Talk:Curry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Goat Curry vs. Curry Goat

It is more common to call curries "x curry" in certain parts of the Caribbean (Guyana, for example). I see a predisposition to calling it "curry x". 65.95.159.102 (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to recipes

it would be nice if the page had links to sources for curry recipes! maybe a recipe for curry from each country that has curry?

• Here Here! From the article here what is actually a mix of verious spices is potrayed as elemental like a root or somthing that comes form some kind of tree. This is not the case. It is not that complecated what is in these currys? And don't say currey powder.(68.83.199.209 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Curry not an Indian dish (?)

Curry is not an Indian dish. Many people think it is, but it is not.

Since many people think it is, you must prove it otherwise.

Let me see if I can pull this one off: Confucius was not Chinese. Many people think he was, but he was not.

Actually, it is an Indian dish, just not the types people refer to. It's this yellow lentil type sauce that is eaten with rice. It's not as widespread as it's name usage might lead you to believe, but it's still an Indian (North Indian/Pakistani, actually) dish. Admiralakbar 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

People of northern part of the Indian subcontinent seem to have almost as much misunderstanding about what curry is as people of the western hemisphere. Curry is not "this yellow lentil type of sauce". Curry is really a Southern Indian word for a spiced dish of vegetable, meat or both. It can be stew-like or on the drier side with sauce just covering the meat/vegetable pieces. And yes, it is traditionally eaten with rice, (but you can eat it with other things as well.) And from where did this idea that "it's not as widespread ..." has come? In Southern India, at least in Kerala, it is an everyday word, because people there eat rice and curry practically everyday. Northern Indian dishes like Rogan Josh etc. are also curries by the same defenition. 192.30.202.18 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Curry IS an Indian dish. The word "curry" is in fact Indian (in many Indian languages). Curry available in the West Indies are a result of people of Indian descent living in West Indies, such as Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago etc. India (i.e. Indian suncontinent) is an ancient civilisation and you should understand that everything has a place of origin; in this case, curry originated in the Indian subcontinent. To identify curry, it is basically Indian dishes with a runny "gravy" created using water, yogurt or coconut milk. Media Research (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is curry an asiatci word, or it it a word used by the colonial English to describe what they found when they arrived in the Indian subscontinent?

The main artice seems to be insisting that it is from the Tamil 'Kari'. This seems strange since the word 'Cury' or other simialr spellings has been common in usuage in England since the midle ages. There is as much force in the arguement that Curry is an imported word as there is in the suggestion that it is an 'anglicanistaion' of a Tamil word. Why then does the main article dismiss this aletrnative with hardly a mention?

In Richard II’s reign (1377-1399) the first real English cookery book was written. Richard employed 200 cooks and they, plus others including philosophers, produced a work with 196 recipes in 1390 called ‘The Forme of Cury’. ‘Cury’ was the Old English word for cooking derived from the French ‘cuire’ - to cook, boil, grill - hence cuisine.

In the preface it says this “forme of cury was compiled of the chef maistes cokes of kyng Richard the Secunde kyng of nglond aftir the conquest; the which was accounted the best and ryallest vyand of alle csten ynges: and it was compiled by assent and avysement of maisters and phisik and of philosophie that dwellid in his court. First it techith a man to make commune pottages and commune meetis for howshold, as they shold be made, craftly and holsomly, Aftirward it techith for to make curious potages and meetes and sotiltees for alle maner of states, bothe hye and lowe. And the techyng of the forme of making of potages and of meetes, bothe flesh and of fissh, buth y sette here by noumbre and by ordre”.

So when the English merchants landed at Surat in 1608 and 1612, then Calcutta 1633, Madras 1640 and Bombay 1668, the word ‘cury’ had been part of the English language for well over two hundred years. In fact, it was noted that the meal from Emperor Jahangir’s kitchens of dumpukht fowl stewed in butter with spices, almond and raisins served to those merchants in 1612, was very similar to a recipe for English Chicken Pie in a popular cookery book of the time, ‘The English Hus-wife’ by Gevase Markham. Indeed many spices had been in Europe for hundreds of years by then, after the conquests of the Romans in 40AD and the taking of Al Andulus by the Moors in 711 AD, bringing to Europe the culinary treasures of the spice routes.

Many supporters of the Tamil word kari as the basis for curry, use the definition from the excellent Hobson-Jobson Anglo English Dictionary, first published in 1886. The book quotes a passage from the Mahavanso (c A.D. 477) which says “he partook of rice dressed in butter with its full accompaniment of curries.” The important thing, however, is the note that this is Turnour’s translation of the original Pali which used the word “supa” not the word curry. Indeed Hobson -Jobson even accepts that there is a possibility that “the kind of curry used by Europeans and Mohommedans is not of purely Indian origin, but has come down from the spiced cookery of medieval Europe and Western Asia.”

Whatever the truth, ‘curry’ was rapidly adopted in Britain. In 1747 Hannah Glasse produced the first known recipe for modern ‘currey’ in Glasse’s Art of Cookery and by 1773 at least one London Coffee House had curry on the menu. In 1791 Stephana Malcom, the grandaughter of the Laird of Craig included a curry recipe she called Chicken Topperfield plus Currypowder, Chutnies and Mulligatawny soup as recorded in ‘In The Lairds Kitchen, Three Hundred Years of Food in Scotland’.

I had hoped Wikipedia was getting to be more accurate in its entries, as it is getting a reputation for inaccuracy in some circles. Perhaps the author of this article may care to reword it and present a more balanced view of the etemology of the word? If not then perhaps Wikipedia will continue to have a mixed reception for accuracy.

It is a pity you put such effort into this note, without bothering to sign it. This is good stuff, and worthy of inclusion in the article, if it can site references and is not original research. I don't know why are are looking for the author to incorporate this viewpoint when you seem to be quite capable of doing so yourself.

I actually came looking in this discussion because I was puzzled not to find the Tamil kari origin mentioned, since that is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary cites. Apparently someone has deleted this from the article. As a common explanation for the etymology it ought to mentioned even if only to say it is wrong, or that it is disputed. As it stands, the etymology section seems oddly incomplete, talking only about various usage of the word and nothing about origins.--Ericjs (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kari" is a Tamil word which means "spice". Tamil is a language dated back to 3rd century BCE. The claim you put forward is disputed: "In her ‘50 Great Curries of India’, Camellia Panjabi says the word today simply means ‘gravy’. She also goes for the Tamil word ‘kaari or kaaree’ as the origin, but with some reservations, noting that in the north, where the English first landed in 1608 then 1612, a gravy dish is called ‘khadi’". Etymology aside, the construction of the dish certainly lies in the Indian subcontinent. It's difficult for a country such as India to prove because of the lack of evidence - even if there's a very early evidence of the existence of the dish in another country, it shouldn't mean that the that country is its origins - it wouldn't be fair. Despite this, one thing is for sure - Indians have mastered the art of making curry!

Etymology of the word curry

Is curry an Asiatic word, or is it a word used by the colonial English to describe what they found when they arrived in the Indian subcontinent? The main article seems to be insisting that it is from the Tamil 'Kari'. This seems strange since the word 'Cury' or other similar spellings has been common in usage in England since the middle ages. There is as much force in the argument that Curry is an imported word as there is in the suggestion that it is an 'anglicisation' of a Tamil word. Why then does the main article dismiss this alternative with hardly a mention? In Richard II’s reign (1377-1399) the first real English cookery book was written. Richard employed 200 cooks and they, plus others including philosophers, produced a work with 196 recipes in 1390 called ‘The Forme of Cury’. ‘Cury’ was the Old English word for cooking derived from the French ‘cuire’ - to cook, boil, grill - hence cuisine. In the preface it says this “forme of cury was compiled of the chef maistes cokes of kyng Richard the Secunde kyng of nglond aftir the conquest; the which was accounted the best and ryallest vyand of alle csten ynges: and it was compiled by assent and avysement of maisters and phisik and of philosophie that dwellid in his court. First it techith a man to make commune pottages and commune meetis for howshold, as they shold be made, craftly and holsomly, Aftirward it techith for to make curious potages and meetes and sotiltees for alle maner of states, bothe hye and lowe. And the techyng of the forme of making of potages and of meetes, bothe flesh and of fissh, buth y sette here by noumbre and by ordre”. So when the English merchants landed at Surat in 1608 and 1612, then Calcutta 1633, Madras 1640 and Bombay 1668, the word ‘cury’ had been part of the English language for well over two hundred years. In fact, it was noted that the meal from Emperor Jahangir’s kitchens of dumpukht fowl stewed in butter with spices, almond and raisins served to those merchants in 1612, was very similar to a recipe for English Chicken Pie in a popular cookery book of the time, ‘The English Hus-wife’ by Gevase Markham. Indeed many spices had been in Europe for hundreds of years by then, after the conquests of the Romans in 40AD and the taking of Al Andulus by the Moors in 711 AD, bringing to Europe the culinary treasures of the spice routes. Many supporters of the Tamil word kari as the basis for curry, use the definition from the excellent Hobson-Jobson Anglo English Dictionary, first published in 1886. The book quotes a passage from the Mahavanso (c A.D. 477) which says “he partook of rice dressed in butter with its full accompaniment of curries.” The important thing, however, is the note that this is Turnour’s translation of the original Pali which used the word “supa” not the word curry. Indeed Hobson -Jobson even accepts that there is a possibility that “the kind of curry used by Europeans and Mohommedans is not of purely Indian origin, but has come down from the spiced cookery of medieval Europe and Western Asia.” Whatever the truth, ‘curry’ was rapidly adopted in Britain. In 1747 Hannah Glasse produced the first known recipe for modern ‘currey’ in Glasse’s Art of Cookery and by 1773 at least one London Coffee House had curry on the menu. In 1791 Stephana Malcom, the grandaughter of the Laird of Craig included a curry recipe she called Chicken Topperfield plus Currypowder, Chutnies and Mulligatawny soup as recorded in ‘In The Lairds Kitchen, Three Hundred Years of Food in Scotland’. I had hoped Wikipedia was getting to be more accurate in its entries, as it is getting a reputation for inaccuracy in some circles. Perhaps the author of this article may care to reword it and present a more balanced view of the etemology of the word? If not then perhaps Wikipedia will continue to have a mixed reception for accuracy.

You seem to think that the history of India starts from the time the Europeans landed in India. The history of India is supposed to start from 4th Century B.C. But the fact is Europeans do not trust Indian sources but they trust the worst European sources. It is ridiculous that Indian History is based on Alexander's conquest whose history is based on a story in the 2nd Century which is based on a story a couple of centuries earlier which was written after Alexander was killed. You just have to read the chapter on India to understand the authenticity of these sources. Gold digging ants etc..

FYI Indians were trading spices, precious stones , cotton, colors etc with Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, china etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.67.103 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally around the world meat is always barbecued. Just like all the clothing is traditionally from animals, leather or wool. It was Indians who first cooked meat with various ingredients. Just like Indians were the first to make cloth from non-animal source. The Sumerians called the Indian cloth "vegetable cloth". India might be poor now but until the 17th/18th century it was the richest after that it still had the riches but it belonged to British now and it was counted as British wealth.

Rendang

I would not describe "rendang" as a kind of curry. Rendang is a pure meat-dish, with no vegetables. Sure, people eat it with vegetables on the side (and of course rice) but they are cooked seperately. MartijnL 09:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As the article suggests, "Curry" is a broadly used term and the inclusion or exclusion of vegetables would certainly not prevent a dish being given the name. A standard curry ordered in many restaurants will often only have meat in it and the characteristics of and ingredients in Rendang would mean it is fairly described as a curry. Dainamo 23:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with MartijnL. Rendang is not a curry. It is a dish associated with the Malay and Sumatran people. I wonder if they add galangal to their curry or pounded roasted coconut slivers for that matter. Rendang is slowly cooked in coconut milk and spices until almost all the liquid is gone, leaving the meat coated in the spicy condiments. The 'curry' is more watery. There are many versions of rendang - none have any vegetables in them. There are many versions of 'curry' - some like the Malaysian one have potatoes, brinjals or other veggie in them. But actually do we care? If the rendang or curry is delicious, it would be beyond labels, names and words.

Bangladeshi owned but still Indian cuisine

There is no need for "Indian". Those restaurents may be Bangladeshi owned but they serve Indian food. Bengali food differs significantly from other varities in Indian subcontinent. If an Englishman owns an Indian Curry house would u call it an English Curry House this logic sounds stupid...

