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

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: