Talk:Steamed curry

Originally Cambodian or originally Thai?
According to this article, the dish is an Indian/Moorish/Portuguese influenced Thai dish. The Thai name "ho mok" literally means "wrapped and covered", presumably referring to the banana leaf cup as the wrapping and the coconut milk topping for the covering. I don't know Khmer so I have no idea what "amok" means, or even if it has any meaning at all in Khmer other than being the name of this dish, having been derived from the Thai word. If the latter is the case, its place of origin would be Thailand instead of Cambodia as is now mentioned, and the article's name should be changed to "Ho mok". - Takeaway (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's originally Thai, I've edited with the sources.Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amok (dish). 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/20131203011708/http://www.desiam.com/homoksalmon.html to http://www.desiam.com/homoksalmon.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename article?
In my opinion, the article should be renamed to "Hor Mok". 'Amok' is merely the Cambodian word for 'Hor Mok', and Hor Mok was invented in Thailand...So this page should be called Hor Mok rather than Amok. There already exists a wikipedia page called 'Amok Trey' which is about the Cambodian dish, so this page should have the Thai name. It makes no sense why this page would be called Amok when there's already a page for Amok trei. The body of this article already states that Amok is another word for Hor Mok, so there's no reason the article's title shouldn't be Hor Mok. Thoughts? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Given User:Takeaway's unopposed proposal since 2012, I believe there is consensus to rename the article to Homok/Ho mok/Hor mok. Hor mok has slightly more Google hits, but not so much more than homok, which follows the RTGS. (Homok was previously merged here, since this is the older article; a requested move will be needed.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ho mok. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Amok (dish) → Homok – Per the above sections, there seems to be consensus that the article title should follow the Thai name. It's not clear which spelling variant (Homok, Ho mok or Hor mok) is to be preferred. Paul_012 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There's even the spelling "Haw Mok" as well. I think that "Hor mok" is the best spelling. It seems to be the most common. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


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

Delete article?
Looking through the references cited, none of them appear to be reliable sources. Should this article exist? Which sources would give this article notability? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that i find this article to be very weird. It's an article about a food that goes by a different name in a whole lot of countries...If the article must exist, it should just be dedicated to the Thai food. And if the other country's foods are individually notable, then they can have their own articles. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And, for whatever it's worth, I have also suggested that Amok trey be deleted on its corresponding talk:amok trey. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It does seem the article would benefit from being blown up and started over. The subject certainly is notable, so deletion isn't warranted. For food items, I'd say it's better to cover them under a single article, to avoid redundancy, if they're similar enough. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If the article is to remain, I agree with the "blown up and started over" approach. However, what makes you say the subject is notable? I'd say this is a GNG fail. What's one reliable source which covers hor mok or fish amok in depth? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For the Thai version, the cited She Simmers article does analyse the dish and its making in some detail. Moh-Chao-Ban magazine ran articles about its nutritional value in 2002 and 2006. There are loads of articles which, while they mainly feature recipe content, also provide further context, such as this Daily News article. Unfortunately I couldn't find more historical information in online sources (there are mentions about its being featured in the 19th-century epic Phra Aphai Mani, like in this Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand article, but it's mostly in passing).
 * Incidentally, I'm starting to think the dishes may be different enough to be separate articles. Despite the very similar ingredients and mode of cooking, the Cambodian dish does seem to feature much more variety, and the fish often isn't thoroughly liquefied like it always is in the Thai version. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well as you know, this page was originally called "Amok" and was meant to be an overview of a food. It was a totally silly approach, because a regional overview of a food isnt needed when the food barely has much written about it in the first place (and when an article exists for amok trey anyway). If this page is to exist, I think we should just dedicate to writing about Hor mok. With regard to the sources you mentioned, I don't think shesimmers is a reliable source, it appears to be self-published and has no editorial standards etc: (their about page). I can't read your other sources because I don't speak Thai, but from what i gather, it doesn't sound like they've given hor mok in depth coverage. Am I wrong here? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think She Simmers may be considered reliable as a self-published source by an expert in the field, per WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Leela Punyaratabandhu has had several books published by Ten Speed Press, and has been called an expert by the press. I do think the articles analysing the dish's nutritional value can be considered in-depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks Paul. I guess I won't nominate Ho Mok for deletion then. I need to still decide whether to nominate amok trey for deletion, but that's not a discussion for this talk page. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Place of Origin
Someone had renamed the page into the steam curry and dismissed all the former sources by considering them as just a bunch of recipe, without properly studying them. However, while the new sources seems properly cited, however, at what extend it is considered as reliable? For one clear reason, one of the new source which is an article from Aqua expendition, (URL:https://www.aquaexpeditions.com/blog/dining/cambodian-cuisine-asia-underrated/) is no much different of a blog page than a page from Sheshimmer website, at which includes both recipe of hor Mok, and extensive interviews of Chef McDang on his insight regarding of the origin of Hor Mok. At the same time, the article from shesimmer wasn’t just a random recipe page at all. As been discussed above, “ She Simmers may be considered reliable as a self-published source by an expert in the field, per WP:RSSELF”..etc. The lady behind this site has been known for publishing numerous books and been called as expert by the press. So how possible we disregard her articles? Plus, Chef McDang the person she interviewed, was also a renowned chef in Thailand, has been known under the same quality, reputation and competence no less than Chef David Thompson, and how comes his words isn’t as reliable than what Chef David Thompson claimed. And how comes a website like Aquaexpendition (a website for ship expedition services) carried a heavier reliability from their blog post (which is clearly part of advertising the Cambodian cuisine that serves on that cruise) any more than a article published by Shesimmers?

