Talk:Curry

A large list is available in the archive, should anyone need it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

"Ongoing References and Reading List for Curry"

Opening this brief discussion and seek to close this before discussing the next topic, etc.

In the lede section:

1. This needs to be amended or replaced with a different example: “…as with chicken tikka masala, created by British Bangladeshi restaurants in the 20th century.^”
   • The cited source [8] highlights the disputed origins, and it does not directly mention Bangaldeshi restaurants at all: ^“The origins of chicken tikka masala – a favourite food of the Brits – is widely disputed. Some claim it hails from the Punjab, some from Birmingham and one Pakistani chef – with an eatery in Glasgow’s west end – has claims on the concoction.”
     • Said "British Indian restaurants".

Some of the information I have provided below provides further clarity.

In the ‘United Kingdom’ subsection of the ‘By region’ section:

• This part needs cleaning up: “Its origin is not certain, but many sources attribute it to British Asians; some cite Glasgow as the city of origin. Others suggest that it derives from butter chicken, popular in the north of India.^”

1. While I am aware of the claims/prevalent belief that chicken tikka masala may have evolved from butter chicken, I cannot find any remarks in the cited source [60] to support this.
   • Cut that sentence, it's not needed here.

• The following sources and updated information are relevant:

1. “The British food historians Peter and Colleen Grove even wrote in their book, Flavours of History, that the notoriously hazy origins of Chicken Tikka Masala stemmed from Singh’s recipe for Shahi Chicken Masala.” [Scroll.in Article]
   • Too much for this article.
2. Indian chefs and food scholars have strongly disagreed with the claims [Telegraph Article]:
   • ...But his claim has been dismissed as "preposterous" by Delhi's leading food historians, although its exact origin remains unclear.
     • Too much for this article.
   • Zaeemuddin Ahmad, a chef at Delhi's Karim Hotel, which was established by the last chef of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, said the recipe had been passed down through the generations in his family. "Chicken tikka masala is an authentic Mughlai recipe prepared by our forefathers who were royal chefs in the Mughal period. Mughals were avid trekkers and used to spend months altogether in jungles and far off places. They liked roasted form of chickens with spices," he said.
     • Too much for this article.
   • Rahul Verma, Delhi's most authoritative expert on street food, said he first tasted the dish in 1971 and that its origins were in Punjab. "Its basically a Punjabi dish not more than 40-50 years old and must be an accidental discovery which has had periodical improvisations," he said.
     • Too much for this article.
   • Hemanshu Kumar, the founder of Eating Out in Delhi, a food group which celebrates Delhi's culinary heritage, ridiculed Glasgow's claim. "Patenting the name chicken tikka masala is out of the question. It has been prepared in India for generations. You can't patent the name, it's preposterous," he said.
     • Too much for this article.
3. The person responsible for starting the creation myth has claimed that it is a lie that he just made up one day along with Peter Grove [Sunday Post Article]:
   • “The story goes a Glaswegian diner in a 1970s Indian restaurant complained his curry was too dry, so the Bangladeshi chef added a tin of tomato soup. Chicken tikka masala was born, and became the most popular curry dish in the UK… or so it’s said. Labour MP Mohammed Sarwar even launched an unsuccessful campaign to give the dish EU protected status as a Glaswegian delicacy in 2009. But the story was made up, according to the man who created it. Restaurateur and founder of Tandoor Magazine Iqbal Wahhab said he came up with the story along with late friend Peter Grove after a few bottles of wine. Iqbal, owner of The Cinnamon Club and Roast Indian restaurants, told The Sunday Post that he and Peter made it up because they were fed up being asked about it.”
     • Much too much for this article.

YawnkyDoodle (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Despite the confusing title, I see you do mean this article. I've made a small edit, but the massive story you're trying to tell is way WP:UNDUE (far too long, would create gross imbalance) for this article, which needs only a brief mention. The more general point is that Wikipedia articles have to be brief, as talk page comments should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on the sources cited above, I feel a few further changes are needed:

- The following should be removed in the lede section: ", as with chicken tikka masala, created by British Indian restaurants in the 20th century."

- The following in the "By Region" section should be removed: ", but many sources attribute it to British Asians; some cite Glasgow as the city of origin.", and the citations should include the contesting claims by Indian chefs as well as the crucial information that the person responsible for starting the Glaswegian creation myth has claimed that it is a lie that he just made up one day along with Peter Grove. YawnkyDoodle (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. I think we do not need to mention Glasgow here, especially as it is disputed. Increasing the coverage to include for-and-against would be undue and a distraction for this article. On the other hand, the attribution to Britain is essentially certain (with consensus across many sources), and its mention in the lead and the body is appropriate. Accordingly, I've removed the pro-Glasgow sources and adjusted the wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the edits. If not a direct/fuller discussion of the counterpoints, at least the following changes should further be made:

1. Softening the language from "...likely created by British Indian restaurants" to any of the following

• "...supposedly created by British Indian restaurants"
• "...allegedly created by British Indian restaurants"
• "...possibly created by British Indian restaurants"

2. This source with a number of important counterpoints from historians and food authors should be added along with the current citation.

