Talk:Curry

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 &#10092;talk&#10093; 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. [[User:Eggishorn|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,, and I agree with you. No changes to etymology as indicated by 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/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 Weight or 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)