Also, the user also used the book called Hot Sour Salty Sweet: A Culinary Journey Through Southeast Asia for his/her so-called reliable source, based on this information “ Steaming fish or chicken with aromatics in banana leaf packets is a technique found from Yunnan to Cambodia. The technique is mawk in modern Thai, Lao, and Khmer, and the word and technique may originally be Khmer”. The author of this book simply speculate that the word and the technique of “steam curry” may originally be Khmer. But what was exactly their source for coming into this conclusion? And the fact that the book is only one of the few sources that speculated that the cuisine and cooking technique is dating to Cambodia just like many other sources including other cookbooks, and articles speculated that the cuisine is dated to Thailand. However, I’ve found something that debunked the claim especially on the origin of the word “Hor Mok”. According to “Wiktionary - https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ห่อหมก), the word “Hor Mok” is of Thai origin. The word “Hor” means Wrap or Package, and the word “Mok” means bury, in Thai language, and these two words has many cognates in other Tai-Kadai Language such as Northern Thai language, Ahom Language, Tai-Lu language, Zhuang Language..etc. on the other hand, the word “Amok” or “Hor Mok” has no meaning in Khmer language beside only referring to the dish itself. More than that, if we refer to a Cambodian source, we could refer to  Choun Nath, late Kana Mahanikaya Supreme Patriarch of Cambodia, and a respected authority on modern Khmer linguistic who published the first modern Khmer language dictionary. In Choun Nath’s Dicitonary (Link to his online dictionary: http://dictionary.tovnah.com/?q=ហហ្មុក&dic=all), the definition of Hor Mok stated as following in khmer language: ហហ្មុក   ( ន. ) [ហ៏-ហ៉្មុក]  ( ស.សៀម ( ភាសាសៀម ) ) ឈ្មោះ​ម្ហូប​មួយ​ប្រភេទ​ធ្វើ​ដោយ​ត្រី​ស្រស់​ផ្សំ​គ្រឿង​មាន​កាពិ​បុក​និង​ខ្ចិះ​ដូង​ជាដើម ខ្ចប់​ចំហុយ : ហហ្មុក​ត្រី​រ៉ស់, ហហ្មុក​ត្រី​អណ្តែង​ដាក់​ស្លឹក​ញ (គួរ​កុំ​ច្រឡំ​ហៅ អាម៉ុក  ព្រោះ​ជា​សម្តី​ពុំ​គួរ​សោះ​ឡើយ) ។ - Here is my English translation for this sentence: Homok (Noun) [Phonetic: Hor Mok]] (from Siamese Loan word/Siamese language) a cuisine made of fish mixed with shrimp paste and coconut milk - wrapped and steamed: Ho Mok with snakehead fish, Ho Mok with catfish (please don’t be confused to refer it as Amok because that word is not proper). So here, I had put the original Khmer text and my own English translation side by side, in case someone would like to check and analyze that I don’t fabricate anything. So, my point here, if we use the cookbook “  Hot Sour Salty Sweet: A Culinary Journey Through Southeast Asia” as a source to indicate that the cuisine is originated from Cambodia, the speculation in that book especially on the etymology of the word “Hor Mok/Amok” has been highly debunked already based on the linguistic evidence from the Thai language, and the source from Cambodia which declared that the word is a loan word from Siamese language. By Based on the linguistic evidence alone, the culinary at their defined state is possibly pointed to Thailand as the place of origin, and not Cambodia despite of so many baseless claim and hearsay. This also means that that cookbook likely came across as borderline a collection of recipes with information coming from speculation and the assumption of the authors based on what they may encounter during traveling without any proper research, and critical analysis. It isn’t a historical research paper nor providing any hard evidences and therefore, what could had made it any different from many blog articles out there beside it just came from some well-known publications? I hope somebody could look into this and discuss over the arguments that I’ve proposed.

That said, I’m apologized for providing such a long writing as I’m still struggling with simplifying what I would like to say plus I need to heavily improve my English. Also, I’m here without a proper user account,so this may look unprofessional and I’m sorry if this going to offend some contributors here. 36.37.219.63 (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sawasdee! Yes, the Aqua Expeditions website is affiliated with David Thompson, but that still doesn't change his credentials, which is what gives the weight to what he says. It doesn't explicitly say that the steamed curries originate in Cambodia, but it does say that the Thai steamed fish curries are a Khmer influence, which goes directly against your claim. Even the Sheshimmer website admits that ho mok "represents a dish that is not Thai in origin" and it definitely doesn't say that the Khmers borrowed their steamed curries from the Thais. Plus McDang is Thai. There's a reason I left out all the Khmer chefs saying the steamed curries originated in Cambodia because then we go back to the old "he said, she said" situation. And how can you dismiss the books I reference as "speculations", "baseless claim and hearsay" and then point to some dictionary saying that the word ho mok is a Thai loanword in Khmer as proof that steamed curries originate in Thailand? If that's not the definition of speculation, then I don't know what is. –Turaids (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