Most indian dishes are in fact vegetarian, and what we in the UK eat is our own version or that of the restaurant owners here. Vindaloo is originally a pork dish ate by the Christian Indians in Goa (origianlly from a Portuguese dish) but I doubt you have seen this in an Indian restaurant in Britian, precisely because a moslem from Bangladesh wouldm't use pork and most British people would not expect it due to year of their version being served here. Dainamo 16:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup by Qwghlm

I've done a bit of cleanup to the article (particularly the British section) as there was a lot of repetition and 'lost' sentences within it... hopefully it's better now. Qwghlm 01:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

How is Indian curry eaten?

I recently went to an Indian restaurant that had several types of curry available as part of their buffet. Some of them were the kind of thing you could pick up with a spoon and eat, like chicken curries, but others just appeared to be curry sauce with nothing in them. I'm guessing you eat it with bread?

It depends on the regional tradition of the restaurant, assuming it was a fairly decent place. See my comments below regarding bread. I might suggest, though, that it being a buffet, someone might have gotten there before you and filched the last of the meat, just leaving the sauce? :) Tarquin Binary 10:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

simple you put the food in your gob.. i dont think you stick it in your earhole or snort it 82.24.168.34 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do the british like curry?

was just wondering why the british like curry? - liz

The short answer is 'what's not to like?'. The historical answer is 'The Raj' (it's not a modern phenomenon, 19th-century British cookbooks are replete with curry recipes). The association goes right back to the days of the East India Company when the merchants acquired a great fondness for the taste of the Indian food of the time (which, by all accounts was a bit different from that now - for one thing use of chilis, introduced into India by the Europeans in the first place, was not as widespread). It has been suggested that this was not due to its exoticism but its familiarity to aristocratic or middle-class British pallets. For some while, the British had been importing spices and using them in a wide range of dishes, even desserts (the craving for spice was, of course, one of the initial driving forces behind imperialism.), but they were pretty expensive in Britain, not your working-class fare. But when you got to India you could nosh up all you wanted even if you were some minor factor or clerk. So they brought more spices, tastes and recipes home with them, trade and the Raj helped to drop the price, and here we are now. Tarquin Binary 10:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Masala inaccuracy

This line is incorrect as currently written: In India, Masala is a spice of its own and is a reddish colored powder added to curries.

The word masala simply means "spice" or "spices" - in this way, it's similar to the word "curry": much like various curries are called "<insert main ingredient or place of origin here> curry," various spices are called "<insert primary usage, dominating ingredient or place of origin here> masala."

I believe the intent of this line's author was to make a reference to garam masala.

-rhrad

Garam Masala isn't red - sounds more like either chilli powder or food-colouring. Either way the description of it as 'Masala' isn't accurate. Sikandarji 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How to eat

I've never been quite certain myself what the normal procedure is to eat curry. Apparently with curry in Indian cuisine, it is common to use naan to scoop up the curry. But what about in Thai and other South Asian cuisines? Theshibboleth 02:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not even generally true about naan in Indian cuisine. (Probably because there is no such thing as Indian cuisine. It's a big sub-continent, so there are many regional cuisines. All one can generalise about is that the use of spices is generally more predominant than in the European tradition.) Anyway, the use of bread as opposed to rice originates, unsurprisingly, in North India and Kashmir, where wheat is the dominant source of carbohydrate, hence the Balti style of cooking (admittedly authenticity disputed, but thought to have been devised by northern Indians anyway) where the dish is served freshly in its own cooking bowl and mopped up with naan, parathas or other bread. Bangladesh is a rice-growing region, as is South India in general, so rice is the normal accompaniment.

I would say that rice or roti/chappati are the main staple the "curry" is what the accompaniment to these. In some parts of India at times very poor people eat very roughly made roti/chappati with raw onion or a hand full of channa dal fired in a tea spoon of oil with whole red chillies. Indian food usually revolves around the staples of cooked rice or rotis(mostly wheat but at times corn or Millets like Bajra, Jowar ragi) and at times other staples like Ragi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervez87 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WRT Thailand , Malaysia etc are rice-growing regions - say no more. The same variations occur in Chinese cuisine too, wheat is the dominant crop of a large part of China.

In practice in the UK, it is common to supplement the rice with a couple of naans, chapatis or parathas on the side, because we mix and match things like that. Depends how hungry you feel, of course. Tarquin Binary 10:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a little late but I'll offer what I know anyway. I'm most familiar with northern Indian cuisine where breads are more common than rice. And yes, with those you do rip off a piece of the bread and use it to scoop up some of the curry or the vegetable, etc. Often you also take a small bit of pickle with each bite, or some chutney, but it depends on the specfic dish as to which pickle goes best with it, and tastes vary. Then for South Indian dishes with rice I always put the different "curries" next to my rice and eat it with a fork so that I can eat a few different dishes at the same time with one pile of rice. I don't however happen to spend much time with South Indian people and I don't know if that's the "right" way to do it. A good way if you're unsure is to simply ask the servers what's the best way to do it. Our article is still a little off, because even the base sauce that is mixed with the meat and/or vegetables in North Indian cuisine is often called a curry by cooks because that is the commonly known term. For example a recipe for matar paneer will have a section explaining how to make the paneer, then how to make the curry and then how to finish off the dish. This article os not terribly well organized because the term itself has such overlapping and different uses. - Taxman ^Talk 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

British Curry

Sorry, that first para seemed to be describing the 1950s-60s. I do not know anyone who uses anything further down the food chain than Pathak's when prepping a curry - and if you have guests, fresh preparation is de rigeur. Powder? No way. And that's home cooking. People have also learned to value particular restaurants for the freshness of their preparation. As for describing a curry as requiring the meat or veg to be initially coated with powder, this wasn't even true when British curry was rubbish - except for the appalling Coronation Chicken of course, but this was often served as chicken sprinkled with uncooked curry powder. Shudder. There's a lot more to say about the interaction between British and Indian cooking too. Never figured out why every curry had to have sultanas in it though - Vesta deserves a special mention here... Finally, I'm not certain that the majority of British 'curry houses' are Bangladeshi-run, though I have no stats to refute this. Certainly it is true in the East End, where I live, but I think there is much variation across the UK. For example Balti was first invented - or popularised - in Birmingham by northern Indians. It's not a Bangladeshi cooking method, though it was widely emulated with varying degrees of success by restaurants down here. Southall in West London is dominated by a variety of Indian cuisines (in the strict sense) because the locals are Hindus from areas of India.Tarquin Binary 09:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bangladeshi still the dominant force, but less so now in parts of London and the further one north goes. See edit and citation in article. Dainamo 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian cuisine

Further to my comments above, I'd suggest a more comprehensive list of Indian sub-continental variations. Doesn't have to be too long, but the variations are important. Just a few notes on dominant themes (use of dairy produce in Punjabi cuisine, Goan seafood, more ginger to the south etc etc). May have a go when I have time. Tarquin Binary 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Rogan Josh

I am not an expert about Curry and everything I know about Rogan Josh I learned within the past hour or two from the Wikipedia article about it (Rogan Josh) and by searching the internet.

This (Curry) article says British curries are generally arranged by strengths, with the following being commonly found examples of these, one of which is Rogan Josh. As best as I understand what Rogan Josh is, it is not a Curry. I see in a previous discussion that Rogan Josh is included due to being in a list (of 50) in a book. Perhaps the book is misleading.

I would argue that it is a curry, if that is the local consensus. Otherwise it isn't :) I have a great fondness for Rogan Josh, and I would say that it certainly has more claim on 'currydom' than, say, a korma. But 'curry' is just a really vague term, I'm afraid (see below). Tarquin Binary 22:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is a curry! I have eaten curries all my life, and Rogan Josh sure does taste like one. Here's a random external link that I found to a Rogan Josh recipe that may help convince you - Rogan Josh (Lamb Curry). --Aravinda100 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Curry a dish or a spice?

I am not an expert about Curry but I have always thought that Curry is a spice, not a dish. When I go to the grocery store, there is always a Curry spice.

I know that Curry is actually a combinaton of spices and that there are many various combinations of spices that are called Curry but it seems to me that defining Curry as a dish is very confusing. Perhaps it is relatively common to call Curry a dish, but if this is technically incorrect then it seems wrong for the confusion to be perpetuated by the Wikipedia.

I especially think that the typical ingredients of a Curry spice should be described early in the article. Descriptions of ingredients such as meats in a Curry dish seem especially confusing.

The problem is that it is hard to be technically incorrect - or correct - when dealing with such a vague term as 'curry'. I would argue that it isn't even a dish, spice or a combination of spices, just a vague portmanteau term covering a range of styles of south, south-east and east Asian cooking. As noted in the article there are Thai, Vietnamese etc curries. In a specific cultural context, though, people may have a consensus as to what they mean by the term. For example, in London, for many people, a 'curry' is simply what you get when you order a meal in a 'curry house' or Indian restaurant/takeaway. Of course 'curry house' is defined as being a place where you can get a curry :) To which confusion add that 'Indian' is often used as a generic term for any south Asian restaurant.

In a south Asian context, the spice combination is usually known as a masala, and there is a specific spice (or should that be 'herb'?) called curry leaves, but this is actually not necessarily a usual component of south Asian curries. I agree about the common components, (though these are not invariable), I would (for south Asia) list garlic, onions, chillis, coriander and cumin as extremely common. Turmeric (effectively more of a colourant) is common too, though I tend to prefer to use paprika. Tarquin Binary 21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let me emphasize that I am a beginner to Wikipedia also, so if I am doing this differently than what is typical, I am sorry.

Can a Curry dish exist without a spice (or spices) called Curry?

Sam Hobbs 23:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - in terms of Wikipedia, you are doing fine, Sam - it's all about discussion and consensus. Beginner status didn't show - and frankly I haven't been here long myself.

Anyway, apart from the curry leaves that I mentioned, which are not a common ingredient (they are also cited in the article, by the way), there is no spice called curry. Curry is sometimes applied to a spice blend, but this is proprietary or even spontaneously individual - there is no canonical blend. As I say, the correct term for a spice blend arrived at when cooking is a 'masala'. A preprocessed paste or powder may be called a 'curry paste' or 'curry powder', but this is hugely generic, there is no exact composition that can be arrived at. For example, since Rogan Josh was discussed above, Pathak's, who are among the better of the off-the-shelf brands, do not do a 'curry paste'. They do, however have, among many other choices, a 'Rogan Josh mix' ('mix' IIRC - have to go up to shop and check to be sure of the exact last word). What I'm getting at is that 'curry' is an amazingly vague generic term, only properly defined by local consensus, impossible to closedown on a global source like Wikipedia. Tarquin Binary 00:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge Japanese Curry?

Merge! But only if the dish is made with real Japanese.-- User:Bhudda

I saw the notification to merge Japanese Curry to the general Curry page. I do not think it is appropriate though since Japanese curry, though a curry, is distinct and a fully absorbed type of cuisine that is not very similar to other types of curry anymore.--Bud 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. Curry in Japan has evolved independently from other areas of the world. Where else in the world do you find curry roux, curry udon, and curry bread?--Endroit 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge, distinct and historically unique. And making me hungry all of a sudden. Chris 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. sounds like the tag should be removed. it was added by this edit: "19:08, 20 November 2005 Nlu ({{mergefrom}})" but the person hasn't bothered to make an argument. --Tokek 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. Japanese curry is in a category all its own, particularly with the recent "soup curry" craze.~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.202.108.30 (talk • contribs) .

Do not merge. You don't see mention of turmeric or curcumin in the Jap curry, so don't merge them.