3. A fair edit would be to amend this further to "...allegedly created by British Indian restaurants, though this is contested by Indian chefs and food historians."

4. Broader question: Is it possible to replace Tikka Masala with a curry uncontroversially invented by the British/British-Indians? For example, Bunny Chow is typically beyond any controversy or doubt considered a South African Indian food, with no contest. YawnkyDoodle (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure that micro-managing the wording is a worthwhile exercise; "likely" is certainly correct, it's extremely likely. On the last point, South Africa is not the place from where curry spread all over the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

- South African Bunny Chow was used as an example of a Indian dish from outside India without a hotly contested origin. I am hoping that the UK has some equivalent/s.

- Brief responses are not being perceived as adequte. With each iteration, I am getting compelled to produce an increasingly extensive set of references and reasoning for even small edits.

- The inference of it being "created by British Indian restaurants" "extremely likely" is not tenable in the light of evidence. We don't have to list all this evidence, but the summary of it is valuable:

• The idea of it being invented in the UK is popular based on a frequently repeated lie.
• The point of views of numerous Indian historians, chefs, and food authors which disagree this view strongly.
• International authors and historians which note the disputed origins.
• International media, including the BBC considers the Indian origins of the dish as a viable possibility.
• The Chicken Tikka Masala has an oddly similar and specific combination of items and supposed origin story as the extremely similar dish, butter chicken, was invented least two decades before: invented by chance, to soften dry tandoori chicken, using a tomato and cream-based gravy.
• The family of the restaurant in India which is credited as the inventor of the very similar dish called butter chicken claim that they have been also been serving chicken tikka masala since before the 1950s.
• Butter chicken was already popular amongst a lot of Indians (including the elites such as Jawaharlal Nehru himself, and was served during his time in state banquets) well before the 1960s/1970s.
• People familiar with Indian cuisine see the dish as a version, adaptation, or derivative of butter chicken, and the Bangladesh-born restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab (also the mayor of High Sherriff of Greater London) who co-created the UK-origin myth together with Peter Grove unambiguously states that Chicken tikka masala has its roots in India and not the UK: “The dish actually derives from Old Delhi, where it is known as Murgh Makhni, or butter chicken,”
• Wikipedia's own page on Chicken Tikka Masala notes the dispute.
• Peter Grove, the British food historian and South Asian cuisine specialist himself notes that “Along with Iqbal Wahhab, now of Roast Restaurant, I started the urban myth of CTM being tikka with added Campbell’s tomato soup and spices for a joke,” ... “Yet somehow it has become accepted as the official explanation the world over.”. It is noted that it was the constant search for a definite and compelling British origin story—something that would adequately situate and fuse chicken tikka masala into the nation—that drove him to make up the tale. “and he unambiguously states that it is derived from the butter chicken, and notes that an Indian origin of the chicken tikka masala format itself is possible.

In fact after reviewing these sources I would say that the statement "others modified or wholly invented, as with chicken tikka masala, likely created by British Indian restaurants in the 20th century." should be changed to "others modified, as with chicken tikka masala, likely adapted from Indian versions of the same dish or from butter chicken by British Indian restaurants in the 20th century."

And at least a couple of citations that support this should be included. In fact this trail of evidence points much more strongly to an India-based origin than a UK origin. YawnkyDoodle (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

really should contain a definition of what a thing is. What makes a curry, what makes it impossible to call a thing curry? ~2026-68797-1 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sufficiently explained and sourced in the article under 'Types' and 'By region'. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the lede section could have a better definition of what a curry is. YawnkyDoodle (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Zefr here, this is sufficiently covered. The lead too says quite enough on the subject: this is not a dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

My comment relates to the framing and articulation and not the volume of commentary on the subject in the lede section. YawnkyDoodle (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll take another look later this week when I review the main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand this is the English version of this entry, but the etymology section is glaringly spare of the very well understood basis of the term in the British-occupied Madras Presidency. Rooting its origin in Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, and the broader dravidian language families is accurate, but grossly incomplete. The term is (not borrowing, but is) bastardized during occupation and a response by young male English white bureaucrats (first in EIC, then public) to the Telugu, Tamil, Kannadiga people and cuisine they were willing to use, but not understand. Happy to have a detailed back and forth with folks – but only by doing justice to what is *already* known beyond anglophones. There’s a real opportunity to richen too, the transformation of the term across individual centuries when its philology/genealogy is better attributed. Darkfruit (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Your first point is correct: this is English Wikipedia, and the etymology to other languages is required to be brief. An etymology dictionary, especially one in a Dravidian language, may well provide far more detail, as is appropriate for that type of book, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (and, a fortiori, especially not an etymology dictionary). We have an accurate and reliably-cited summary of the etymology here, and it is for other places to go into the subject in etymology dictionary detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