hello! First of All, I’m Not Thai person. In case you may assume that my nationality is in play with this argument because it’s not. But I’ve been studied the culinary history for a while. I still don’t see your point that what David Thompson had to say, carried any more weight than what Chef Chef McDang had to said. Just because the former is a Non-Thai person and as a western chef who advertised himself as an expert in Asian cuisine (specifically, Thai cuisine), therefore, his words carried more weight? He didn’t even mentioned how he got his information, beside of course, he is a credential chef, so of course, his words are considered as reliable to state that steam fish curries are a Khmer influence? Isn’t that the same to what you worried that the content is “ back to the old” - he said and she said, because at here, The situation with David Thompson is clearly “He said” / “She said” situation. And you clearly rejected Chef Mcdang on the fact that he’s Thai and Nationalism is part of his agenda? Personally, nationality should be taken into an account of what people had said. But Nevermind, I do understand your concern, and it’s true. However, just because David Thompson is white and Non-Thai, doesn’t make his words any more reliable at all. What I wanted to point out is Both Chef Thompson and Chef McDang are chefs with good credentials, it’s clearly biased to treat both of them differently just because one is not thai and a chef of western ancestry, so we could easily conclude that this position carried no agenda and nationalistic attribute? If you actually study about David Thompson, It was clear that what he said in the article (in your source) is intended to promote Khmer cuisine that served on a Mekong ship cruise, therefore, it is necessary for someone like him to speak good of it, and of course, made everyone assume of its extensive origin as an influence on a much more popular cuisine, Thai cuisines, to suggest an important novelty as part of the branding. But again, back to my point, what his claims is considered as anymore reliable than what Chef Mcdang said about Hor Mok when it comes to what is a better citations? And it doesn’t make sense to me that you throw away chef Mcdang’s claim just because he was Thai, and not Chef Thompson. Plus, while chef Mcdang did said that Hor Mok is Not Thai in origin, but he did elaborated something. Here is a longer statement of his words: “ Why? It represents a dish that is not Thai in origin, but has been adapted to fit into the framework of Thai cuisine in such a way that we now have a dish that is decidedly and uniquely Thai in terms of flavor profile even though the influences of the Indian, the Moor, and the Portuguese are undeniable.” - at which we now have a dish that is decidedly and uniquely Thai in term of flavor profiles.”. Everything carried different influences and then it has evolutionized and redefined into a current standard they are now. And that’s what he believed that Hor Mok has been created in Thailand based of different influences before him. So if we dissect his words, would you use the broad and various influences for place of origin or where it was redefined and evolutionized? Because if we simply relied on the cultural influences as a place of origin for this case, then we can just settle on India rather than Cambodia since it’s universally know that Curries is dated to India centuries ago, or in another case, Pad Thai should be originated in China because it carried Chinese influences?

Anyway, if we judged Chef Mcdang and Chef David Thompson from the same criteria, their situation aren’t much different beside their different nationality (plus, The latter is obviously intended to promote the ship cruise). Secondly, why I dismissed you dismissed as a speculation, baseless claim and hearsay? I already explained it above and you questioned that my evidence are no different from speculations. Again, let me elaborated it - you relied on that source by using this piece of information “Steaming fish or chicken with aromatics in banana leaf packets is a technique found from Yunnan to Cambodia. The technique is mawk in modern Thai, Lao, and Khmer, and the word and technique may originally be Khmer”. The Author clearly assumed that the word and the technique may originally be khmer, even their language here “may originally” suggested that it’s just their speculation. I also read that book, and that statement carried no citations from reliable secondary or primary sources and it was a quick conclusion from the author on his very small section about wrapping techniques. And importantly why I consider that as unreliable? Because I had evidences to debuke their claim. Because they suggested that the technique and words “Maewk is may originally Khmer and based on the Linguistic study I’ve found, their claim isn’t correct and is totally opposite from what actually found regarding of the original of the word. I’ve cite informations from Wiktionary since it had gathered informations to support that “Hor” and “Mok” is an originally thai words, or specifically, rooted in Tai-Kadai language by having many different cognates in other Tai languages as far as in Zhuang people and Ahom people’s language. Unless you dismissed Wikitonary here as unreliable, then okay, we will move on from here, and I will suggest you other sources. Then, I linked you to Choun Nath dictionary and you had clearly dismissed it as Some dictionary. I’m totally sure at this point that you had no ideas about the linguistic study in Cambodia, and I did thought that previously, that’s what I tagged Choun Nath page for you so you can read about him and learn the important of his roles in khmer language. Every copywriter in Cambodia need to rely on Choun Nath’s dictionary on check and review. And if one need to study modern Khmer language and their origin, Choun Nath is considered as a very reliable in-house sources. Choun Nath’s dictionary is a major dictionary in Cambodia and Choun nath had started working on it since 1915 before publishing the first edition in 1938. However, I’m sure none of those so-called cultural anthropologist or food writers from the western countries barely spent time on studying languages and terminology from important sources like Choun Nath’s dictionary before they jumped at this conclusion. Language barrier would be a case for them but that was their own challenge. They just needed to do better in it. Here is an article from a prestigious news paper based in Cambodia, Phnom Penh Post: https://m.phnompenhpost.com/post-plus/chuon-nath-guardian-cambodian-culture and here is another link to a peer-researched paper analyzing And providing historical basis for Choun Nath’s dictionary: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/seas/4/1/4_KJ00009707739/_pdf. Please have a read if you have time. Again, his dictionary is not just some random dictionary that I’ve used as source. I’m actually based in Cambodia and I’m Willing to provide more sources about him, if you need other confirmations. Choun Nath’s dictionary is like a Cambodian counterpart to many important English language dictionaries like Oxford dictionary and if those English language dictionaries can be used as a reliable source for any particular term, why not Choun Nath’s dictionary when he provided a basis that Hor Mok is actually a siamese/Thai loan words which is aligned with the information from Wiktionary that convinced that the words are also of Thai origin since there are so many cognates in thai language. And now those linguistic evidences clearly go against the claims in the book you used as a source which instead suggested that words Maek originated from Khmer. Also, As Khmer speaking person, let me tell you that there is no word called Mok in Khmer language. Even someone as well respected as Choun Nath did suggested Cambodian people not to use the word “amok” to describe the dish because it’s wrong and is improper”. And if it takes this into an account, the book you cite as source is clearly conflicting and go against the actual linguistic evidence.

