Talk:Curry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Links to recipes 2 Curry herb 3 Curry not an Indian dish 4 Other meanings of Curry and listing the most common usage first 5 Etymology of the word curry 6 Rendang 7 Bangladeshi owned but still Indian cuisine 8 Cleanup by Qwghlm 9 How is Indian curry eaten? 10 Why do the british like curry? 11 Masala inaccuracy 12 How to eat 13 British Curry 14 Indian cuisine 15 Rogan Josh 16 Is Curry a dish or a spice? 17 Merge Japanese Curry? 18 Thai Curry 19 "Finding good Indian food in Britain" 20 NPOV 21 Curry hotness 22 Section Order 23 Straying into Cultural Cuisine Topics 24 NPOV on British section

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other meanings of Curry and listing the most common usage first

Why do we care what the Tamil word for coal is? -- Zoe

Whether we care or not, while kari means either sauce or coal in Tamil I am no sure the two are connected (I do not speak Tamil so I wouldn't really know) I suspect that like "wind" in English it has two distinct meanings. User:Dainamo (not logged on 24sept04)

For starters, User: Zoe was referring to a version of the article as of 26 Apr 2003. That version has a line about the Tamil word for coal. I speak Tamil natively, and for the record, the words for coal and curry are homophones. Ambarish | Talk 16:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ambarish. I gave an example that was not homophonic, perhaps not a good choice but I could have equally used one that was. Since we are talking about coal perhaps "coke" and "Coke"(TM) would be one. Stating my ignorance first, the reason I harked back to the earlier version making the conjecture in the discussion that the two words were unrelated, was to leave it open to question to anyone who did know. A connection between kari for curry and kari for coal, however obscure, would be interesting and relevant. If there is no connection it would not be. I would be most grateful for you comments Dainamo 18:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You see, the two letters ர (U+0BB0) and ற (U+0BB1) are pronounced similarly in modern Tamil. The word for coal uses the former, whereas the word from is curry is derived uses the latter. So it's not like "coke" and "Coke" (TM) but more like "eye" and "I". Ambarish | Talk 17:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isnt it the custom for wikipedia pages to cover the most common and relevant usages of a work first.

Curry for 99% of people means Indian style quisine similar to what is found in Indian resturants/curry houses or what I cook when I cook something from a cookbook I have called 50 Classic Curries. Common examples are: Rogan Josh, Madras, Vindaloo, Balti, Tikka Masala, Korma etc.

The article should refect this, and only talk about the other less well known meanings near the end (ie the tamil word for coal). Even references to curry as something confined to England is clearly no longer true, while very important to its genesis. So the first paragraph shouldnt mention this, but be purely descriptive.

Also there are currys from many other countries, there are cape malay curries from south africa, malasian, thai, pakistani, burmese etc.

Htaccess 07:22 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of the word curry

I got this from a site regarding an alternate etymology for the word "Curry": There is, however, a theory that the name derived from Sir George Curry (1826-1890). He was a British soldier who spent his entire career in the East India Company and later in the Indian Army reaching the rank of general. He was said to be the first officer in the British Raj to develop a taste for the highly-spiced stews enjoyed by the local inhabitants and, as a result, dined alone for many years. He attempted to introduce mutton vindaloo and chapaties to his own soldiers but it was not a success and nearly led to another mutiny. It was only after Queen Victoria ate some at a luncheon for visiting rajahs in 1869 that "Curry" began to become popular in Britain. Jay 19:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an urband legend. Curry is undobtedly a cooruption of the tamil "Kari" meaning sauce. Dainamo 23:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The standard usage of the word curry imo in India (esp. North India) is for gravies prepared with curry/ kari / kad-hi leaves (bay leaves). bay leaves in the eastern states are called kad-hiya leaves. An anglicised approximation of the word results in "curry". Which is why not all dishes with gravies are not referred to as curries in the Indian context. The usage of the word curry extending to all Indian gravy dishes seems to me a generalization rather than anything else. A few examples of "Kad-hi" (note the use of curry leaves): [1] [2] As it appears in the article this therefore seems inaccurate : The term curry derives from kari, a Tamil word meaning sauce and referring to various kinds of dishes common in South India

As a native Tamil speaker, I can vouch for the fact that we Tamils do use the word "kari" (curry) for dry, pan fried vegetables. It is not a sauce or stew in Tamil. Avataran 22:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of alternate etymology for the word curry, I have seen an article somewhere on the net in which it was claimed that the word came from Norman Britain as a corruption of the French word 'cuire' and curry existed in Britain long before the British set their feet in India. People will always come up with one theory or another based on coincidental similarities between words or other factors.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)