Paul A'Barge

I guess Jagged 85 merged Japanese curry already without concensus. I'll ask him to read this discussion.--Endroit 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He don't seem to be big on consensus, he apparently unilaterally decided that all British curries were Bangladeshi and tried to change the sub-head as a side-swipe. Tarquin Binary 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jagged 85. Looks good now.--Endroit 03:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, say again? Tarquin Binary 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction... The Japanese curry page looks good. The Curry page may need some work.--Endroit 03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. You see, I don't care one way or the other about the status of Japanese Curry (although I obviously regard it as excellent, I have no opinions as to its classification, taxonomy or history) - it's that sub-head change with regard to British cuisine that annoyed me, that ignores history entirely...Tarquin Binary 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the Merge Japanese Curry section, isn't it not? Regarding the category of Curry, my understanding was that it is "Indian", because it is from the Indian subcontinent. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken.--Endroit 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry Tarquin Binary, I have an opinion now. Curry in Britain should be called "British cuisine". Curry in Bangladesh should be "Bangladesh cuisine", if that merits its own section. Otherwise, British curry should be considered "British cuisine", not "British/Bangladesh cuisine.--Endroit 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Curses. I had a fairly vitriolic reply already typed for you and ready to go. You blooming well defused it :) But, yes, I agree. The problem is that British curry or cuisine is a sort of cultural fusion, not totally confined to Asian people or people of Asian descent - it isn't even a restaurant thing. Non-Asian people in the UK have incorporated 'curries' into their home cuisine for a long time, even though these have been hugely modified from what would be regarded as a 'real' dish in a specific province of South Asia. It gets complex.Tarquin Binary 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think the big 'bucket of chicken curry' picture (yuk!) at the top of the page sucks, and I will try to find something better that does justice to my (for one) favourite food term. Tarquin Binary 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Endroit - I've restored the Japanese curry page, and also kept a brief description of Japanese curry in this page but added a Main article link to Japanese curry for the full article. Also, curry is not just limited to the original South Asian variants but can also refer to all the foreign variants. I personally don't see how Japanese curry can be that different from the other types of curry that it can't be called "curry" anymore (I'm sure African or Carribean curry must be just as different) but I don't have any problems with having a seperate Japanese curry page aswell. Jagged 85 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tarquin Binary - I admit I made a mistake by adding Bangladeshi in the heading and I apologize for it. However, the reason why I did that was because a large bulk of British curry was directly influenced by Bangladeshi curry. Over 65% of British curry restaurants in 2003 was Bangladeshi and before that, the figure was even higher. Even the earliest forms of British curry came from the Bengal (the first region of South Asia the British had conquered). Other parts of the subcontinent have also contributed to British curry, so I agree that its not quite the same as Bangladeshi curry anymore, but at least it deserves more credit for it don't you think? (I also think the term "Indian restaurants" is very misleading) If you don't agree, then I don't mind leaving the British curry section as it is. Maybe it might be better if a seperate Bangladeshi section is added instead. Jagged 85 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would describe British 'curry' as a culinary phenomenon, and worth a separate description, given its influence on UK cuisine from the 19th (even 18th) century onwards. The historical commentators I have read have in no way suggested that these influences have all come from Bengal (many, and I can understand this (as a cook who knows where things grow) have come from Madras and other places in south India, not to speak of Kashmir and the Punjab in the north). It would be foolish, on the other hand, to suggest that the majority of new 'Indian' restaurant proprietors in the UK since the 1970s have not been Bangladeshi (and, by the way, this growth has been an excellent thing, in my opinion). But, surely, that point has been made in the article... Tarquin Binary 04:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thai Curry

I've been making some Thai curries recently and have been generally satisfied with the results, but also believe that I can do better. I have basically been following the directions on the curry paste package. I start by warming some of the coconut milk, adding a generous portion of paste, cooking and stirring until the paste is blended, and then adding the rest of the milk and some water. Almost as much water as coconut milk is what a Thai woman at the Asian grocery suggested. Then I add the tofu and steamed vegetables and serve over rice. It tastes great, but I've had better at Thai restaraunts. I know some people add tamarind juice, and some add fish sauce, but I haven't tried these yet. Anyone have any ideas for fine tuning my curry? Your advice is appreciated.

Not exactly Authentic Thai Curry but I can provide some information on how cambodians cook curry. First sautee julienned onions and shrimp paste to braise meat. Add sugar and salt to the meat. Add the coconut milk and curry paste (fresh or not) and water to the pot. Let simmer until meat is tender. Take the pot of curry off the heat and start adding rough chopped sweet potatoes, string beans. If you use beef instead of chicken, omit the potatoes and string bean and use peanuts. Good luck Trilinguist 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Finding good Indian food in Britain"

Should this section really be on the page? Is it not just people's opinions of what is or isn't good? I'm sure pretty much every curry house in the country has people that like and dislike it. What do other people think? King rich 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's more something for Wikitravel than this page, I should think. - RW 63.21.55.118 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems misplaced --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As there is some agreement I will remove it then. If anyone wants to dispute this then please say so here before reverting. King rich 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

A lot of the british curry section reads like a magAzine article. I personAlly think the list of plACes one caN find a 'good curry' should go. externAL links caN be provided to such lists, but this isn't the plACe for recommendations, especiaLly as it's open to commercial abuse. aPipedreambomb 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Curry hotness

Could someone please compile a list of curries in order of "hotness"? Thanks 86.141.165.147 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing. Different cooks will cook the same dish at different levels of spiciness. Peppers vary in their capsaicin content and size, so even using the same number of peppers would not reasonably distinguish how hot a curry is. So short answer, I don't see how that would be possible or useful. - Taxman ^Talk 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Section Order

It's clear that the different cultural sections in this article are not in order of importance, but just placed according to the self-importance of whomever added a given section. But rather than trying to organize it by importance -- which I think would start with India, then Thailand, Britain, and Pakistan, for example -- and thus causing a permanant argument, I think we should probably just sort them alphabetically. Certainly the current, arbitrary order is not in any way helpful, and could create false impressions of being ordered by importance.--Kaz 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Straying into Cultural Cuisine Topics

is it just me, or does this article need major restructuring? This page should be about curry, not the various cuisines that have "curry," which is a misnomer anyway. There's far too much information on the background and basis of different cuisines, when the article should be focusing specifically on the curries. For example, why do we need to know that there are two forms of Bengali cuisine? That has no relevance to the article at hand. It should also be clear what the one Indian dish called curry by Indians actually IS (i.e. the yellow yogurt/lentil sauce-type thing that's eaten with rice). This article further perpetuates the incorrect, colloquial and European usage of the word curry. While obviously this should be discussed, there should be a clear distinction between what the Indian usage is, and the common English usage is. Admiralakbar 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more I'm convinced it needs major cleanup. It has become basically a "list of Asian cuisines." The Punjabi section, in particular, goes into a non- sequitur about kabobs and the usage of wheat as compared to rice, both things that refer to Punjabi cuisine, not curry. Nearly every cultural subsection has an excessively long description of the food in general, when the link to the specific cultural cuisine page would suffice. By adding general information about things besides curry, this page even further muddies the definition of curry, which is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is not to do. I'm going to look at paring down some of the cultural sections. Admiralakbar 15:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The mention of wheat in the Punjabi section might be relevant if curry is eaten with wheat there rather than rice, as being eaten with rice seems to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of curry. But it's not clear that this is what it is saying as it does not ever mention curry. These cuisine sections which don't mention curry might have to do with the excessively broad definition of curry at the beginning of this article which seems to make anything with a sauce a curry, covering most Indian dishes. I'm tempted to delete each section that does not mention curry, but I'm not familiar enough with the regional cuisines of India to do so properly--someone who knows what is actually relevant to curry in each cuisine ought to make some such edits. Also, hasn't anyone ever noticed that all these cuisine subsections are part of the etymology section? I'll at least fix that. --Ericjs (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on British section

This section makes a lot of downright scathing generalisations that aren't even cited. Someone knowledgable on the matter seriously needs to rewrite it and stick to the fucking facts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.23.213 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

I take it this is the sort of thing you're getting at:

“ In contrast, the typical provincial "curry house" serves a (to the Asian mind at any rate)curious and almost ritualised cuisine which bears little resemblance to any real Asian dishes. This type of establishment is often stereotyped as having generally absymal levels of hygiene, being deserted for most of the day and relying heavily on the custom of hordes of drunks emerging from the surrounding pubs at closing time. ”

Personally, I assume it was probably meant to be lighthearted but it's nontheless rather unencyclopaedic and should probably be removed altogether. But I'll leave that decision to someone else, it's late!
—Chris (blather • contribs) 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"The popularity of curry in the UK encouraged the growth of Indian restaurants." this sentence is the wrong way round in my opinion. Good job whoever citation-tagged it!BaseTurnComplete 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference needed on JMSDF curry friday claim

Could the writer provide a source on this interesting tidbit? Since the JMSDF have multiple bases all around japan, I really don't think the navy need to go out of its way to synchronize the lunch menus. Just my two cents 74.99.18.250 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Faal?

Anyone have any insight on Faal curry(super hot curry)? I know it's not a traditional curry, but I was unable to find out anything about it all on wikipedia.

NVM I see it's also spelled Phaal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.168.211 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

If it is Phaal, (It is not a english term ie this Phal, It may or may not be the Faal you are reffering to). I have only come across Phaal in Bangalore and not as a gravy dish(as I understand when referring to Curry). It is thin slices of marbled beef marinated in super hot spices (mainly chilli powder I think)and grilled on charcoal grill. I came across Phaal Curry in a resturant in LA which was a super hot dish with thin beef slices in a unidentifiable gravy. Incidently the owner was from Bangalore but he was trying to pass of as a Hyderabadi(a city in South India) serving authentic Hyderabadi cusine!!!! Pervez87 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Americans and Curry

As someone in America who has never eaten curry and have heard very little about it, this wiki does not explain what curry tastes like as opposed to other traditional American foods, such as "baked chicken with rice", etc. I am not sure whether to try curry after reading this article. Perhaps users might consider adding information about how curry compares to several key "comparison" foods, like:

chicken with rice chicken fried rice (the dish in the wiki's image looks similar to chicken fried rice (white rice-looking dish)) etc etc

many thanks!

150.135.185.29 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be near impossible for two reasons. One, there's no equivalent to curry in other dishes. And two, there's a an amazingly wide range of different kinds of curry which have a very disparate set of flavours. If you want to know what something tastes like, TRY IT! ;) --Monotonehell 13:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is like asking what is french cusine taste like Pervez87 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hot ?

"The use of hot spices was not mentioned, which reflected the limited use of chili in India "

The preceding statement is very strange, there are "hot" spice ingredients other than chilli (peppers).Eregli bob 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Lager

"Lager is a popular accompaniment to curry, particularly in the United Kingdom "

Should we mention that the lager is usually the Cobra brand at virtually every UK curry house and Tiger brand at virtually every chinese sit-in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we wait a paragraph before contradicting ourselves?

"The term curry is most likely an anglicized name for the Kari derived from the usage of "Kari" in the South Indian language Tamil to connotate any secondary dish eaten with rice.[1] In addition, curry leaves, known by the Tamil word 'Karuvapillai' (literally meaning black leaf) which is an aberration of 'kari-veppilai' in Tamiil or 'kari-veppila' in Malayalam or the Kannada word 'Karibevu' is used in various kinds of dishes common in South India made with vegetables or meat and usually eaten with rice.[1] The term curry (meaning a stew) was found in English before the arrival of British traders on the Subcontinent, and may simply have been applied by them to dishes which they thought resembled the stews they were used to. "

So, which is it going to be? From Kari, from Karuvapillai, or always been and English word for 'stew'? Asserting tat all three are true doesn't bloody work. BUT if the word 'Curry' REALLY WAS found in English before traders arrived on the subcontinent, the former two really *can't* be true. 75.61.91.172 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice the last claim is unsourced, whereas the previous two have sources. Geoff B 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For one thing this is not a contradiction. Note the use of the words "may" and "most likely". This paragraph describes some possibilities of the etymology, because no one knows with certainty. And actually both can be true. The English confronted with the Tamil dish might well have been influenced by both the word "kari" and their possibly vague familiarity with the word "curry" as a food term in Enlish (which might have been archaic at the time). Or someone might have been told the word 'kari' for the dish and simply heard it as the similar word they were familiar with 'curry'. Language development is generally not a precise thing. --Ericjs (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

tikka masala on intercity trains

It is now available (albeit in frozen, microwavable form) on Intercity rail trains, as a flavour for crisps, and even as a pizza topping.

InterCity anything hasn't existed for a long time in the UK. If someone can find a verifiable version of this fact to replace the above it would be cool, but I doubt it's possible 87.113.2.251 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's on the [| Virgin Train's First Class menu], there's even a curry club on Wednesdays. As it's First Class it's probably not frozen, but I don't know.

I don't think standard class meals are very common any more, they've been replaced with a buffet car selling sandwiches etc. ƕ (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ketchup?