And overall, what is your standard to evaluate if a source is more reliable than another? You seems to dismiss any self-published post, articles as just a random of blog posts and yet you relied on sites like Aquaexpendition which is just a business-based website as a more reliable sources, while their article with chef David Thompson is no different from a Blog post, and advertisement? And then you used those books as sources (including the one with Penny Van Estrike), and despite of having some publishers, and their position as a food writer, and cultural anthologist, all their statements you used never came with any citations, and as you go through their works, it is as reliable as his/her said/speculations/claims that you been used as an excuse to dismiss other sources. Therefore, what makes them actually different from other articles, blogposts (at which many are also operated and published by someone considered as expert on culinary field by international press) and food recipes except that they came from same known publishers? For example Leela from sheshimmer and Chef Mcdang also published books from well-known publishing houses, how could their words are only considered more His/her says and more as an opinions/speculations than the two food writers and a cultural Anthropologist from the western countries. It was because they’re Thai and may carry nationalistic agenda you believe? And then we don’t look at those sources from western publishers as carrying some agenda too, No? Or to an extend, a result of bad research and some good citations to the primary sources/secondary source?

Overall, can you explain me this problem? Because here I see double standard at how you treat your sources and how you judge your sources, as well as how you analyze your sources.I need your explanation.

Because in case you may see that sources are conflicting, it’s better not to cherry picked and just sources the sources (based heavily on speculation) that stated steam curry is originated from Khmer, and why don’t we just put it as Southeast Asia? There are variety of steam curry across Southeast Asia, and not limited to Hor Mok. And since this page is now renamed as steam curry and Hor Mok deserve their own pages, i think it’s reasonable to just propose it As Southeast Asia. Otak Otak is also belonged to steam curry if we judge from the similar to the same ingredients they used as well as the way they cooked, and it’s widespread across island Southeast Asia, had many version across different regions and among different cultural group. They also tasted almost the same too (I ate different versions of them just to see when I travelled). There is also this interesting source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117977402584509841, published on Wall Street journal by a writer who discussed different angles on the origin of amok and hor mok, and their connection to Otak Otak.

I hope your give my long elaboration of how I find my source and analyzed my source here a chance. And that said, I also do see now and respected your roles as a extended confirmed users in securing each pages in Wikipedia to be professional and be more criterial in term of typos and citations, but I seriously feel confused at how you judged your sources by choosing one over another while I believe some of those sources functioned at the same level of reliablilty beside the one you considers as better are from the books and is written by someone, Non-Thai, Non-Cambodian, but from western countries. Becuase I don’t think that their nationality and just because it published as a book, that would make automatically a better source or an unconflicting source. Because if we look from a bigger picture, many of them are still hearsays, opinion, belief and speculations and if we really try to use a more professional standards for citations and referencing, all of them should gather in a section as part of conflicting sources suggested different opinions of the food origins, hence, the cuisine should be originated in Southeast Asia, and the conclusion is up to the reader’s interpretation of those sources.

Apologize if I may sound angry at my first post and even in their second post here, I only need your explanation and your thoughts on everthing I had provided for you here as evidence, I was slight pissed because I noticed that there are double standard here and I was very confused at how you would dismissed some sources yet glorify other sources as better when the reasons didn’t really cut class. I’m quite passionate about food history, and culinary history, been researching about them using many different sources based on all language I known as well as contemporary records, and it’s true that researching about food history are difficult than thoughts, and many sources I had found still required extensive analyses to consider them as reliable, and for your information, that’s also reasons why I’m felt uneasy with the two books you cite as sources, as their information is considered as very inaccurate, outdated and speculation, and for like for Penny van Estrik, while her book can be easily accessed on internet, it wasn’t very well-received among people of Southeast Asia,(Just like David Thompson wasn’t well received among Thai people for his claim as an expert on Thai cuisines yet he is called out for being arrogant), and for people who has grow up with those Southeast cuisine (Like me), Van Estrik’s books even paint an inaccurate insight on how local people perceived over their foods, so imagine her accuracy on the historical account when she wasn’t even an expert on history nor as a chef herself. That’s why her as a source plus the other food writers aren’t really as reliable to me at all. But okay, that’s just my personal experience to explain that why i didn’t find your source as any more credible as you made it into.