And yet— an entire article on a term that exists as a product of the British-occupied Madras Presidency does not mention the historical reality that gave rise to its use. Etymology is not divorced from a comprehensive treatment of this subject; in fact, it is central. Just because other pages have less of a need for this grounding does NOT make this moving towards Wikipedia as dictionary/etymology dictionary as you attempt to suggest.

And for the first and last time, “an accurate and reliably-cited summary of the etymology” is just a circular defense and one I’ve seen you trot in similar form out in response to other contributors. Accuracy is not determined by citation(s) alone – and just because the set of contributors working on this page prior, came to a consensus on which authors could be credibly cited together, does not make the product accurate. Darkfruit (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Let us agree to differ on this point. My reasoning is not circular: we have a brief but accurate summary of material which is not suitable for the encyclopedia. I will appreciate it if you will comply with Wikipedia policy No Personal Attacks and refrain from making remarks about me or any other editor: it is forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I gave my reply and the policy page on Personal Attacks a close review. Nothing I said in my response deserves such a charge — even in the most uncharitable reading. If highlighting another contributor’s attempts to stifle an ongoing discussion on a talk page constitutes a “personal attack”, I worry for this community. (Not to mention your own infringement of this policy in your replies to Yankee– approaching their concerns in bad faith and misattributing their insistence as politically motivated.)

Especially because you continue to couch what is a subjective view – “brief but accurate summary of material” – within the faux-neutral claim that it is throughly cited. Your assessment of the threshold for quality is not authoritative; particularly when you continue to evade the substance.

So let’s get to the substance at hand. Given that the word “curry” emerges from a particular historical context and from south Dravidian language speakers within the British-occupied Madras Presidency, omitting it is problematic and makes the section and the article inaccurate. Darkfruit (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

In recognition of focusing on the edit that is needed — I provide a clearer version of my view below.

Given that the word “curry” emerges from a particular historical context and from south Dravidian language speakers within the British-occupied Madras Presidency, omitting this is problematic and makes the section and the article inaccurate. Darkfruit (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand that view. However, your focus on me remains inappropriate, even if your wording is more polite. The article already describes the historical context and the cultural exchanges: indeed, the 'Cultural exchanges' chapter occupies a substantial part of the article. Nothing you've written to date, therefore, convinces me that the 'Etymology' section needs to be extended. It would be better to consider adding some detail to the history, to fill in the gaps between Goa in 1510, Carriel in 1598, and Hannah Glasse's "currey the India way" in 1747. But that will require solid historical sources, not talk of bastardization and anecdotes about Brit bureaucrats. Finally, you should know that a Good Article is required to cover "the main points", and given that the history is already just one aspect of this topic, and the history of the name is an aspect of that aspect (and it's already covered in some detail), we surely have the main points well in hand here. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No one needs to convince you. That’s not your role. We are building consensus, not satisfying the reigning contributor. I am not directing criticism at you because I have no other objective — you are putting yourself squarely in the way of meaningful and necessary contributions to a topic you have demonstrated a lack of understanding on. Happy to escalate to GAR as needed. Darkfruit (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm missing what change you actually want to make to the text? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s also egregious that you think I have this degree of detail on every point I’ve raised and that I don’t have sources. I don’t waste my time when I can see clearly that there is a concerted effort to freeze the page in its current state. But – if you’d like to continue editing this page post GAR-review, I’d suggest reading on British colonial administration accelerating post-1857, which brought an exponential increase of bureaucrats within the Madras Presidency (under the crown, at this point in time).

Begin with Sen, Colleen Taylor. Feasts and Fasts : A History of Food in India, Reaktion Books, Limited, 2015 Darkfruit (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just asking what needs to change. That is a reliable source, and you're welcome to use it to cite new text, though the period of most interest would be before 1757 rather than post-1857, wouldn't it, as the word "currey" was already established by then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not acting in good faith, and so I do not intend to run any changes by you. And you’re having trouble following along — the source I included has nothing to do with the post-1857 wave of English bureaucrats. You’d know that if you had looked it up before replying so eagerly. It focuses primarily on the long history of Kura/“Curry” prior to EIC/British-occupied rule. Darkfruit (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Not so, but since you are free to add cited text, you can just go ahead anyway; I will see what Sen has to say later this week. As for post-1857, you mentioned it, not me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)