What is this doing under the article for curry?

"...the origin of the word "Curry". Other Asian sauces such as "Ketchup" (the etymological origin of the word is likely Asian despite the western conventions of this sauce)"

Yay! The etymological origin of ketchup belongs under the article for ketchup, doesn't it? Given that ketchup is based on a Chinese fish sauce, I'd reckon it has pretty much nothing to do with an article on curry, which is a basically Indian cuisine (note the spelling everyone).

Standard disclaimer: I will not even read responses, nor will I "sign" this comment. I do not respond to calls to "edit it myself". I am a user of Wikipedia. I proclaim my right to comment on articles without editing them myself. If you want to put the onus on me, you are, yet again, limiting the potential reach of Wikipedia beyond those whom have time to waste arguing about this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.62.251 (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What are the must haves

As a cook that has never had to work with curry, im a bit lost...

Is there any thing that has to go in to the mix to make it a curry? like onion or garlic or somthing like that? I mean what makes it a curry and not just some hot dish?(DarcaTheCook (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Tea is drunk with curry?

I think this line

           " Tea is popularly drunk with curry" does not make any sense

Tea is never drunk with an Indian meal...not in India at least

Lassi is drunk wit hbreakfast or simply alone. It is unaccustomed to drink any beverage with curries at all. I mean the popular drink is water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.164.60 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who drink milk with curry, to sooth the burning. 79.66.61.246 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Health Benefits

I'm sorry, but given the fact that this article describes curries as being extremely diverse and identifies no ingredient that a curry must have to be a curry, this sections is rather useless and silly. It might as well say "curries have health benefits to the degree to which they contain ingredients that have health benefits". Perhaps the studies that the writer had in mind were focussing on the typical yellow curry powder found in western grocery stores (at least in the U.S. and UK), perhaps particularly on the turmeric. If so, then this section ought to say that.--Ericjs (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You could even say the opposite to 'health benefits'. These curry sauces feel to burn your mouth, am I right? What is it that actually makes it do that? I very much doubt eating spicy food like this could possibly be good for your tounge, mouth, digestive system or gastrointestinal tract. But there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the article. 79.66.61.246 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Curry herb

A friend of mine recently bought an herb plant that was reportedly labeled "curry." It resembles a rosemary plant. This doesn't sound like a curry tree. Any ideas what this could be?

Actually, I just answered my question with a little web research. From http://www.nhg.com/db/1078.htm

CURRY PLANT Helichrysum italiacum

Tender Perennial Ht: 1' - 2' Light: Full Sun Soil: Well Drained Soil Color: Yellow Symbolism:

Tender Perennial Culinary Ornamental

Related to the strawflower, it bears attractive golden yellow flowers.

It is popular for its curry scented foliage. Great container plant. Likes hot dry conditions. The English use this herb in cream cheese for sandwiches and in salads egg and chicken).

This is not the commercial source of curry powder.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.221 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Pashtun/Afghani Cuisine

Heyy, so it looks to me, after having looked after this page for a while, that the cultural cuisines section is becoming more relevant to curry directly, as to before where it simply described generally, the cuisine. There are still some issues with this, but the one I wanted to address was the Pashtun cuisine section... It essentially says that the Pashtun diet consists of fruits, nuts, and wheats. I'm not Pashtun myself, but I can assume one of two things: 1) These items are put into currys into Pashtun cuisine. 2.) They are eaten individually, in a non-curried form. I'm guessing it's the first, but from the current wording, it kind of just sounds like Pashtun food just consists of raw foods, rather than describing what goes into their food. If someone who has knowledge on this subject could rearrange the wording, it'd be much appreciated. As it stands, that section doesn't actually have any direct ties to the subject at hand. Admiralakbar (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs disambiguation

The introduction to the article says "This article is on a general variety of spicy dishes". But in English, "curry" has at least two significantly different meanings. One of them is indeed, "a general variety of spicy dishes". But the other use of "curry" refers to the spice or seasoning itself.

In supermarkets all over the US, and even in the local Indian grocers around here (northeast US), you can buy "curry" in the form of jars or bags of powder. These powders are a mixture of different spices such as turmeric, cardamon, cumin, etc, and are used for seasoning all sorts of other foods.

I think some disambiguation needs to be added to acknowledge this other common use of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plnelsonwiki (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be noted as a misconception in the article. "Curry" is not a spice or a mixture of spices, contrary to what many American products advertise and many people here seem to think. 24.184.166.238 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Neel

'Curry' is called 'Salan' in Ordou Language

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.167.165 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Curry comes from a Tamil word khari? According to what?

Is this really true? The article doesn't even a real reference. Since the British were based in Bengal, I would imagine they got the world from their word in Bengali, thorcurry (thor-kaah-ree). You basically drop the "thor" and get the Anglicized version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.84.24 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's derived from Tamil, according to Oxford, Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary, among others.--118.173.164.116 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Curry in North India and Pakistan

I have clarified this with references. Curry is used as just another word for Tari in North India and Pakistan. Tari means a wet dish of any kind. So, if you cook meat only in Yoghurt and salt without any spices of any kind (which is sometimes done with things like Yakhni), this is a tari dish in Hindi-Urdu. And in English North Indian and Pakistani people will simply call the juice curry. Any British stew or Japanese udon will similarly be called a curry dish by North Indians and Pakistanis (unless they live in Britain and understand local usage), simply because it is wet. This is purely an accidental thing because curry happens to sound so much like tari that people assume it must be the English word for the same thing. --Cookmughlai (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Urdu , An "official language of North India" ?...

It is Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.7.71 (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism / Protection proposal

I see a surprising lot of vandalism on this article. Strange.

Because the vandalism is mainly done from IPs, a half-protected site, editable only by users with registration since days, will help and is proposed by me. Wispanow (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A few of the recent edits termed as vandalism were actually quite funny. I had a good laugh. But it has now gotten out-of-hand. It's time to protect the page from anonomous IP users. --@Efrat (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent .

Do not understand what is Indian subcontinent mean to the writer.politicaly Indian subcontinent is compared to Indian,Pakistan,shrilanka,Bangladesh and napal.In curry section all the Indian state curry food is mention,Bangladesh west Bengal and orrisa is mention in onE SECTION as they have same kind of food.As we undarstand the writer is trying to discribe the same food culture as indin pakistan and Bangladesh have commen culture.But what is strange THAT Pakistan is mention here in a diffract section. why so, north Indian food and Punjabi food is their again Pakistan FOOD for what.so I am deleting it.pakistan has a long history from all the westan part of world like the persian,greek,turk,all the central asian and arab,in ancient time from the Aryan scythian the persian medas,irani people.pakistan is a central asian country colse to modern day indian.as told by pakistani historian.so plz do not mention pakistan in enything which is indian food culture launage ot enything their is other section for it.Hope the british writer and the english scholar will give attention to our concern.--59.162.59.66 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not strange at all. You are being far too nationalistic, I suspect. Anyway, I have explained the term now. Please do not delete the section again. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bunny Chow

Perhaps someone more wiki-savvy than me can make a note of curry in South Africa, and create a link to the wikipedia article on 'Bunny Chow', a ubiquitous convenience food in Durban, KwaZulu/Natal. I am not South African, and I think it would be best if the person writing the article had a deeper knowledge of the subject. 78.144.213.140 (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)granthamguy, 24 December 2011, 1719 UTC.

That's the first thing I thought of when seeing this article. I have been to Durban but, alas, I am not South African and I'm a brand new Wikipedian. EricEnfermero (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs

I've attempted to improve the grammar of the opening paragraphs as well as indicating the applicability of the "generic" term "curry." Further work is needed everywhere in this article to "tighten" it (a bit) ... in particular, to get away from the notion that "curry" is a "powder" ... Yankeecook (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice effort you're putting into the article, however, without providing for sources for your claims it looks like a lot of original research. I'm guessing someone is going to undo your edits at some point. If you have references to back up your claims it would be a good idea and helpful to the article if you would add them in. SQGibbon (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In response: We have discussed that the edits to which you refer were all in the "lead" and are substantiated by more detailed information (with references) later in the article. Accordingly, it seems preferable not to "load down" the lead with duplicate references. Yankeecook (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Much of the content following the "lead" of this article seems unfocused on the principal topic: Curry. Yet, it contains much interesting information concerning culinary practices of numerous regions. Unfortunately, most of this content contains very few external references (although I know them to be available and can provide many of them).

I'd like to propose (and propose to author) a thoroughgoing re-write of the remainder of the article. In particular, I'd be interested in feedback about the following points:

• Restrict the content of this article to dishes commonly considered to be "curries" and exclude detailed mentions of other dishes such as "dal" or "roti" which are "accompaniments to curry" but not (actually) "curry" itself.
• Eliminate virtually all references in this article to "curry" as a "powder." In fact, Curry powder already has an independent article. Recommend eliminating virtually all of the "Curry Powder" section here.
• Much of the general content on cuisine in this article is duplicated in the numerous independent articles on regional cuisines (for example, Gujarati cuisine or Pakistani cuisine or Thai cuisine to cite but three). Shouldn't content not specifically related to "curry" be moved to and incorporated into those articles?

Please share your thoughts here on the Talk Page. Thank you. Yankeecook (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dry and Wet Curries OR Curries and Curried

:Quote: Curries may be either "wet" or "dry." Wet curries contain significant amounts of sauce or gravy based on yoghurt, coconut milk, legume purée (dal) , or stock. Dry curries are cooked with very little liquid which is allowed to evaporate, leaving the other ingredients coated with the spice mixture. Unquote There is not citation for this. I have always understood (also no citation as yet) that curries to consist of dish in a sauce whereas what is decribed here as a "dry" curry is simply called a curried dish e.g. curried meat, curried vegetables etc. I realise there are "dry curry" recipes but is this a neologism? Wikipedia has always steered clear of recipes as such. Dainamo (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. After consulting at least a dozen Indian cookery books (many printed in India, but in English), I'm comfortable standing by the concept "wet and dry curries." Because the term "curry" itself is essentially an English-language imposition on the foodways of another culture, it's not a very precise term. I notice that you appear to be British -- and I grant that there's a slight difference between British and American usage. Here in the US, "curried" more or less specifically refers to Westernized dishes which consist largely of leftover meats in cream sauce with a minimum of commercial curry powder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeecook (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Meat vs. Beef Curry

Somebody changed the caption for the Bangladeshi Beef Curry photo to Meat Curry (which would imply goat or lamb). However, the original caption for the photo (from Wikimedia Commons) was written by the photographer, it says Beef and it seems to make little sense to second-guess him. Yankeecook (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Reverted Changes 5 July 2012

Queenmomcat ... I reverted the changes for the following reasons: "varying" implies that things change from time to time; "more or less" implies that some things are complex and some things are not ... not really the same idea. Removed your addition of "recipes" because, so far as we know, there were originally no "recipes" in the modern sense for most of these traditional dishes ... "spices and/or herbs" because some dishes contain spices; some dishes contain herbs; some dishes contain both. Please don't make "style" edits that change the meaning and sense of carefully selected wording. Thanks. (I wrote the original lead). Yankeecook (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Curry in Great Britain

Surprised there is no reference to "Going for an English"; the word "curry" is increasingly pejorative, especially among Brits under 50 who usually talk about indian as in: going for an indian. 'Curry' for many is reserved for the bland imaginary dishes referred to in the section 'Historical development' under this heading, whereas 'indian' denotes dishes made by or devised by those of indian descent and/or not using a concoction made from something called 'curry-powder'. British people of indian descent seem less reserved about the word curry than those of less identifiable caucasian origin who call themselves 'English'.

There ought to be a cross reference to Patak's, too. Patak's sauces are the main means of preparing an indian meal at home, and they also make popular microwave readymeals. Tolken (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

UK or US spelling of this article.

I would say this article should use angliced grammar and spelling. The UK has some influence in the spread of curry, and it has become an adopted national dish. The article also is a C class of interest to the UK group. Now I wouldnt start anglicing an article on Hamburger would I? :) Irondome (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of change in lead: May 17, 2013

The "previous" version of the lead was carefully written to convey the nuances of various cultural perceptions of "curry" in different parts of the world. The generic concept of "curry" as understood (for example) by the British (or Americans) has little to do with the specific actual Indian models on which "British" curry dishes are based. Please don't make "style" edits that change the meaning and sense of carefully selected wording. Thanks. (I wrote the original lead). Yankeecook (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed section on defecation

Removed the line "One notable trait of curry, is the disturbance of the human digestive system. Usually leading to 'sloppy', 'wet' and 'barely solid' defecation. The defecation is usually tainted with the smell and colour of the curry eaten beforehand."

