Talk:Chapati

Nutrition : where Does Manganese go ?

Wheat has a lot of it. But surprisingly chapatti does not.! Can any one explain ?

Untitled

I have a different recipe:

Chapati or chapatti is a type of roti or Indian bread. It is made from a dough of atta flour, (from whole durum wheat), water and salt by rolling it out into discs of approximately 12 cm diameter and browning it on both sides on a very hot, dry cast-iron griddle or frying pan. It is then held very briefly (ca. 0.5 s) directly into an open flame, causing it to puff up with steam like a balloon.

Often, the finished chapatis are brushed with ghee (clarified butter). Variations include replacing part of the wheat flour with millet (bajra) or corn (maize) (makka) flour and are then referred to as Bajra Roti or Makke ki Roti. When a mixture of Millet, Maize(corn) and gram flour is used it is called a Missi Roti.

Chapatis are usually eaten with cooked dal (lentil soup) or vegetable (Indian curry) dishes, using the chapati to wrap around and pick up each bite of the cooked dish.

There is difference between Chapati & Roti. Chapati is always made with wheat floor, where as Roti could be made from Bajra, Corn or Rice floor. Chapati is thin, where as Roti is Thick. so roti and Chapati can't be Merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.72.178 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Then there is Rotli which is the thinnest. I think it depends on region. In UP corn roti would be Makka ka Parantha. In Gujarat it would be Bajra na Rotla. Evathedutch (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

bread

Is chapati bread? By the Wikipedian definition of bread, chapati wouldn't be considered bread.

it is clearly a bread, by any definition.

no, the wikipedia is never wrong (just in case anyone is in any doubt, that was sarcasm)AwagMoordown 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)the only subject is chapati thats right wiki willnever be wrong

Kyrgyzstan

in Kyrgyzstan we have "chabaty", it is similar to Indian chapati should it be included too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.149.23 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge Roti/Chapati

Obviously nobody working on these articles can agree on the definitions of these two breads. If the breads really are different, that fact should be discussed in the same article. Othewise, one is edited to be contrary to the other. (Also posted at Chapati.)--Jarhed (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all, but maybe roti is a generic term (flat unleavened bread from atta flour) while chapati is specific (thin flexible flat unleavened bread from atta flour)? If so it would not be sensible to merge. Michealt (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there are some differences. See my comments at Talk:Roti.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree with Siddhartha Ghai KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pashtun

Can anyone add source for pashtun? -Mikakrevosky (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mikakrevosky. I added source for you have a good one! -Otisbale (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph is a wind-up. I think it unlikely anyone would go round to the home of the people mentioned and request their free chapati/frankfurter rolls, but it makes the entry seem less usefully informative. Snoop.puss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.8.188.17 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

East African Chapati

There is a similar bread in East Africa and east Arabia (mostly or exclusively Oman) with the same name, it is only thicker and is made with oil/ghee. It is way more delicious than Indian chapati :p and can be eaten on its own -K authored (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Source for comment on rice and Indian flatbreads being traditionally made without salt

Under the heading A few tips for beginners, no 10 is: This is Gujarati phulka roti recipe where I have not added salt. However you can add salt and season your dough while kneading dough for phulka roti.RPSM (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Does atta contain bran? (some references)

According to this atta does contain bran. However here is information that it does not. And here that it does. More info on wheat varieties here Gehun ke atta हिन्दी में पढें़ means wholemeal wheat in Hindi. Reference on Wheat Farming A Handbook of Agriculture S. Dutt has a section on Wheat in India

A comparison of types of wheat available in the US and US wheat previously imported into India, as well as native Indian wheat is here and the controversial PL480 Food Aid US legislation (see WP article PL 480)

Survey of twenty-seven Indian archeological sites, and wheat and barley grains discovered there User:RPSM|RPSM]] (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Google picture refernce: Traditional stone mill

The meaning and method of chapati

Chapat means to slap in Hindi, and when a rolling pin is not used, the method of forming round sheets of thin dough is slapping between the palms as in this recipe. This recipe gives the traditional method of slapping the dough between the palms as well. RPSM (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Title Change

Chapathi should be spelled as thus, chapati would be a wrong spelling. the pronunciation from 't' is not a hard T like in tea, but rather a soft 'th' like in 'thing' or 'thin'.

