Talk:Curry

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)