Unnecessary, not cited, and may contain original research. Seriously, it's inappropriate to a food article. Zola (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Korea

In South Korea, "karry rah-ees" or "karry bap" is moderately popular. It is a greenish-brownish sauce made from curry powder and contains potatoes, carrots and small quantities of other vegetables. the sauce is served with white rice. For a picture, see http://ask.nate.com/qna/view.html?n=8830546. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: Hannah Glasse

The article currently states: "The use of hot spices was not mentioned [i.e., by Mrs. Glasse], which reflected the limited use of chili in India — chili plants had only been introduced into India around the late 15th century and at that time were only popular in southern India." The statement is unsupported by a reference; there is little reason to believe that her 18th century English cookery book reflected Indian practices either at that time, or during the preceding 300 years. Suggest it simply be removed. Yankeecook2 (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

source for more citations

Most of the citations that are being asked for are for really old stuff -- that the internet is not really that good at -- someone is going to actually have to go to a library and check out a dead tree type of a book for some of the more recent facts- particularly with the British love of curry - see http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/jinhyuck/jinhyuck2.html I dont think wikipedia would allow citing it directly but it has some sources worth following up.--Currystove3 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1747 book?

The article currently says The first curry recipe in Britain appeared in The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy by Hannah Glasse in 1747. The first edition of her book used only black pepper and coriander seeds for seasoning of "currey". By the fourth edition of the book, other ingredients such as turmeric and ginger were called for. According to the Library of Congress (link to catalog entry), the fourth edition was published in 1751. However, the image File:Hannah Glasse To make a Currey the Indian Way 1747.jpg which is included here is claimed to be of the 1747 (first?) edition - and the text clearly mentions ginger and turmeric (but no coriander). So it appears that something is wrong: Either the article here is wrong and, in fact, the 1747 edition already mentions ginger and turmeric. Or the image was not taken from the 1747 edition, as claimed in the Commons description, but from a later one. Maybe User:Chiswick Chap who uploaded that image can help with clarifying this matter? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The cited text is correct. The image was taken from the 1758 edition. I've updated the Commons description. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you! I modified the image caption accordingly. What do you think, wouldn't it be appropriate to also move the image from File:Hannah Glasse To make a Currey the Indian Way 1747.jpg to a file name such as Hannah Glasse To make a Currey the Indian Way 1758.jpg or Hannah Glasse To make a Currey the Indian Way 1747 (1758 edition).jpg or similar? Do you have a suggestion? I could move it on Commons... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I moved the file to File:Hannah Glasse To make a Currey the Indian Way 1758 edition.jpg. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Regarding "kari was first encountered in the mid-17th century by...

Can this be changed to something more descriptive? I suggest, "Westerners first encountered kari", or, "Europeans were first exposed to kari". The generalization as it is now, really is pretty eurocentric. Thanks for considering.

D k mackenzie (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed statements regarding fats and health

I have raised a Disputed Inline tag in the Fiji section regarding "Curries are often very healthy if less oil is used in cooking and they can be made even healthier if vegetables are added and fat is removed from meat."

Apart from the confusion between "healthful" and "healthy" (who would want to eat a sick curry?), there is a problem here with the changing state of accepted medical opinion around the consumption of fats and oils, and saturated fats in particular. There is a second issue around the differing needs of biologically diverse individuals to maintain their individual health. There is a third issue around the assumption that vegetables alone can make a meal more healthful without regard to what other meals the individual has eaten.

Though health advice is probably completely out of place in this article, the problem sentence would have been better if it referred to ways curry could be lower in fat, rather than more healthful.

"Pij" (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The section has no references, reads like a recipe, and leans toward original research. I removed the worst cases per WP:OR. --Zefr (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140913110011/http://www.rendangnaniko.com/blog/arti-diabalik-masakan-rendang/ to http://www.rendangnaniko.com/blog/arti-diabalik-masakan-rendang/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411190436/http://www.sb-worldwide.com/curry/history.html to http://www.sb-worldwide.com/curry/history.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Archive URLs work, but these are not good sources, so I will remove. --Zefr (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian curry

The content and source below were removed because the source is an individual's blog, WP:NOTBLOG. A better WP:SECONDARY source is needed. --Zefr (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Curry is widely eaten in Russia. There, it is known as карри русский (karri russkii). Russian curry consists of beef, lamb and other vegetables mixed with sour cream (smetana), tomato paste, cinnamon, cloves and chillies. It is very similar to beef stroganoff. It is often served with blini and plov on the side.

I removed it again. It popped up again. The source does not mention Russian Curry at all! TheWizardof2017 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Coriander"

I am not a foodie, but I am told what is used in curry is coriander seeds, not the leaves, which as known as cilantro in the United States. If this is so, then the links all need to be piped to Coriander seed or Coriander (spice), both of which are redirects that I have retargeted to the "Fruits" section of the Coriander article. Our article covers both the herb and the spice, and gives the culinary uses of the leaves first. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So you want to talk instead of edit warring and still revert like an edit warrior

The lead talks of "Indian subcontinent", when in reality nobody upper of South india ever heard of the word curry in their languages. This is nonsensical enough to rewrite the whole article. Curries are strictly South indian products. The rest of the world (including Northern India) knew of it only after British colonialism. Please rewrite the article to reflect correct facts instead of fiction --213.225.4.30 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to change the article it it is your responsibility to gain consensus if challenged, before repeating your edit. This article is not about the word "curry", it is about the dishes commonly referred to by the name "curry". If you have anything relevant you wish to add about the application of the name to dishes not previously called "curry", then please provide a source. I'm afraid saying "I'm knowledgable enough on this subject" is not adequate, simply because you are just an anonymous person on the internet and the reader has no way of judging your reliability. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think curries originated just in south india while south india was part of various Indian Empires. Especially given the fact that tomatoes and potatoes now widely used in curries did not get imported into India before 17th century. It is not like drinking black tea's tea leaves which was discovered and used by british. Vedic texts contain discussions of herbal preparation for food and health especially Atharveda which details various curry based dishes supposed to calm the nerves.

hi, please add this historical reference

The Kanhadade Prabandha of Padmanābha written in ad 1455 describes the food served at the table of this ruler. There were ‘sev, suhali, manda, papads, khaja, salan, badi, lapsi-ka of the panchadari variety, kansar, dhan and many other delicious dishes’.

salan is the urdu/hindi word used in the north india for curry. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

References

POV quote

@Kautilya3: Provided quote along with given source does not say - "as early as 2500 BCE in the Indus Valley, in what is modern-day Pakistan" - There is no mention of "Indus valley" in that provided sentence in CNN news page, yet the quote is added on top of the page, clearly a POV edit and natioanlistic in nature. 117.198.112.173 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/curry-origins-history/index.html See the quote here. 117.198.112.173 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that "Indus Valley" was a nation :-) Anyway, I deleted the reference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There are several scholarly sources under history which can be added/talks about Indus Valley specifically. CNN does not provide their sources for "modern-day Pakistan", only known study of "Oldest curry" is from IVC site from Haryana, in India. 117.198.112.173 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36415079 (Cooking the world's oldest known curry, BBC) - Specifics the study and from where.

"For in 2010, when advanced science met archaeology at an excavation site in Farmana - southeast of the largest Harappan city of Rakhigarhi - they made history, and it was edible. Archaeologists Arunima Kashyap and Steve Webber of Vancouver's Washington State University used the method of starch analysis to trace the world's first-known or "oldest" proto-curry of aubergine, ginger and turmeric from the pot shard of a bulbous handi (pot). Extracting starch molecules from 50 different surfaces - including pots, stone tools, and the dental enamel of humans and domesticated cows, often fed leftovers - they identified the molecular thumbprints of vegetables, fruits and spices, and studied the effect of heat, salt and sugar on them."

2. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/Spicy-food-leads-to-longer-life/article17077718.ece

"Study by Arunima Kashyap and Steve Weber of Washington State University. They analysed the remains of starch grains from human teeth (as well as in a cooking pot excavated from the site) found in the ancient town of Farmane in Haryana (a well-known Harappan site) and identified ginger and turmeric in it. It thus appears that the curry that we make and use today traces its ancestry back to over 4,000 years ago!. Besides ginger and turmeric, Harappan food included lentils and moong dal, rice, millet and bananas. It is interesting how spices such as ginger and turmeric were used as early as 4,000 years ago in the Indus Valley civilisation. We now know that ginger contains molecules that help against inflammation, control osteo-arthritis and modulate immunity. And we know largely from the excellent and exhaustive work done at the National Institute of Nutrition at Hyderabad (e.g., the book: “Turmeric - the Salt of the Orients is the Spice of Life,” Dr Kamala Krishnaswamy, Allied Publishers, 2007) how golden the herb, turmeric, is." 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:There is no source for oldest "curry" in Mohanjo Daro, as the only known study for oldest "Proto-curry" is from Rakhigari in Haryana, in India. 117.198.112.173 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Curry being a Tamil word

Please add proper sources to show curry is derived from Tamil word. Otherwise there are many words in many languages which match phonetics of "curry". I want to see a clear source that shows "curry" came from a Tamil word. Otherwise this is just conjuncture. Precisepie (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact a better word is from Telugu Kura... Which is close what a curry actually means now and not some kind of relish Precisepie (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The source cited to show the entemological history of curry is a dictionary. Please add a better source or the part about derived from Tamil will be deleted. I will wait for 7 days from now. (From 07/29/2020) Precisepie (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There are two sources, both etymological dictionaries. I can't imagine why these aren't "proper" or could be bettered. The article already says there are other similar words, but what's important is how it entered English. If you have better sources that say differently then please provide them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

I have issue with the below excerpt from the article:

Curry powder, a commercially prepared mixture of spices, is largely a Western creation, dating to the 18th century. Such mixtures are commonly thought to have first been prepared by Indian merchants for sale to members of the British Colonial government and army returning to Britain.

My issue is that Curry Powder cannot be termed as a Western "creation" in the 18th Century since it had been traditionally used as a generic combination of spices to make several curries for thousands of years in the Indian subcontinent. It is the alternate name given to the traditional Indian combination of spices known as "Garam Masala" which is used in hundreds of Indian curries since ages. Furthermore, since it is admitted here that it was prepared by Indian merchants, it is erroneous to term it as a "Western" creation. In other words, "Curry Powder" is simply a result of trade between Indian merchants and European colonial traders to export an combination of spices that had been traditionally in use in the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years. Therefore, I request you to modify the sentence to reflect as follows.

"Curry powder", a commercially prepared mixture of spices marketed in the West, was first exported to Britain in the 18th Century when Indian merchants sold a traditionally used general concoction of spices, alternatively referred to as "Garam Masala" in the Indian subcontinent, to the British colonial government and army returning to Britain.

Similarly, I have reservation with the following excerpt:

Curry powder is a spice mixture of widely varying composition developed by the British during the days of the Raj as a means of approximating the taste of Indian cuisine at home. Masala refers to spices, and this is the name given to the thick and pasty sauce based on a combination of spices with ghee (clarified butter), butter, palm oil or coconut milk. Most commercial curry powders available in Britain, the U.S. and Canada rely heavily on ground turmeric, in turn producing a very yellow sauce. Lesser ingredients in these Western yellow curry powders are often coriander, cumin, fenugreek, mustard, chili, black pepper and salt. By contrast, curry powders and curry pastes produced and consumed in India are extremely diverse; some red, some yellow, some brown; some with five spices and some with as many as 20 or more. Besides the previously mentioned spices, other commonly found spices in different curry powders in India are allspice, white pepper, ground mustard, ground ginger, cinnamon, roasted cumin, cloves, nutmeg, mace, green cardamom seeds or black cardamom pods, bay leaves and coriander seeds.

