of reasons why that must be referring to something else, anything else, introducing the irrelevant fact that certain midwesterners put chili con carne on spaghetti (irrelevant because as stated the dictionary had a separate definition from the one encompassing chili con carne, so not what this definition was about) and mentioning other sauces put on hot dogs - I figured turnabout is fair play and gave you my own two cents. Goose ... Gander. If you want no original research, let's do that. Several (not all) sources do comment on the fact that the name is confusing. I have no problem with that. I don't see any source calling it a misnomer, so that would be you doing original research. Likewise, though, even if there is a single source that uses that specific word, I think it would fall short of the standard for declaring it as such in Wikipedia's voice, meaning a) it should be attributed, and 2) the article shouldn't have a whole section named based on the most extreme description of the situation one has found. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- That all seems like a ton of original research you're doing and completely irrelevant to the question here of whether calling the stuff "chili" is a misnomer, which is defined as "a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term". Every source agrees this isn't chili. The fact you disagree with those sources and think they're incorrect because there's pineapple chili out there and the dictionary definition of chili could included this sauce is original research. The dictionary definition could include a spicy bolognese, too. Sources comment on the fact the name is confusing because it's not chili -- that is, that it's a wrong or inaccurate name. That's literally the definition of a misnomer. Changing the section head from 'misnomer' to 'name' just makes it less precise and more vague as a description of what that section is about. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like you are using a Justice Potter Stewart definition of chili, 'I know it when I see it', and Cincinnati chili isn't it, but the bar for labeling something a 'misnomer' is higher than simply 'it isn't what I personally think of when I hear the word'. One definition of chili is "a thick sauce of meat and chilies", so to call Cincinnati chili, which is "a thick sauce of meat and chilies", by the name 'chili' is entirely consistent with one of the word's dictionary definitions. By matching one of the formal definitions, it isn't lingustically incorrect - it isn't a 'misnomer'. Is the name confusing to a lot of people? yes, because most people's conception of 'chili' is more restictive than the word's full linguistic scope - serve an American a Yorkshire pudding and you will get a similar reaction, but that doesn't mean the Brits are misusing the language. Would chili con carne snobs react differently if it had a different name? Sure, but some of them also take offence at beans. For that matter, if you look at how Wikipedia defines chili con carne, as "a spicy stew containing chili peppers (sometimes in the form of chili powder), meat (usually beef), tomatoes . . . may include garlic, onions, and cumin", well, that also describes Cincinnati chili. If you simply called it a 'Mediterranean-fusion chili' and submitted it in a bowl (ugh!) to a chili competition, it wouldn't win because it would be viewed as too experimental and non-traditional, but it wouldn't be kicked out for not really being chili. 'Pineapple chili', 'chocolate chili', and even 'Asian-fusion chili' are all still called chili except by the hard-core chili purists. If it is still legitimate to call the last of these 'chili' when it is seasoned with chinese five-spice and hoisin sauce, it can hardly be disqualifying to instead throw in some cinnamon, allspice, cloves and a bay leaf and call it Cincinnati chili. Agricolae (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I come down on exactly what word to use, but I can say, having moved very, very far away from Ohio, the first thing I say when explaining it to someone is to not get hung up on the word "chili" and to not expect it to be chili as they normally understand it. The section in the article on the name quotes a reliable source as explicitly saying "it is not chili". And now I want some Steak 'n Shake, but apparently it is about 3,300 miles to the nearest location. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and that's definitely mentioned in multiple sources in what had been the 'misnomer' section, now 'name'. And Steak and Shake's chili spag is actually pretty good. Although I usually go for a patty melt. :D And now I'm going to have to go get one tomorrow. With onion rings. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Made this change per consensus here. valereee (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Necessary, Kevin (May 9, 2017). "Chili is a Cincinnati staple, and we have these guys to thank for it". WCPO. Archived from the original on February 4, 2019. Retrieved February 3, 2019.
Method of eating
The statement that "Locals eat Cincinnati chili as if it were a casserole, cutting each bite with the side of the fork instead of twirling the noodles" is generalizing way too much. As a local, I (and everyone I've ever eaten with) have always eaten it like any other spaghetti dish (with some twirling). It does not have the consistency of a casserole and cannot be cut into 'pieces' with the side of a fork. I know this claim has citations, but these are basically opinion. At most I think we could say that 'some' locals eat it like a casserole, but overall I don't think this statement is needed, as it is more about personal preference than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacksBeastLake (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I missed this at the time but I have to say I agree. It's a bit much to say that all locals eat it this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I inserted typically. (Although frankly I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone eat it any other way, so I'm surprised another local has never seen that. And of course you can cut it into "pieces". :) I'll have to sit at the counter next time and watch for twirlers lol...) valereee (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Note
- ^ The Kiradjieff brothers named by birth Athanas and Ivan (Thomas and John) were born in the late 19th century in Hrupishta, then in the Ottoman Empire. Kiradjieffs became soldiers in the Bulgarian Army during the WWI. Afterwards they moved to the Bulgarian capital Sofia. Shortly after, they left for Cincinnati in the early 1920s. The brothers became part of the local Bulgarian community in the city since their arrival in the United States. According to a 25-year anniversary almanac of the Naroden Glas newspaper published by Vasil Stefanov in 1933, they were some of the most successful Bulgarians in Cincinnati, owners of a large and modern restaurant in the city center.