Can anyone change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be change to Th. The challenge is that the English language doesn't have a dental T, so it's tempting to solve by make it Th. If it was supposed to be Th it would have the dental th in HIndi. Look at names like Preeti or Hetal, then don't have a th, where as Parth does. Evathedutch (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Chapati → ChapathiChapathi – Chapathi is the proper transliteration as the 'th' in chapathi is not pronounced as a hard "T" like in "Tea" or "Tank" but rather a 'softer' 't' like in 'thin' or 'third'. Adding to this there are several published references with this proper spelling,not to mention numerous videos detailing proper pronunciation. Furthermore, the indian languages use the letter in their respective scripts denoting the softer 'th' sound to spell chapathi. Do not sign this. 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Chapati" is an English word of Hindi origin. The spelling is used by English dictionaries such as Oxford (chapatti, chapati), Cambridge (chapatti, chapati), Collins (chapati, chapatti), and Merriam-Webster (chapati, chappati). I think it's a good idea to include the Hindi word चपाती and its transcription capātī though. Also please note that Hindi words are usually transcribed using the IAST system, according to which the letter त in चपाती is a "t", rather than a "th". (According to the system, "th" is used to transcribe थ.) --Phonet (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• it may be a word of hindi origin, but that doesn't in anyway invalidate the spelling. it is also found in all languages of india & india's alphabets are phonetic, which means they all spell chapathi the same way. in colloquial usage, properly transliterated, it would be chapathi since IAST spelling isn't the commonly accepted or widely used spelling standards. it is not the "T" sound found in Tea, which chapati would be pronounced as (and that would be wrong in any language in india). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per argument by Phonet. This is how it is spelled in English and this is the English Language Wikipedia.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Ngrams has Chapati over chapathi by a huge margin Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: This is an excellent example of what the essay at wp:correct is all about, so I've added it to the examples section there. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title change

there is no uniform accepted spelling of chapati. in india, from which the word originates & which also uses english, one will find chapathi as the spelling too. uneducated people in india will write it as chapati but that doesn't preserve it's pronunciation as the word needs to be transliterated. the word has uniform pronunciation in india, & chapathi would be the proper way to pronounce it. it has equal representation as chapathi in india. this an english language wiki for sure,so great care must be taken to preserve pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 19 January 2026 and 15 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TextAider (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Orb abq (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chapati/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 08:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 16:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Yo! Comments below - please make your adjustments within 7 days and ping me when you're done. Cheers! Jishara (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some minor grammatical errors - see "Related flatbreads from South Asia also use atta but are differ based on their cooking technique", "Dough that is pressed has inoptimal suboptimal qualities", and "Many North Indians eat it twice a day, and people in some parts of India consider it a requirement for a full meal.[178] including in the Western Himalayas", among others - please tweak these and run your own check through. MoS is followed for lead, layout, and word choice. Prose is fine and flows well.

   I believe I have fixed all typos. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference section is present and follows all requirements. Almost every source is reliable, with the exception of Encyclopedia Britannica - please switch out for an alternate source if possible. Earwig copyvio reaches 18% similarity but a check reveals that the similarity is in article titles that are cited, as well as nonrephrasable phrases of tiny length.

   Replaced Encyclopedia Britannica with Oxford reference books. I was unable to access the Oxford Reference website when I wrote this article, so thanks for reminding me. I have also added a few other statements from these sources, so you may want to look over the changes. I have kept two statements cited to Britannica, as they are both more general statements, so I think an encyclopedia source is appropriate. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   Of the 216 citations, I checked the following 20 sources:

   88 - confirms many use leftover stale rotis for breakfast, but doesn't actually seem to say that it means chapatis when it says rotis.

   Removed this source; it's not a significant enough statement to matter here.

   197 and 198 - confirmed re: christmas

   207 - confirmed re: Vir Sanghvi

   163 - confirmed

   162 - partially, but it states fried potato chips, not french fries

   Hmm, I don't know enough about Kenyan English to know whether "potato chips" refers to crisps (like in American English) or french fries (like in British English). I've changed it to say "potato chips", but without a link to the article, as it's not clear which article to link it to. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   157 - confirmed

   144 - doesn't actually state that the balls were identified as puri or chapati, just that they existed and that other things were identified as tawas.