I request you to edit the same with the following modifications:

Curry powder is a spice mixture exported by Indian merchants to the British during the times of the Raj to provide a ready made generic pre-mix of spices that were traditionally and historically used extensively in Indian cuisine, for the British market. Masala refers to a particular Indian spice or a combination of such spices, often added to ghee or other cooking oils as base for preparing several Indian dishes. The composition of individual spices in the curry powder has been adapted to suit the Western taste in most commercial curry powders available in Britain, the U.S. and Canada with heavy reliance on ground turmeric, in turn producing a very yellow sauce. Mild quantities of coriander, cumin, fenugreek, mustard, chili, black pepper and salt are added to approximate Indian cuisine to the Western palate. By contrast, curry powders and curry pastes produced and consumed in India, apart from the Garam Masala from which the curry powder is derived, are extremely diverse; some red, some yellow, some brown; some with five spices and some with as many as 20 or more. Besides the previously mentioned spices, other commonly found spices in different curry powders in India are allspice, white pepper, ground mustard, ground ginger, cinnamon, roasted cumin, cloves, nutmeg, mace, green cardamom seeds or black cardamom pods, bay leaves and coriander seeds. PrateekChakraverty1 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced what was in the lead with your suggestion. However, the section on curry powder was unsourced, as is your above suggested text. So I have replaced this with a sourced extract of the Curry powder article. If you have any improvements, with sources, please list them here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020 (2)

With respect to the excerpt:

Curry powder, a commercially prepared mixture of spices marketed in the West, was first exported to Britain in the 18th Century when Indian merchants sold a traditionally used general concoction of spices, alternatively referred to as "Garam Masala" in the Indian subcontinent, to the British colonial government and army returning to Britain.

Please replace "alternatively referred to as "Garam Masala" in the Indian subcontinent" to "similar to the "Garam Masala" spice concoction of the Indian subcontinent PrateekChakraverty1 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

With respect to the excerpt, "For example, in original traditional cuisines, the precise selection of spices for each dish is a matter of national or regional cultural tradition, religious practice, and, to some extent, family preference." I request you to add the phrase ", as evolved over thousands of years" after "family preference" to reflect the historical context of the cuisines. PrateekChakraverty1 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that makes sense - it implies that it's the family preferences have evolved over thousands of years which I guess might be true in some cases but I think it's rare for most people to be able to trace their family back one thousand years let alone what their individual curry preferences were. I'd prefer to have "some of these recipes have evolved over thousands of years" as a standalone sentence, preferably referenced. --Paul ❬talk❭ 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the Etymology Section

Zombie gunner wishes to make two changes to the Etymology section which I disagree with:

1. Addition of the sentence "In North Indian languages curry is called Salan". I'm not disputing that this is factually correct, but 'etymology' refers to the origin and development of a particular word - not the thing itself. I do not believe that the word 'curry' has evolved from the word 'salan' and, unless there is a reference to indicate otherwise, it is not relevant to this section.

2. Removal of the sentence "The word 'cury' appears in the 1390s English cookbook, The Forme of Cury, but is unrelated and comes from the Middle French word 'cuire', meaning 'to cook' " . Strictly speaking, I guess this might be considered off-topic, but I think the sentence is valid here because it preempts any misunderstanding which might be derived from the book's title, and it certainly doesn't detract from the over-all article.

I've brought this to the Talk page to allow Zombie gunner the opportunity to justify the changes and gain the consensus required to make them. Obscurasky (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good points, Obscurasky, and I agree with you. No changes to etymology as indicated by Zombie gunner are justified. Zefr (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your point. The book might be removed here, because this information could be presented at the book's wiki page.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am just mind blown that you are saying that i have suggested that the word curry has evolved from word salan, and this indicates that you have not bothered to pay any attention to my remarks i made with the revert. Where do you have issues comprehending relevant, since curry as an english term generalizes north indian 'salan' hence needed to be mentioned in etymology? The sentence is added to the section since its the most suitable, where else do you suggest we add that sentence. I'm also very surprised that you have found objection on the relevant content by a completely irrelevant forme of cury is not objectionable. Secondly, you never suggested complete removal only allocating at a suitable position, and yet you are completely removing the content. Zombie gunner (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be offended. I'm not saying the information you added is factually incorrect, or even without merit - I'm saying that it's inappropriate for the etymology section. You're correct that I did completely remove it, but you are perfectly free to re-insert it in a more suitable position within the article. Obscurasky (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a problem with the definition of kari. If you look in a Tamil dictionary, it says the definition is charcoal. https://agarathi.com/word/%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.253.137 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reversion discussion / Issue with finding sources for South India subheadings

The reversion in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Curry&oldid=1005436298

One of the reasons there are so few good sources for anything relating to South Indian cuisine is because English-language writers haven't given it the same interest and in-depth study they've given European, Latin American, East Asian or even other regional South Asian cuisines. The same goes for native-language writers for a different set of reasons. The fact that there are acceptable sources for information on vindaloo, rogan josh, and goshtaba, preparations popular in restaurants the West, but nothing for the rest of Goan or Kashmiri cuisine perfectly demonstrates this. Plugging-in any of the terms I used – iguru, pulusu, pappu – into a Google Scholar search yields little to no good hits either. Even the one scholarly source I used that describes Telugu cuisine in-depth only focuses on a single caste community in a single district in Telangana, so it's very incomplete.

I could write a treatise on Telugu cuisine that revealed its sophistication, but because of my lack of credentials as either an academic or a culinary professional, it wouldn't fulfill Wikipedia:Weight or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So the choice here isn't between good sources and bad sources, it's between folk/lay scholarship and nothing. It's clear that previous editors of this page have had to strike that balance and have mostly erred on the side of allowing unsourced information but flagging it as such, so that citations can be added in the future. Without such a compromise, South Indian curries, the very origin of the English word "curry," would remain clouded by a cultural and language barrier.

I ask you to reconsider the reversion of my edit and adopt the same stance as earlier editors. Xerces1492 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources are always required. Self published material won't be accepted. Flagged entries should be addressed rather immediately in my opinion and removed within 3 days. In any case, flagged content is not an encouragement to add inadequately sourced material.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Please change BCE in the history section back to BC since it is incorrect. IF you are going to use a calendar, then use it, don't put your personal agenda in it. Ever wonder why people are reluctant to donate money to you? This is one of the reasons. Leave BC as BC and not BCE and AD as AD and not CE. I cannot re-name the meter if I don't like it and still claim to be using the Metric system, because it isn't if I call the meter something else. Think about it. 198.57.14.68 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Either is acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as it is used consistently within an article. See MOS:ERA. RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh the irony. "I cannot re-name the meter" - do you mean 'metre'?

SandJ-on-WP (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Curry (or Kari) are from the same root as Persian word "Khoaresh" (or "Khoresh") is. Both mean "side dish", something you eat with your main dish (bread or rice). Khoresh (older pronunciation Khoaresh") is composed of "khoar" means eating and "ash" which is a popular suffix to create nouns. It seems "sh" was dropped in Indian dialect over time, and Kh became K. Khoaresh ==> KAre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.113.183 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Jamaican Curry

Any reason curried dishes in Jamaica aren't included in a regional subsection? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Bengali curry

New user Silvertiger1092 is warring to include this edit which has been reverted by several editors for poor blog-like sourcing, promotional content, and WP:UNDUE. The Daily Star ref is a promotional blog, not WP:RS, and the other source is from Banglapedia which has unknown reliability and doesn't have much of a presence on Wikipedia. The content is about curries that may be served at Bengali festivals, i.e., not encyclopediic material. Zefr (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Cultural exchange ... is missing

India is the home of curry..., according to the article. Except that it isn't... or rather, the claim, and the whole article actually, misses the point that "curry" is the product of a cultural exchange, or a series of such exchanges, between India and the British Raj, and then with many countries, so that curry is now fully international. The same goes for all internationalized foods born of cultural exchanges: "Italy is the home of pizza" ... except that it isn't: it's the home of Italian pizza, not of American pizza, etc. The article needs a section on cultural exchange (at least the size of the current History section, which fails to make this basic point), and then it needs to lighten up on the "home of curry" angle and take a more international view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Implemented, with over 20 new sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ruined" article

@Deedman22993:, if you have genuine constructive changes to suggest, do so here, section by section, with sources. Do not change huge swathes of the article in one fell swoop. In addition, your repeated reversions are a form of edit warring which can get you blocked. And please preview your changes so you don't leave broken templates on talk pages. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly this concerns the thread above. More than 20 new sources support the revisions that the editor(s) concerned did not like. It may be that the old fictionalised version was popular, but the evidence clearly says otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Anglo-Indian curry

Copied from User talk:`mkund:

Your unfounded claims about Anglo-Indians creating curry is your personal interpretation. It has nowhere been mentioned by author. Now I should help correct wikipedia as shown by guidline. I will see to it tomorrow. Good Night 103.225.244.147 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:`mkund: No, I have added no personal interpretations at all. Each claim is directly sourced, as anyone can verify for themselves from the cited sources. You do not have a mandate to rewrite Wikipedia to suit your own personal opinions, and you will get into severe trouble if you keep trying to do so. The creation of Anglo-Indian curry is not in doubt; it is well cited in the article and many more sources exist documenting Anglo-Indian cuisine and culture. The historian of food Lizzie Collingham's statement, cited in the article, that No Indian, however, would have referred to his or her food as a curry. The idea of a curry is, in fact, a concept that the Europeans imposed on India's food culture. Indians referred to their different dishes by specific names... But the British lumped all these together under the heading of curry. makes her view quite clear: Anglo-Indian "curry" was their invention. Obviously they were starting on the basis of the many excellent spicy dishes they found in different parts of India: nobody is asserting that spicy dishes did not exist before the 18th century and the British Raj. What is asserted is that they created something different; and that the thing they created, further transformed in Britain, Japan and other countries, went on to become an international dish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I am warming, I am going to accuse you of serious malpractice if you keep obfuscating Author's words.

You keep on mentioning this personal interpretation as if it is based on author's word.

The paragraph you cited was before paragraph where author talked about Anglo-Indian curries. In context, it means that Indians called these dishes by their unique names. Indians would call those newly invented 'curries' using their unique name as well.

What you are implying is Anglo-Indians created something new and only they started calling it curry. That's complete lie, Indians would not have called them curry, but in modern context curries refer to group of food with spice blends. Anglo-Indians called their curries curry because dish they were based on curry. If those dishes from India are not curry so are those created by Anglo-Indian and if Anglo-Indian dish were curry so is its predecessor. You can't switch context between modern and Victorian and perspectives between Indians and British to justify arguments which is not remotely suggested by author and seems more like your personal interpretation. Stick to one perspective and you will get your answer. They got curry word itself from Portuguese and used it referring to many spiced dishes before Anglo-Indians were significant, how is claim that Anglo-Indians 'created what they called curry' not ridiculous. If this talk page will not be productive, I am willing to the route of dispute resolution. `mkund (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@103.225.244.147 It seems to me that much of the disagreement here is rooted in confusion about what is being attributed to Anglo-Indians. Is it the word "curry" being used to describe a dish, or is it the contents of the dish? "Curry" the word, as the article explains, was around before the dish, and used to describe spices. The dishes, or the basis for them, existed long before someone called them "curries". So what is being attributed to Anglo-Indians is bringing the word together with the dishes, along with the usual modifications and fusions that is to be expected when cuisine crosses cultures.

Noting this does nothing to deny that the dishes existed prior to Anglo-Indian involvement, and did not already have a long history behind them. Very little in food gets invented out of nothing.

But I am unclear what exactly you disagree about. How the article treats the word, or how it treats the dishes? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Picture in British influence

The picture is too vague, only few things written are irrelevant. Lemon pickles, Poppadom and Kedgeree are not even curry. Largest red text 'Anglo-Indian Curry: eaten only by the British' is vague and seems to imply that all elements shown in picture are 'Anglo-Indian curries'. I am going to cite paragraphs from book cited about those element and let people see if they are Anglo-Indian curries or relevant.

Lemon Pickles, Chopped hard-boiled eggs, Sliced Raw onions:

In a similar fashion, Anglo-Indians applied the variety of relishes and garnishes that they discovered in India with indiscriminate enthusiasm to all their curries. Served alongside bowls of curry and rice would be little plates of the Persian garnish of chopped hard-boiled eggs, Punjabi lemon pickles, south Indian finely sliced raw onions, desiccated coconut, neat piles of poppadom, as well as fried onions and shreds of crispy bacon.

This paragraph does not suggest British influence. These were eaten by previous rulers and after British that are eaten throughout India. These dishes are not example of British influence on curries. There is no mentions of these sides origin and are pasted with 'Anglo-Indian curry' on picture based on single paragraph above.