Thank you 36.37.219.63 (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies for assuming you're Thai then, but the national "ownership" of dishes appears to be very politicised in Southeast Asia, so an anonymous user swooping in like that definitely gave me that impression. Again, I mention Thompson's credentials not to compare him with McDang but to explain why I added an article that, you're right, ultimately advertises a new menu at a restaurant because it's an Australian who has specialized in Thai food for more than three decades, published multiple comprehensive books on Thai food and been dubbed "ambassador of Thai cuisine" by the international press saying that Thai steamed fish curries are a Khmer influence, which goes with what Van Esterik writes as well. That's completely different from Thais claiming it's Thai or Khmers claiming it's Khmer, but at this point, even a solid reference with a Thai person explicitly saying steamed curries originate in Thailand would be better than what you've provided so far. And, yes, I read the SheSimmers article from start to finish, it doesn't say that. Whether some Thais think Thompson is "arrogant" is irrelevant and a dictionary saying ho mok is a Siamese word does not attest to the origins of the dish itself regardless of how reliable or unreliable it is, because it's apples and oranges. And Wiktionary alone definitely is also no reference. No double standard here, if you have other scholars challenging or even disproving Van Esterik' writings, provide them. If you have any culinary history books or famous Cambodian chefs clearly stating the steamed curries originate in Thailand, provide them. Unfortunately, I don't have a membership to Wallstreet Journal, so I couldn't fully access the contents of the article you mentioned earlier, but the reputable publisher and the mention of Joannès Rivière, one of Cambodia's most famous chefs, definitely gives it weight. What does it say exactly? –Turaids (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you for your answer but you definitely don’t answer my question. So you had a western chef who considered as an expert in Thai cuisine saying that the dish carried Cambodian influences, while aligning with someone like Penny Van Estik had to said and the claim From a few food writers, and then you considered it as a reliable source, while I had provided another sources that is conflicting to your claims but you still dismissed them as unreliable Sources. So to sum up: any saying from David Thompson + Penny Van Estrik is a much stronger spruced than Chef Mcdang + evidences from A well respected person like Choun Nath stated that Hor Mok is a Thai loan word, according to you. And as the way you put it “it’s different from Any thai claiming that it’s Thai or Khmer claiming that it’s Khmer, means that you totally believe that someone from a western origin or Non-Thai or Non-Khmer background have no agenda to politicizing any culture or in this case, cuisines, at all, because they aren’t the native, and every native exist on earth would easily use such platform to politicizing any agenda. Such belief is super vague, to me, to be honest and is quite biased. You could secure the reliability of your citations Because the cuisine is not native to them, and how possible this case is not a matter of double standard And how comes any Thai person explicitly said that the dish originated in Thailand is a better proof to what I’ve provided. Again, if you really go through the entire post of shesimmers, you would definitely see this statement: “ Why? ″It represents a dish that is not Thai in origin, but has been adapted to fit into the framework of Thai cuisine in such a way that we now have a dish that is decidedly and uniquely Thai in terms of flavor profile even though the influences of the Indian, the Moor, and the Portuguese are undeniable.” - at which we now have a dish that is decidedly and uniquely Thai in term of flavor profiles.”. Did you actually see that sentence and How come The statement “ we now have a dish that is decidedly and uniquely Thai in term of flavor profiles” is not suitable to consider as the state of cuisines now is originated in Thailand? Cuisines evolves and been redefined many t thing we came to be, and just like I said, if you want a sharp point of how such things exist becuase it carried influences from foreign culture, then we should just put “steam curry” as originated from India (since curry is rooted to them) or we should just put Pad Thai “Chinese” as it has a huge Chinese influences. I’m sure that you don’t have problem with comprehension←, but as precise and concrete like what Chef Mcdang said, it’s great of him that that he was honest about the Foreign influences on Hor Mok and as the result, Hor Mok existed in Thailand from that influence. And hard this is his point! And how comes the linguistic evidence is Apple and orange? Linguists evidence provides some of the shape evidence to support any origin and overall study of culture and art. It may not ultimately suggest a full origin but it does contest a lot of things. And For culinary reasons, it plays even more important rules to understand a cuisine. I’m sure that you don’t give your time in reading about Choun nath, his achievement and his roles in linguistics study of Cambodia, and you are still considering the evidences from His dictionary as unreliable, yet you have time to provide any description from David Thompson to ensure that he’s credible!! And again, how could you actually state that this is Apple and orange when one of your source, a book from two travel writers, trying to conclude that “Mok” techniques may originated from Cambodia based on linguistic evidence, and here I’m provided you a source from someone like Choun Nath, to contest their claim because for Choun Nath, the word “Hor Mok” is originated from Thai language, and it clearly means that your source here is an error,and shouldn’t be used as a basis to your chosen information and how comes there is No connection between linguistic evidences to your opinions/your sources/your information about the cuisine? And how comes the linguistic evidences are not reliable enough or strong enough to contest something that David Thompson or Penny Van Estrik tried to say? David Thompson just simply said Khmer cuisines influenced Thai cuisine, and steamed curry like Hor Mok is one of them, then you accepted it as reliable? Penny Van Estrik came and say Angkor influenced Ayutthayan cuisines, without any incitations of her claim and wrote it in a book? And then you concluded that it is reliable? And you said it yourself for the fact that you concerned about his or her said, but isn’t the claim from David Thompson and Penny Van Esrik are no different from his/hes says? In your opinion, It isn’t a claim because they are not Thai, and Not Khmer while they had some credential, so everything they said is consider as gold in opinion, no politicizing the cuisines as an agenda, and they don’t need to provide any bigger evidence to consider as reliable. And yet you judged every evidences i proivded because chef mcdang is Thai and Choun Nath is Cambodian, plus linguistic evidence cannot be used! So Chef mv dang is not credible to you, Choun Nath is not credible to you, and what you need is someone with credibility (but non-Thai or non-Cambodia) who can say anything explicitly that this dish is originated from this place or that place without providing any basic evidence for their claim, and then it’s good for you? So, basically you remark the origin of this cuisines simply based on opinions!!! I don’t say that what chef mcdang had to say is better than David Thompson, but in this circumstance, they’re at the same level of reliability if you believe that what David Thompson said is more reliable ! And why you only care for someone explicitly said that than someone with well-through explanations and understanding about what they said? Of course, it’s better than obvious sentences, but any saying could be easily obtained via comprehension! And so far, you’re only look at your sources as something reliable yet you avoid looking at further sources with Otak Otak, because it is steamed curry and it is also southeast Asian cuisines. My entire point is if not for you to accept that Thailand is place of origin, however, there have been evidences contesting your sources already and a lot of evidences that point out different direction but you simply look for what you want this page to become! And how you evaluate the sources is extremely questionable while it is clear that double standard is in play! Your criteria by attaching the credibility of the source to where a person come from, or if it is a book, or “you need a chef saying this dish originate from this palace or this place” without providing their evidences behidn this claim, is extremely fishy and funny to me, because we should judge the quality of the sources based on the content, their citations and how well they researched it. And they are not the same case with “all the sources you attached here” to support your opinion! Yeah, you want A Cambodian chef stated dish is originated in Thaialnd, but it’s not a strong evidence when we have someone like Choun Nath, called for a fact that Hor Mok “the name of steam curry dish” is a Thai loan word, is not a good one to look into this discussion at all! It’s very funny because the fact you treated sources in the page “fish Amok” is such a hypocritical move because the article itself is just a blog post, just by an Australian woman who got the saying from a Khmer chef saying Amok is belonged to Khmer empire, and that’s enough for you to call as “evidence”! Yet, it is not reliable enough for other informations like that from Thai sources (Like Sheshimmer) or Khmer sources like from Choun Nath based on linguistic evidence!