   Removed the phrase identified as puri or chapati. The rest of the sentence should be acceptable; even if the paintings are not explicitly labelled as chapati, the source clearly considers them relevant to chapati, so it is relevant enough. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

   101 and 102 - confirmed

   64 - confirmed for each of its three usages

   1 - Confirmed, but this is the one i'd like you to swap out.

   176 confirmed

   116 - partially confirmed, but it says soft-to-medium, not medium

   Corrected.

   206, 210 - confirmed (the Holmboe source)

   160 - confirmed

   131, 133, 60 - confirmed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to cover relevant information, and doesn't appear to include anything that shouldn't be.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to keep a neutral stance, attributing information that needs to be attributed and using wikivoice for that that should be wikivoiced. There is, however, one exception - you appear to leave to a footnote a relevant, disputing interpretation of the background of chapati.

   Assuming you're referring to the footnote about the etymology, I chose to leave this as a footnote as it is a more questionable source. The source is from over one hundred years ago, and Wikipedia should summarize the current consensus—if there are no more recent sources mentioning this theory, then it's not significant enough to give equal weight in the prose. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of instability per the edit history - no edit warring, etc - no concerns on this front.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are accredited properly. Captions are suitable, and images make sense in context.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Hey vigilantcosmicpenguin! Per this discussion with Jishara, I'm providing a second opinion here, mostly focusing on prose. Note that I am recused from my role as DCWC coordinator here; I will not be assessing any submissions related to this article. Where I've made suggestions not technically within the scope of this GAN review, I've marked them with this symbol to indicate that they're optional: . Feel free to do part of them, come back to them after the review, or ignore them entirely as you will.

• In footnote a, "poɭiː" is not a valid pronunciation for the word chapati (though it is for another name of the chapati not mentioned here).
  • Whoops, missed that. Fixed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• As far as I'm aware, chapati is not an uncountable noun, so phrases like "Chapati may also be used for wraps" don't work. Could you scan for uses similar to this and replace with "chapatis" or "a chapati"?
  • I think it's like pizza, where one can say "I ordered two pizzas" or "I ate too much pizza". Although I can't find any professional dictionaries that verify this, Wiktionary lists it as either countable or uncountable. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

    I saw that as well, and wasn't immediately convinced by the one quote supporting that it was uncountable. A few of the sources I've read during the review treat it this way, though, so I'll concede the point. —TS

• There are a lot of "known as"es (Ctrl+F for it), which are a little distracting when used back-to-back, like in the lead. Try to mix it up; "whole-wheat flour known as atta" could be "atta, a kind of whole-wheat flour" or "atta (a whole-wheat flour)" or whatever.
  • Done.
• "Chapati is associated with roti" Rather vague, particularly since the lead more directly states "Chapati is a form of roti, and the two are sometimes conflated.
  • Rephrased.
• Is roti etymologically related to chapati? The section heading "Etymology" creates that implication but none of the sources I'm reading suggest it. Since this section extends beyond the etymology, maybe changing to "Terminology" or something would help.
  • Done.
• Link Bengal on its first use.
  • Done.
• Units are presented inconsistently, sometimes within the same section. Compare "5 mL per 100 g"/" 25 to 40 grams (0.88 to 1.41 oz)" and "0.5 to 2 percent"/"70–100%" (also note MOS:%).
  • Tweaked to follow MOS. (Using the % symbol only in the "Nutrition and properties" section, as this part is more technical.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Also, in the spirit of footnote d, the conversions to imperial units should probably be rounded. :P
  • Done.
• The commas in the sentence beginning "Mass-produced chapatis include ..." are difficult to parse; some of them could be dashes, and there should probably be an and in there.
  • Replaced with parentheses.
• "Chapati may be considered a form of roti" duplicates § Etymology and conflicts with it slightly, as above.
  • Removed the phrase from this section. Can you clarify why you think it conflicts? I want the terminology section to communicate that roti is a broad category that includes chapati, even if some people use the term to refer to chapati specifically. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

    I was referring to the "associated with" sentence. Since you've written out that phrasing, it should no longer be an issue! —TS

• Link millet on its first use in the body.
  • Done.
• "made in rural areas than in urban areas" Made more?
  • Rephrased.