Kedgeree: Not even a curry.

Curry Powder:

But as the Anglo-Indians began to think of curries as variations on one theme, they began to collect recipes for spice mixtures that they simply labeled “Curry Powder."

Already existing spice blends were labelled as curry powder and sold in UK. It was not 'Anglo-Indian curry: Eaten only by British'.

Bombay duck/condiment:

Just as the British in Madras discovered molo tunny, the British in Bombay developed a liking for their region’s specialties. Bomelon were small fish that the residents of Bombay treated with asafetida and then hung up to dry in the sun. Fried until they were golden brown and crumbled over food they imparted a strong salty taste that the British adored. They christened this seasoning Bombay duck as these fish were known to swim close to the surface of the water.

British discovered this dish and condiment in condiment and enjoyed eating it but it was not created by Anglo-Indians. It was not 'Anglo-Indian curry: Eaten only by British' because it was eaten first by locals.

Why 'Anglo-Indian curry: Eaten only by British' is there? I found an answer.

But Anglo-Indian cookery can never be described as a truly national Indian cuisine as the hybrid dishes that it produced were only consumed by the British in India. Unlike the Mughals and the Portuguese, the British failed to create a new branch of cookery that spread to the rest of the population.

This paragraph has not significant relation to other dish mentioned since all those dishes were adapted from locals. The context is that Author is talking these Anglo-Indian dishes. 9 Often a party of men and women would accompany the civil servant, spending their days indulging in the favorite Anglo-Indian pastime of shikari (hunting). This gave rise to an entire branch of Anglo-Indian curries, including braised quail, wild duck, and rabbit curry.40To accompany these, the cooks made up fiery shikari sauces of salt or fermented fish, chilies, cayenne pepper, asafetida, mushrooms, and wine that Roberts thought “assuredly the most piquant adjuncts to flesh and fowl which the genius of a gastronome has ever compounded.

Overall this picture is not helpful and is made using mashes information without context from the book `mkund (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your extremely extensive thoughts. It may help you to know two more things about Wikipedia: editors do not find it constructive when someone starts multiple threads on a single talk page; and editors are remarkably unenthusiastic about reading long ranting screeds in those threads. To reply to the stuff, however: the image is fully-cited to Collingham, and it concisely summarizes her arguments about the Anglo-Indians. You are trying to use your personal opinion stated baldly "It was not..." when the reliable source says otherwise. That isn't usable on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They christened this seasoning Bombay duck as these fish were known to swim close to the surface of the water.

Christening is ceremonial act of giving name not creation. If you try to act as authoritative figure on topic at hand and ignore Author's words themselves, it goes against the Guidelines. Please do not call my words personal opinion when it is based upon Author's own word. `mkund (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what other editors think of all these discussion threads. I shall stand back from the discussions now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

'Creation of what they call curry' by Anglo-Indians

Although it lacked sophistication, Anglo-Indian cookery was the first truly pan-Indian cuisine. Mughlai cuisine never became an all-India phenomenon: the culinary styles of many Indian regions were not incorporated into the repertoire and its spread was limited. In contrast, the British adopted recipes, ingredients, techniques, and garnishes from all over the subcontinent and combined them in a coherent repertoire of dishes. Indeed, one of the distinguishing characteristics of Anglo-Indian cookery was its tendency to apply appealing aspects of particular regional dishes to all sorts of curry. In this way, mangoes, which were sometimes added to fish curries in parts of the southern coastal areas, found their way into Bengali prawn curries; coconut was added to Mughlai dishes, where it was an alien ingredient. In a similar fashion, Anglo-Indians applied Madras Curry 119 the variety of relishes and garnishes that they discovered in India with indiscriminate enthusiasm to all their curries. No mention of 'creation of what they call curry' @Chiswick Chap. If you are not willing to correct misinformation and remove your personal misinterpretation on Author's book, we have to go for dispute resolution and accuse you of malpractice with diffs and links. `mkund (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly do not make personal accusations or threats. Talk pages are for discussing the article itself. The claims you quote here are all reliably cited in the article, as you or any other editor can quickly verify. If there is any "misinformation" present, it will swiftly be corrected either by me or another editor; so far, we have not detected any. Your quote here actually includes the answer to your implied question: ...was its tendency to apply appealing aspects of particular regional dishes to all sorts of curry. Here, Collingham directly states that the Anglo-Indians took elements of Indian regional dishes and from them assembled "curry", i.e. the article is correct as it stands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Here, Collingham directly states that the Anglo-Indians took elements of Indian regional dishes and from them assembled "curry", i.e. the article is correct as it stands.

Nope that is never said. Author wrote that Anglo-Indians used ingredients from one region with curries from another region. Key word curry. Curry was already used term for existing dishes and also used new dishes.

Since we can't solve this dispute, how can I get third party to look at cited source and see if article is correct as it stands. `mkund (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "curry" was certainly not used before the Anglo-Indians created it; there were Indian words similar to it, of course, such as Tamil "kari", but that is a different word with a different meaning. What `mkund is getting confused about is that in 21st century usage, i.e. centuries after the creation of the word, "curries" has extended its usage to mean "spicy dishes", whether from Thailand, Burma, India, Vietnam or other countries. This usage is perfectly valid but it is different from the usage in earlier centuries; we need to be very careful to distinguish the two usages. Perhaps something on these lines should be said in the article's 'Etymology' section. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but this is getting nowhere. You just declared that "curry" was not used before Anglo-Indians created it without any credible evidence. British got it from Portuguese who referred Indian spicy dishes as kare. British called those dishes curry and they are considered curry nowadays as well.

Only those dishes created by Anglo-Indians were curry? This is ridiculous. When British arrived in India, they also called Indian dishes curry before significant presence of Anglo-Indians as cited in book by

Collingham.

I repeat again and again that Anglo-Indians did not invent curries and there is no mention of such in the book. Do not act try to be authoritative figure on this topic, it goes against the guildline.

This usage is perfectly valid but it is different from the usage in earlier centuries; we need to be very careful to distinguish the two usages.

If we are talking about creation curries for this page, we can consider earlies centuries as the context like you did. From the perspective of Indians, there is no single specific dish called curry. From the perspective of Anglo-Indian and British, all of those dishes were curry as written in the book if you have even read it. `mkund (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop reintroducing errors when I've tried my best to correct them

@Chiswick Chap

"In the Philippines, curry may have been introduced by sepoys (Indian soldiers) in the 18th century. Pinoy style chicken curry is flavoured with garlic, ginger, and onion, fish sauce, and curry powder."

This is just completely incorrect.

1. Kare-kare may (a very important distinction) have been derived from curry introduced by sepoys, or it may not, and may be derived secondarily from older Indian-influenced dishes in Southeast Asia. Or it may be something that only appeared in the Spanish period and is not derived from Indian curry at all. That's the point of the longer explanation. The source I provided that discusses this in detail, Esquire, is a pretty reliable magazine (Wikipedia even has an article for it) which you just arbitrarily removed. Kare-kare itself is not at all similar to Indian curries and is not a type of Indian curry, but it may be influenced by Indian curries. That's a completely different thing from the sentence you replaced it with.

2. Kare-kare is also completely different from Filipino chicken curry, which is a modern variant of a native (non-Indian) ginataan dish that just adds curry powder to ginataang manok. That's literally it. It's just a native dish with added curry powder.

3. Speaking of ginataan. Like other Southeast Asian dishes that use coconut milk, they are also sometimes translated into English as "curries" (with sources as examples). But that doesn't mean they are from or derived from South Asian curries.

This is the same situation as the Thai gaeng, which are native and are not derived from South Asian curries, but are translated as "curry" in English anyway, because English sucks when describing Asian things. These are still within the scope of the article as explained clearly in the lead paragraph, and as you yourself said in the previous section of this talk page. Not everything called "curry" in English is from India.

4. The use of the term "Pinoy" here (despite its use in the source) is unsuitable for Wikipedia. "Pinoy" is an informal term for "Filipino" or "Philippine". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles.

5. This is merely a food article. You can't seriously expect journal articles for everything when there are topics that are simply not scientifically written about a lot. Like the cuisines of smaller countries. Sources from small recipe sites are perfectly acceptable if they can easily be cross-checked and reinforced by other similar sites (the frustration with this is how Wikipedia:Citation overkill happens), are not contentious, and are not self-serving/promotional. Most of the other preexisting sources in this article are also from similar cooking/recipe sites. Including the source you retained.

You specifically removed AmusingMaria (which is more a personal recipe site), and that's fine. It was there to just reinforce the other source: Esquire. Which, in contrast, is a reliable secondary source.

I do not know why you removed it and all the others. Or why you felt the need to summarize a complicated topic that I had to describe in detail for clarity, into two horribly inaccurate sentences that aren't even verified by the single source you left behind.

I'm not just an IP editor obviously. I'm a retired Wikipedia editor. Just remove the sentences you added altogether, if you can't be bothered getting it right. It's better for the Philippines entry to not be here at all than the wrong information be quoted again and again by other sites from here. Like what usually happens. Wikipedia finds new ways for me to cringe every time I still use it.

I won't bother writing more. I retired precisely to avoid these long-winded arguments. Just know that the replacement summary you've written is laughably wrong. 143.44.193.226 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I've directly used your text but cut it down a bit to harmonise with the accounts of other countries in the region and avoid WP:UNDUE weight. Anything stated there is thus your summary of the situation, reduced to avoid excessive detail, nothing more than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and correcting. I honestly fully expected to be ignored as an IP editor. The revised summary is correct and much better phrased than my lengthier version.--143.44.193.226 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This felt like appropriation

As a Malayalam speaker, "curry" is a normal daily word we use for a category of food, and yet the article contains claims that no Indian would refer to their food as "curry", which is simply false. "Rice and curry" (chorum kariyum) is how we describe our traditional meals. It seems the quoted scholar at best talked to north Indians (Indo-Aryan speakers) who may find the word alien except for narrowly defined borrowings from southern languages.

I have made some edits such as removing the claim that no Indian language contains the word, but I don't have a lot of academic references to go on. Matthayichen (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I see you have reverted my edit. Can you reply, please. Matthayichen (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was replying as you wrote, there is no need to be rudely hasty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to identify if someone is replying to me? The purpose of the second comment was simply to tag you in a comment. No rudeness was intended. Matthayichen (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing, and you are right to be concerned if you are making claims that are not supported by suitable sources. The etymology section is fully cited, and it mentions different South Indian languages as indirect sources of the English word. The statement about Indians is reliably cited and attributed, so readers can take it as it stands in the context; situations change, not least because English is a global language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How does it make sense to say that "the word 'curry' does not occur in any Indian language", when two paragraphs later the same word is identified as occurring in Tamil?

It is not as if the meaning or structure of the word has changed too much to consider them the same word. Tamils and Malayalis have no problem identifying the English word "curry" as being highly similar in pronunciation and meaning to the Dravidian word. The Tamil wiki on "curry" talks about the international usage.

I consider this appropriation and denying agency to Indians, for Westerners to claim the word as essentially their creation when it is an ancient Dravidian word that is almost unchanged in international usage. Matthayichen (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the word "curry" (c-u-r-r-y) does not occur in Tamil. Etymology dictionaries agree that there is a connection, but (the Etymological fallacy) it is not true to say that the existence of a connection means identity of meaning: it doesn't. Jodhpur is the name of a city in India, but jodhpurs are riding trousers in English, for instance, so your argument is incorrect. As for emotional talk about "appropriation and denying agency", that is I'm afraid nonsense. The article traces the cultural origins of curry, quite a lot of which was in India, but certainly mediated by the British, who encountered highly diverse and sophisticated Indian food in different parts of the subcontinent, and devised a far more limited and frankly unsophisticated "curry" (and curry powder) which suited Anglo-Indian (British Raj) tastes. Since then, of course, the word has become global: all this is reliably cited in the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No etymological fallacy is intended seeing as we are literally discussing the etymology section.

However, near-identity of meaning exists between usage in Malayalam/Tamil and English. "Indians referred to their different dishes by specific names... The British lumped all these together under the heading of curry" -- but that's exactly the usage in south India. The word "curry" is a broad heading under which the various accompaniments to rice are lumped, which also have specific names such as avial or chili chicken.