I wil stop here, as I’m only to explained what I had to say last, and sorry for wasting your time, because everything would be always go back and forth as much as there is nothing we could do for you to even question your own sources and evaluate it while you could do it the same with other sources we provide! But Nevermind, I would focus on my own research on this culinary, and may go on to provide support on any food historian who care to gather some good sources and I do thank you for providing space to challenge all sources you said! When I get one under your personal criteria of what is so-called reliable source, I will link it here and you will see ! But You don’t have to worry that I would be infected this article with my own editing or vandalize this page at all, I will leave it the way you want it to be, and I will leave the way you think is consider as reliable to support those claim! And I will focus on other things.

Thank you! 36.37.219.63 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I did my best to answer as many of your questions as I could, including the way Wikipedia as an encyclopedia works, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays or self-research. It's hard to address everything you say if every time you respond with a loosely structured wall of text. A third party is almost always less biased than the two involved parties, but if you're actually accusing Alford, Duguid, Thompson and Van Esterik of "politicizing the cuisines as an agenda", you better be able to back it up, because that's a serious accusation to make. –Turaids (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m here to clarify that what I said above is not accusing Alford, Duguid, Thompson and Van Esterik of politicizing cuisines as agenda. I called out Alford and Duguid only for the fact that their opinion about Mawk cooking technique is not reliable and is easily rejected because of linguistic evidences I’ve provided from Choun Nath’s dictionary that Mawk or Mok is actually a vocabulary originated from Tai-speaking language and not from Mon-Khmer language as they suggested. At the same time, I only considered what Van Esterik had to said about the little piece of history of curries as lacking basis and citations, because it’s true since in her book, she didn’t provide any quality references or primary sources or contemporary records that would back up that conclusion or speculations, except relying on her own speculation on the possibility that happened during the fall of Angkor. It wasn’t really a fact and it is simply a hypothesis. Her only credential at this point is that she was a known anthropologist and her book came from a reputable publishing. And for Thompson, I don’t call him out for politicizing the cuisines for his agenda either. I only stayed that what he said is simply his opinion without him extending it to any historical analysis and investigating, and as we knew from that interview, he was on the cruise cooking khmer foods, promoting Khmer foods and promote the the cruise service. Business agenda was neat in this one. These are what I’m tried to said about them, even if you had actually read it or not. I was only questioned that fact that everything we could assumed of him and his credentials is no different from Chef Mcdang, so it wouldn’t quite unreasonable for him to reject what chef Mcdang said about Hor Mok being a Thai dish of foreign influences (Moor, Indian, Portuguese) and only acknowledged what Chef David Thompson had to said about A mok being an originally Khmer. About the ideology of politicizing the cuisines, it only asked for your judgment that anyone regarding of where they come from, where they live and how credential they are, could be only politicizing anything, or use it as a platform for any agenda. I only speak about it in general concept that someone don’t need to be Thai or Khmer in order to politicizing the agenda of anything. European colonists used to do that to the country they colonized and used it to pitch it stagings their neighbour that isn’t part of their empties. Those things always happened without one actually being native to any specific culture. That’s what I tried to point out that it doesn’t need to be chef Mcdang or any Khmer chef who be able to politicizing any cuisines, anyone could do that, therefore, it would be reasonable for one to look at every sources at that lens and not just those Belonged to specific culture in the argument. It’s just my request only for you to might give into those perception for any sources used in this article.