References
Addition of recipe to pop culture?
@JustinTime55, I'm not sure that's really a notable noteworthy mention in popular culture -- it just seems to be a recipe for a version of chili spaghetti on Food Network? valereee (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good grief! I appreciate the spirit of the notability guideline, and can understand how one might infer that pop culture references should focus on how a topic has influenced the popular culture, but the WP:Notability guideline applies only to whether a topic may have its own article, not on determining article content. WP:POPCULTURE is an essay (someone's opinion) and not a guideline, thus carries no enforcement authority. I think this is a matter of judgement; I don't see it as trivia or "cruft"; Valerie Bertinelli and her cooking show are certainly notable, and her recipe enhances the notability of this topic. Indeed, her recipe is exactly why I found this article. If you don't like it in pop culture, can it go somewhere else in the article? Her recipe certainly qualifies as a variant of the chili.JustinTime55 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, the point isn't whether the mention itself is notable -- that is, worth creating an article for. It's whether it's more than trivia, that is: noteworthy. Probably dozens of people have published recipes for the dish. Maybe hundreds, that may not be an exaggeration. Why is this recipe appropriate for the Pop Culture section of this article? Or any section? Why is this recipe worth mentioning at all if no one else is discussing it? valereee (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is often the problem with the "popular culture" section (which back in the ancient mists of time, was usually just called the "trivia" section). If all that is needed is proof of existence, they tend to get bloated with minor examples. (although, with the price of beef the way it is right now, I recently made a batch with turkey myself and it turned out pretty darn good.) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've made it with Boca Crumbles and even with farro. With all those spices + onions + a mountain of cheese, and maybe hot sauce and oyster crackers, no one can really tell what the chewy bits are. :) valereee (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. valereee (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've made it with Boca Crumbles and even with farro. With all those spices + onions + a mountain of cheese, and maybe hot sauce and oyster crackers, no one can really tell what the chewy bits are. :) valereee (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is often the problem with the "popular culture" section (which back in the ancient mists of time, was usually just called the "trivia" section). If all that is needed is proof of existence, they tend to get bloated with minor examples. (although, with the price of beef the way it is right now, I recently made a batch with turkey myself and it turned out pretty darn good.) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, the point isn't whether the mention itself is notable -- that is, worth creating an article for. It's whether it's more than trivia, that is: noteworthy. Probably dozens of people have published recipes for the dish. Maybe hundreds, that may not be an exaggeration. Why is this recipe appropriate for the Pop Culture section of this article? Or any section? Why is this recipe worth mentioning at all if no one else is discussing it? valereee (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
TzCher, I'm not sure this is RS for the addition of something that has been argued over multiple times as to whether or not it belongs in this article (in this case, whether it adds anything to it without causing further disruption; this is something that has been discussed multiple times over the past years and resulted in the creation of the article about the Kiradjieffs to try to solve). We have discretionary sanctions on this article, so it's best to discuss before reverting. Here we discuss before re-adding information if there's any dispute, so let's do that. We do not source to Wikipedia. And even if we did, literally it looks like you just added that info yourself to the Kiradjieff article with no source? valereee (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight. You've discussed for a multitude of years that in the "Origins and History" section of an article about a certain recipe, the self-identified ethnicity of the inventors of the recipe is disruptive, even though its relevancy to the section is very clear? And the "solution" to that was to not include it at all and to create a whole another article where the exact same information is given (but is somehow not disruptive)? How is that even remotely reasonable? Moreover, how is this even a discussion? Both brothers were members of the Bulgarian Army during WWI and self-identified as Bulgarians, which was the dominant self-identification of Slavic people from the region at the time (something discussed at length in the Wiki article on that ethnicity, sourced with primary sources). Adding that to the article of their recipe is not disruptive, it's just relevant factual information. What's the point of an encyclopedia if you can read opposing claims in different articles?