The only difference in usage is that Dravidians see the rice as the chief component of the meal rather than the curries, so no one says "I'm eating curry", but rather "I'm eating rice" when they are eating a traditional meal ("oonu" ഊണ്) composed of rice and curry. Matthayichen (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The English spelling (c-u-r-r-y) is not found in Indian languages for the trivial reason that Indian languages do not use the Latin script. How is that an argument?

The English word "computer" (c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r) does not exist in Malayalam then, but the word "കമ്പ്യൂട്ടർ" (pronounced "computer", of course). If retaining the script is required, there can be no borrowed English words in Malayalam or vice versa. Which is not how identification of borrowing works.

We use manufactured curry powder ("karippodi" or "curry-podi" -- "കറിപ്പൊടി") daily in cooking. Either we borrowed the word right back from English, or it was here all along. In either case, it is a strange and false claim that 'curry' does not occur in Malayalam or Tamil usage at all. Matthayichen (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"The word 'curry' does not occur in any Indian language."

"The idea of a curry is, in fact, a concept that the Europeans imposed on India's food culture. Indians referred to their different dishes by specific names... But the British lumped all these together under the heading of curry."

These two claims in the article are actually contradictory given the context I have provided. If the second is true, then my language has fully accepted the concept invented by the British -- we do lump our dishes together under the heading of curries, since to us a curry is any spicy accompaniment to rice regardless of their specific names. Rice and curry (ചോറും കറിയും, chorum kariyum) is how we describe a traditional meal.

That then contradicts the first statement that the word does not occur in Malayalam. Surely it must if we just imported the concept wholesale from the Brits including the term for it. Matthayichen (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid your arguments are getting tendentious and repetitive; I'll just say they're not correct, as you can readily verify by studying the sources rather than trying to make things up from first principles. Discussions should be policy-based; this is not a forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is as silly as a putative Malayalam article claiming that the word kāṟŭ ("കാറ്"), referring to a four-wheel passenger vehicle, does not occur in any European language, only to admit later that it is "ultimately derived" from the English word "car".

I took a gander at Lizzie Collingham's book, and even if we suppose that every detail of her argument is correct, then Dravidian usage has somehow changed significantly since the Portuguese because today the usage of the word "curry"/"kaṟi" exactly mirrors English usage. All sorts of curries invented by the British are real curries to us, because curry is indeed a heading under with all curries are lumped rather than a specific recipe to us.

However, the even more superficial article in the Atlantic goes one step further and makes the claim that the word is found in no modern Indian language, which is patently wrong. Matthayichen (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're going way off-beam here. Once again, this is not a forum; there are plenty of websites where you can share your views as much as you like, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you still sticking to your view/opinion that as long as the Latin script spelling (c-u-r-r-y) does not occur in a language which does not use the Latin script, the word "curry" cannot exist in said language?

Given this position, why keep the sentence in there at all, since it is then trivially true that no English word is used in any Indian language usage at all, since they are also immediately transliterated into local scripts? No word that occurs in English can occur in any Indian language. Matthayichen (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says correctly that there is no Indian word "curry" with the modern meaning, leaving aside the obvious point that borrowing back from English is now international. The South Indian words that sound roughly like "curry" are correctly stated to have had more specific meanings, which is the point that you are continually missing, once again the etymological fallacy (please read that article). This is not a mere matter of difficulties in transliteration; it is a change of meaning from a specific sauce in one regional culture or another, to a style of dish in a different culture, as I already explained above. If you can't follow that, then it'd be best if you just dropped the stick really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have edited the sentence, adding "with its modern meaning" during this discussion and chose not to mention the edit here, to the point of pretending that the article has always been thus, which tells me even more about who I'm dealing with here.

You keep saying the Brits generalized the name of a specific sauce, but that is just a misunderstanding of a Western scholar who chiefly dealt with non-Dravidians for whom the word is almost as alien as it is to Englishmen.

I shall deal with the modern meaning in a separate topic. There will be no dropping of sticks. Matthayichen (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"with its modern meaning"

@Chiswick Chap

This article previously had the claim that the word "curry" is not found in any Indian language, but it has since been qualified with "with its modern meaning". Let's ignore the colonial logic of 21st century Dravidian words/meanings not being as modern as their English contemporaries, and focus on how Dravidian usage, or specifically Malayalam usage, differs or doesn't differ from the English language usage. Especially whether it refers to a specific sauce in Malayalam, or the general category of dishes that accompany rice or other carbs as it means internationally, ie, "Rice and Curry".

I shall refer to the multi-volume "Malayalam Lexicon" published by The University of Kerala in 1976. Subtitled as "A Comprehensive Malayalam-Malayalam-English Dictionary on Historical and Philological Principles".

Volume III of said work contains the definition of curry (കറി, /kɐri/):

"പ്രധാന ഭക്ഷ്യപദാർത്ഥത്തോടൊപ്പം കഴിക്കാൻ പാകപ്പെടുത്തിയ മലക്കറി, മത്സ്യമാംസാദികൾ തുടങ്ങിയവ, കൂട്ടാൻ, ഉപദംശം. curry, side-dish, hot condiments."

I.e., it is directly translated to the English word "curry", not to "a specific sauce". The non-English part means (translation mine):

"Vegetables, fish, meat, etc. prepared to eat alongside the main food material"

No mention of a specific dish or sauce here either. The "main food material" of Kerala traditionally would be rice, boiled plain.

There are multiple pages of historical literary references to curry given, and also words with curry (കറി) as a prefix, such as (I'll copy the English definitions given):

• കറിച്ചട്ടി ("an earthen pot to cook the curry in")
• കറിക്കത്തി ("a kitchen knife")
• കറിയുപ്പ് ("common salt, sodium chloride")
• കറിശ്ലോകം ("a verse describing a feast")
• കറിമസാല ("spices used for flavouring curries")
• കറിക്കായം ("asafoetida specially prepared for use in curries")
• കറിക്കായ ("green plantain used for curries")
• ...etc.

It is clear that this major academic work treats the modern English word "curry" (as it refers to food) as being rather identical in meaning to the modern Malayalam word. It is also clear that the definitions given are not of a specific sauce, but of the entire category of fish/meat/vegetable accompaniments to rice or other carbohydrates.

For a more historical perspective, I shall next consider a colonial-era dictionary. Matthayichen (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you get to the point and make an actionable recommendation of change to the article and not waste everyone's time and bandwidth lecturing us? I mean, it's quite obvious you want a change made to the article, but it's not clear what you want with your long lectures. Mr Fink (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me bring you up to speed. I made some edits, Chiswick Chap reverted them, and then we engaged in some rather hostile "talk" since Chiswick considers this article of his to be already perfect enough to nominate for 'good article'. The "talk" already has forced some discreet edits on his part although he chose not to mention that here, meaning the discussion was actionable after all. However, the problems are much more extensive, hence the academic references and explanations.

I could of course just make the changes myself again, but I think it has been made abundantly clear that I need to convince the Westerners/non-Dravidians who maintain the article, hence the above explanation. You don't have to read if you don't want to. Just don't revert my edits.

But since you want actionable recommendations, here you go, at the cost of repeating myself:

• Remove the claim that the word curry is not found in any Indian language (in its modern meaning or otherwise). Ref: the 1976 dictionary.
• Remove the sensational and highly inaccurate quote from Lizzie Collingham that no Indian in the colonial era would refer to their food as curries. I shall provide a colonial-era (1872) dictionary as reference.
• Mention that the people of Goa with whom the Portuguese interacted spoke Konkani, an Indo-Aryan language, while the origin of the word "curry" (and the meaning as later adopted by the British) belongs to Dravidian languages further south.
• Rewrite the intro and etymology sections at least, in the style of an article like the one on "sushi", that properly recognizes the Dravidian usage and tradition of the word "curry".

Matthayichen (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the landmark "Malayalam and English Dictionary" by Hermann Gundert, published in 1872.

കറി/curry is defined (page 216) as:

"Hot condiments; meats, vegetables."

It is again not defined as any specific sauce or dish. Specific curries such as "pulse-curry" are mentioned, making it clear that curry is a general category of foods just like it is in English. A categorization of four "kinds" of curries based on the dominant flavor is also given, namely sour, hot, sweet, and salty curries.

• Page 216, "Malayalam and English Dictionary"

Matthayichen (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, two things here are more constructive: 1) sources have been cited, and 2) specific suggestions for changes have been made, which is progress.

However, all these phrases like "making it clear that that curry is a general category of foods", and perhaps even more egregiously "It is clear that this major academic work treats the modern English word "curry" ... as being rather identical in meaning to the modern Malayalam word" are direct Synthesis, a blatant form of Original Research, both of which are strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy.

Dictionaries are of very limited use on Wikipedia: we can use them for direct definitions as written, and for directly stated etymology (if and only if the dictionary explicitly gives an etymology. Taking a list of dictionary definitions and jumping from there to infer a general meaning, or worse a historical trend, is certainly Synthesis. Looking up different dictionaries and inferring an etymological pathway is Original Research: we must not go there. Calling a dictionary "academic" may be true in a narrow lexicographical sense, but saying so elides the crucial distinction that we would need a reliable independent source to say "and therefore English 'curry' equals Malayalam kari in some sense of both words".

One other point that seems to be being missed here is that Collingham, like other scholars of food, was perfectly aware of the Dravidian words from which the English word 'curry' was adapted. There has never been any doubt (on or off Wiki) that the word had Indian roots (and indeed Hannah Glasse in 1747 made 'a Currey the India Way', though it is most unlikely she knew what a Dravidian language was). What the article states, or should do if its text is not clear, is that the Anglo-Indian usage of 'curry' differed very markedly from all previous usages, to the extent that both Anglo-Indians and native Indians saw the two cuisines as entirely separate. Later developments such as the mixing of styles of curries across the rest of Asia and Europe, and the adoption of the English word as a general label for everything from Thai red curry to Chicken Tikka Masala, have obviously changed the picture further: the word has become global and applied to many more dishes – but that does not mean it has taken on a specifically Dravidian meaning, or that it ever had one.

In addition, the demands to remove claims miss the point that the existing claims are reliably cited. If claim A is cited to scholar X, then we cannot remove claim A because an editor has seen a fact B which appears to the editor to be contradictory. Further, it remains true that "X said A" (verifiably); Collingham is, like it or not, part of the historiography of curry from now on. What would be required is a second reliably cited claim, that scholar Y said that X was mistaken about A, and that B is the case; and that second claim would be added to the first.

I think it will be possible to incorporate a bit of the etymology from the Malayalam dictionaries. In the absence of further sources, and without going into any form of Original Research, we can probably moderate some of the claims made, and we can certainly adjust the tone in places. I'll see what edits I can safely make, given the available evidence. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Specific actions

1. Remove the claim that the word curry is not found in any Indian language (in its modern meaning or otherwise). Ref: the 1976 dictionary.

• I think we can avoid arguing over this just by rewording the paragraph.

2. Remove the sensational and highly inaccurate quote from Lizzie Collingham that no Indian in the colonial era would refer to their food as curries. I shall provide a colonial-era (1872) dictionary as reference.

• Given the cautions above, there seems no need to insist on that part of the quotation; the rest of it is better expressed and far more clearly defensible; I've moved it out of 'Etymology'.

3. Mention that the people of Goa with whom the Portuguese interacted spoke Konkani, an Indo-Aryan language, while the origin of the word "curry" (and the meaning as later adopted by the British) belongs to Dravidian languages further south.

• This is bordering on Original Research here; I've added a brief gloss which just about stays within the rules. A claim that 'caril' was adopted into Konkani would certainly need a reliable source.

4. Rewrite the intro and etymology sections at least, in the style of an article like the one on "sushi", that properly recognizes the Dravidian usage and tradition of the word "curry".

• Edited the etymology. We do not know that 'curry' comes from Malayalam rather than Tamil, Kannada, or Kodava; it may come from any or all of them, so it is not safe to assume (WP:OR) that Malalayam definitions are specifically applicable; we would need a fresh source for that, and in any case the OED specifically says Tamil is the source not Malayalam: we'd need a very good and recent source to contradict that. An 1872 dictionary may be 'colonial era' but it is very late in the day (300 years too late) for what we need, the adoption of words by the Portuguese in Goa from 1510 to 1598 at the latest, and not at all suitable as a direct source. The most we can do with the bare dictionary is to mention its translation. Not sure what "intro" might mean (there isn't one), but I've added a brief mention of etymology to the lead, which already correctly summarizes the article body. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)