That said, as you’ve explained about the concept of Wikipedia (of what is not Wikipedia and what is since wiki is not place of original research) plus the third party being seen less biased as requirement rather than the two involved parties. I think I have realized where you came from regarding of everything had been discussed and the fact that you need to stick with the Wikipedia rules. So simply, those sources you considered as more reliable is because they would Belong to a third party accounts. That said, even though I might not entirely agree at how you analyzed some of your sources as well as those regulation from Wikipedia that requested, I agree that rules is rules as well as Wikipedia decided the rules here and it is your duty to follow it thoroughly For the best of this place.

Last but not least, I sincerely apologized for any existing unprofessional tone and manner that I might injected at what I been said above. And I’m thankful for your patience, investment and your commitment in keeping up with me and my questions despite of my loosely structured wall of text that I now aware that it would leave people in confusion, and unable to see my points clearly, I will try to improve this, and keep my texts short and simple and right to the point. Thanks for your comments and all the reply.36.37.219.63 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC) By the way, I forget to answer what you asked about an article WSJ. Here is what I would like to highlight for you from the article:

“ The History

The origins of fish amok are a source of regional debate. Dishes of this kind aren't unique to Cambodia. Malaysia and Indonesia boast the similar otak otak and Thailand cooks a spicier hor mok but neither nation embraces them with the passion of Cambodia. "Amok" in the Cambodian language, Khmer, only refers to the dish whereas in Thai, "hor mok" translates as "bury wrap," suggesting amok may have come from Cambodia's neighbor.

A less likely but more intriguing explanation of amok's cloudy origins is to follow the trail of the word amok, which may come from the Portuguese word amouco. The word entered the Portuguese vernacular through trade with the Malay peninsula in the 17th century and is derived from a similar Malay word that means to go into a destructive frenzy, and is the origin of the English phrase "to run amok." While the Malay meaning of the word doesn't exactly apply to the dish, it's possible that it was early Portuguese settlers or Malay traders in Cambodia who carried the recipe for otak otak with them from what is now Malaysia. After all, it may have been the Portuguese who helped fuel Asia's chili addiction when they brought it to India from the Americas.”

Again, I’m not going to contest anymore for anything about this Wikipedia article. I just remembered that I forget to answer your question. Cheer! 36.37.219.63 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's the exact kind of clear wording I was talking about previously! I've updated the articles about steamed curries and fish amok with the referenced opposing view. –Turaids (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you for keeping up with me despite of some of unprofessionalism in many things. I’ll learn more about the rules and regulations that’s required from Wikipedia.and once I’ve found any sources that may fit the mould as required at which can expand this article in any direction that is needed, I will make the suggestion.36.37.219.63 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Just so you know, the third party approach is just my preference for a sensitive question like this and not an official Wikipedia rule per se. Proper references are usually accepted, regardless of the author's or subject's nationality, however, if references to Thai sources are added, I'll have to balance it out by adding the Cambodian sources as well. I also try to distinguish between amok trey/ho mok pla (steamed fish curry) and amok/ho mok (steamed curry) as the latter does not necessarily contain fish. I think, creating a separate article about the Thai ho mok pla could be a good start. Whether originally it's the Thai adaptation of fish amok or fish amok is the Khmer adaptation of ho mok pla is another question, but I don't question the generally spicier and more liquid consistency ho mok pla originating in Thailand. And I strongly recommend registering an account for your further contributions. Good luck! –Turaids (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Discospinster, the article was at Ho mok from its most recent move discussion in October 2019 (which admittedly wasn't well attended) until some three months ago, when Turaids unilaterally moved the page. Maybe the article should be moved back to to Ho mok and a new move discussed from there? (Anuwater's move attempts used incorrect capitalisation, though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct! I moved the article without initiating a discussion, which usually is the standard procedure. Here's a condensed recap of my arguments from the long-winded discussion above, plus the answers to the questions from Paul_012. First of all, as you pointed out, the previous move discussion already saw very little engagement, so I didn't see the point of starting another one, but more importantly, the previous discussion was not reference-driven at all. It almost appears to have been more about the most common romanization of the Thai word than the actual origin of the dish. No additional references were provided and the article at the time was already improperly and insufficiently referenced. The claims for the origins of the dish were based on two recipe websites, none of which even mention that the curries originate in Thailand. On the contrary, one of them even appears to hint at the opposite by referring to ho mok pla as "the Thai version of a Cambodian dish called Amok Trei" (and not the other way around). Then we have the interview with McDang who undoubtedly is an expert in Thai cooking, but even he says that ho mok "represents a dish that is not Thai in origin, but has been adapted to fit into the framework of Thai cuisine". The absence of references in favour of the dish originating in Thailand is even more contrasted by the references the article has now. Given the current majority indication of a Cambodian origin, I could have renamed the article to amok, but to depoliticize the name of the article and disarm the culinary nationalists on all sides I opted for the more inclusive English term instead. –Turaids (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How can it be called as Steamed curry? It should be reverted again
According to Mae Krua Hua Pa written by Milady Plian Paadsakorn, this book is a record book and collection of personal food recipes of “Princess Yaovabha Bongsanid” whom are daughter of King Rama V, it’s also mentioned the recipe of Ho Mok that are any meat mixed with/without coconut milk, eggs and chili paste wrapped in banana leaves which can be cooked both "steamed" or "grilled". Therefore, I suggest again that this article should be changed as steamed curry. Thai and Laotian people cook this kind of food in both way steam and grill and plus it can be mixed with the coconut milk or without coconut milk. Unlike Amok, the steamed curry from Cambodia has been reintroduced back to the kingdom is always steamed. --Anuwater (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anuwater, please see Turaids's comments above. Also, please add new discussions at the bottom of talk pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article Fish amok also mentions how the dish can be cooked without steaming or prepared in a more liquidy consistency (due to the absence of eggs, I suppose), but it's labelled as a deviation, rather than a variation. As for the eggs and coconut milk/cream, "Hot Sour Salty Sweet: A Culinary Journey Through Southeast Asia" does describe what probably is the most basic version of the dish with just the meat and aromatics steamed in a banana leaf. Turaids (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Origin of Stream curry
The same drama that claimed Muay Thai as Kun Khmer in Cambodia has now affected stream curry. Please open the discussion to clear the doubt and make WP neutral. Phaisit16207 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For some context, there are an ongoing international dispute between Thai and Cambodian, it was, at first, spring up by Cambodia's decision to replace Muay Thai with Kun Khmer in the 2023 Southeast Asian Games. This decision has been widely reports in Thai media outlets (and presumably, Cambodian too) (See the report of Siamrath,Thairath and Siamsport for instant.)