- I won't be "disrupting" this article any more with my "disruptive" editing. As you're a senior editor, I'll leave it to you to decide whether this absurd solution is acceptable for an encyclopedia or not. TzCher (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- TzCher, when arguments over nationalistic points of view become disruptive (in the case of this article, we've gone back and forth many times over whether the creators are Greek, Macedonian, Slavs, etc., and various permutations thereof) and when we decide that the exact ethnicity of the creator is trivia (we all agree they're immigrants who fled the Balkan wars etc.) then, yes, we might decide that information is simply disruptive here. This is an American food item. It doesn't really matter in describing this food item, here, how the immigrant creators identified, and specifying it only serves to attract nationalistic editing by editors with a nationalistic POV, such as those whose primary interest seems to be making sure a certain nationality is inserted into every possible article that is even tangentially related to that nationality. At their bio, yes, it matters, which spurred the creation of that bio. valereee (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. As I said - I'll leave it to you to decide. TzCher (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- TzCher, when arguments over nationalistic points of view become disruptive (in the case of this article, we've gone back and forth many times over whether the creators are Greek, Macedonian, Slavs, etc., and various permutations thereof) and when we decide that the exact ethnicity of the creator is trivia (we all agree they're immigrants who fled the Balkan wars etc.) then, yes, we might decide that information is simply disruptive here. This is an American food item. It doesn't really matter in describing this food item, here, how the immigrant creators identified, and specifying it only serves to attract nationalistic editing by editors with a nationalistic POV, such as those whose primary interest seems to be making sure a certain nationality is inserted into every possible article that is even tangentially related to that nationality. At their bio, yes, it matters, which spurred the creation of that bio. valereee (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
consistency
Hey, Pepperbeast. Do you have an objection to this description? Valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022
 | This edit request to Cincinnati chili has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has issues.
Cincinnati Chili is <almost never> served or eaten by the bowl.
change to
Cincinnati Chili is <seldom> served or eaten by the bowl.
Grammar: “Almost never” is logically incoherent. Never is a superlative and must stand alone.
Or remove statement completely.
Factual: All the chili parlors offer bowls of Cincinnati Chili on their standard menus for people who are diabetic or gluten intolerant of spaghetti or hot dog buns. Skyline calls theirs the “Loaded Chili Bowl”. Empress calls it “Bowl of Chili” Dixie calls it “Chili Plain”. (See menu links below). I always order a bowl of chili with onions and cheese when I visit Skyline or Gold Star as an add on to my Coney order.
https://www.skylinechili.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/SkylineChiliMenu.pdf
https://www.dixiechili.com/menu.php
The paragraph under section “Ways” that covers standalone chili is factually incorrect and it’s characterization of people who order it as “ridiculous“ is insullting to those of us who enjoy a bowl of Cincinnati Chili. This is the personal opinion of one food writer and should be deleted.
It should be explicitly pointed out in the article that Cincinnati Chili does not incorporate beans in the recipe. Beans are an add on to the finished dish like cheese and onion. The cheese should be characterized as finely shredded sharp cheddar.
Factual: Chocolate is not an ingredient in Cincinnati Chili. It has been used in some home grown recipes which had been fabricated in an attempt to imitate the dish. Source: ingredients lists on retail packages of mix and prepared product.
There are numerous claims in this article for which citations are required, like Cincinnati Chili is Cincinnati’s best known regional food. 68.49.48.206 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: 1. Both "almost" and "never" aren't superlatives, they're adverbs. "Almost never" is logically and grammatically correct.- 2. "All the chili parlors" is a bit too absolute. I don't think every single chili parlor serves cincinnati chili. It is also unsourced apart from the menus for three restaurants. The "I always" part is not at all what you would find in an encyclopedia.
- 3.
Done - 4. I don't see any mention of chocolate being in the ingredients outside of home recipes.
- 5. Ledes conventionally (aka WP:MOS) don't include citations for things verified in the article. The claim you're talking about is verified in the Reception section. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone.by User:Valereee Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022
| This edit request to Cincinnati chili has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Ingredients include ground beef, water or stock, tomato paste, spices such as cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, clove, cumin, chili powder, bay leaf, and in some home recipes unsweetened dark chocolate in a soupy consistency." 66.117.238.194 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}}template. Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- Not sure what you're asking for, IP. Is there something in this description you believe is incorrect? Valereee (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023
| This edit request to Cincinnati chili has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Middle East to Midwestern United States in the introduction. See below:
CURRENT: While served in many local restaurants, it is most often associated with the over 250 independent and chain "chili parlors" (restaurants specializing in Cincinnati chili) found throughout greater Cincinnati with franchise locations throughout Ohio and in Kentucky, Indiana, Florida, and the Middle East. The dish is the Cincinnati area's best-known regional food.
EDIT REQUEST: While served in many local restaurants, it is most often associated with the over 250 independent and chain "chili parlors" (restaurants specializing in Cincinnati chili) found throughout greater Cincinnati with franchise locations throughout Ohio and in Kentucky, Indiana, Florida, and the Midwestern United States. The dish is the Cincinnati area's best-known regional food. Homeless engi (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: Middle East makes sense, since further in the article there is
In 1985, one of the founders of Gold Star Chili, Fahid Daoud, returned to Jordan, where he opened his own parlor, called Chili House.[16] Outside of Jordan, Chili House as of 2020 had locations in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Oman, Palestine, Turkey and Qatar.[17]
. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- That's correct, although I can see why someone would assume there was some sort of typo or vandalism going on. :) Valereee (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)