Talk:Curry

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)