 * As of now, Wikipedia pages of things related to both countries is a target of an edit war by people of the two said nations, in the order to claim "originality" of the opposite party culture. Ranging from sport, cuisine and celebrities such as Buakaw Banchamek or Lalisa Manobal. (See the report of The Manager Online and Thai Post for more info.) --ชาวไทย (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems like nothing more than ordinary culinary nationalism that flares up here periodically. –Turaids (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Not Cambodian food
Ho Mok or Mok (Lao: ໝົກ) is a traditional Thai and Lao food. In the past, it was used to wrap banana leaves and put it under the stove with ashes, put the ashes around the wrap, called this method Mok Mai. heat from the coals above The above can cook normally, which will take quite a long time to cook because it does not directly touch the fire. later evolved into grilling on the stove Until the arrival of the Chinese crate came in, so it was changed to steaming instead. But still use the word Ho Mok as before, even though it is not cooked by fermenting again. In the days prior to the arrival of the Portuguese, cooking was simply wrapped in banana leaves. But in the period after Ayutthaya had contacted to trade With the introduction of chilli from America, Ho Mok emerged as a mixture of meat and vegetables mixed with New World curry paste and coconut milk, a native of Southeast Asia, and seasoned with various condiments. such as salt, fish sauce or fermented fish, wrapped in banana leaves, steamed or grilled until cooked For Ho Mok nowadays  Spring onions and basil leaves are the main condiments. Some locals add dill as well. Examples of steamed dishes are steamed bamboo shoots, steamed fish roe, steamed banana blossoms, steamed red ant eggs, steamed fish, mushrooms and steamed mushrooms. shallots, lemongrass, sliced kaffir lime leaves, some localities add galangal or galangal Mok in the food of Isaan of Thailand is different from Mok in Lao food. in Isaan food Meat dishes mixed with curry paste  Seasoned and cooked, whether grilled or steamed, it is called Mok. As for the food of Laos, Luang Prabang Wrapped in a tall banana leaf, grilled to make mok. Steamed to call Mok or Moh. If it is wrapped in banana leaves, it is flat and grilled.

It is possible that Cambodia took Hor Mok from Siam. After Siam spread its power to Cambodia during the 13th-14th centuries, and the Khmers used Krueang, which does not have chili as the main ingredient, like Ho Mok in Thailand. But lately, the Khmer people have started to add dried chili peppers as well. But it is very small when compared to eating chili of Thai people 2405:9800:B870:38F7:C822:C83B:948E:DE4F (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fish Amok is a traditional dish in Cambodia and was not taken from Thailand and Laos. Cambodia also has dishes that are grilled and steamed in banana leaves. The chili is optional in Cambodian Kroeung and has always been dependent on people's preferences, like in all Cambodian dishes. Cambodia also has contact with trade going as far back as 200 AD or more. Cambodia is in Southeast Asia and borders Thailand and Laos. Cambodians are indigenous to Southeast Asia and inhabited most of the region even before the migration of people from China. Indigenous Cambodians are considered ethnic minorities in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. A clear distinction is that Cambodia does not have Northern and Southern cuisine like in in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. Cerie1914 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023
Undo the revision of Platinumshadow123 of August 10th as it does not have a Wikipedia tone, and is not neutral. The user removed the role of the Khmers in the indianization of the region in order to fuel a Thai nationalistic rhetoric seen in their other revisions which roughly translate in "the Khmers stole the steamed curry from the Thais". When it is about a conflictual subjects, neutrality is paramount. Pierrevang3 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ On the grounds of mostly no reliable source and WP:BRD. Please establish WP:CONSENSUS before reverting this edit request and/or restoring the disputed materials.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)