This is from reading to the end of § Preparation; I'm hoping to finish up tomorrow. I'm liking what I've been reading so far, as expected! :) Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Excellent work so far! Finished my reading of the article, and here are the comments.

• The article should probably stick to Indian (or Commonwealth) English per MOS:TIES. This is mostly already the case, but there are some strays I saw like "mold" and "fiber". Microsoft Word can spell-check in different English varieties, if you have it.
  • Fixed.
• There are lots of adjacent sentences which use the word chapati, which gets repetitive. Replacing with pronouns or combining sentences should help with flow.
  • Tweaked.
• I'm noticing quite a few duplicate links — this script might help with tracking them down.
  • Removed some duplicate links, kept some as they are contextually relevant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• "for every meal" doesn't follow from "Because it quickly becomes stale," earlier in the sentence. I would remove, since this is stated more clearly in the next paragraph.
  • Removed.
• "eaten by using the hands" Both hands? Also, rephrase to avoid the repetition of "the bread".
  • Fixed.
• "... other dishes of vegetables, legumes, or meat." creates duplication with the sentences immediately after it (apart from the meat).
  • Rephrased.
• "wrapped sandwiches"? Neither the source nor the linked article calls it this. I think the average reader should be able to understand "wraps".
  • Changed to "wraps". (Technically it'd be "rolls" in Indian English, but I agree that "wraps" will be understood by most.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Consider including the vitamin numbers in § Nutrition, like "riboflavin (vitamin B2)".
  • Ehh, I think that would look a bit cluttered, unless there's precedent from other articles to list the vitamin numbers. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

    Sounds reasonable to me. —TS

• "increase nutrients" doesn't sound quite right to me; maybe "increase its nutritional content"?
  • Done.
• The page from this citation mentions neither tavas nor chapatis. Wrong page number?
  • I think you've misread it, it says on this page: "Flat metal and clay plates resembling modern thavās have been found in plenty at Harappan sites, suggesting that the baked chapāti may have been known." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

    Oh wow, I really don't know how I missed that; my bad! —TS

• It would be nice to have dates (just centuries should suffice) for some of the historical periods mentioned. I wouldn't expect the average reader to know when the Vedic period was, for example.
  • Added description of the Vedic period. I don't think it's necessary for the Mughal empire as the next sentence specifies the 16th century. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• late 19th and early 20th century → centuries
  • Done.
• "It is an inexpensive energy source in the country." I thought at first that this was talking about fossil fuels or something! It's quite a non sequitur from the previous sentences, and it also seems redundant to say that it provides energy (so do most foods).
  • Replaced with source of nutrition. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• "The Cuisine of Uttarakhand" Lowercase, I presume.
  • Fixed
• "increasingly common in the modern day" needs an alternative per MOS:RELTIME.
  • Replaced with by the 21st century. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• There are similar ambiguous temporal references in the following paragraph as well.
  • Attempted to rewrite it a bit, but not sure if this reads better (as I'm attempting to maintain the source's distinction between past and present tense). It seems unavoidable that this statement reads as either a bit RELTIME-y or a bit WEASEL-y. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• "due to Mughal influence on the city" creates the implication that the Mughal Empire is still around. Again, the average reader might not have this fact in the noggin.
  • Removed the phrase entirely, as the source only loosely implies that this is due to Mughal influence. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• chapati making → chapati-making
  • Done.
• "Indian culture [...] considers it a difficult craft." Can a culture consider something? I would rephrase.
  • I actually think this seems like pretty normal phrasing.

    Yeah, on a second reading it isn't as awkward as I remembered it being. I won't press the point, since it's not required for GA status. —TS

• "In the United States, naan and chapati are associated with Indian cuisine." I'm sure they are, but why does this merit stating here?
  • Rephrased. (I'm attempting to convey that they are considered an ethnic food, rather than something more universal.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Bottom text. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• @TechnoSquirrel69: Bottomer text. Thanks for the thorough comments; I think I've addressed everything. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Really nicely done, VCP! I'm satisfied with the changes and happy to put my stamp on the prose. Jishara, the ball's in your court! :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the assist, TechnoSquirrel69! Vigilantcosmicpenguin I will do a reassessment and additional spotchecking, etc in the next couple days. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  After a quick follow-up spotcheck and rechecking, this is passed. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.