Talk:South Indian parotta

Hello, you guys. I will be updating this page soon. There is no point in merging the two articles. It's almost the same thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyPoochies (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, on 10 September 2009 User:NickPenguin merged Malabari paratha with Kerala porotta, and the latter was merged into Parotta on 27 February 2012‎ by User:Linguisticgeek. There's quite a bit of discussion on Talk:Kerala porotta and Talk:Malabari paratha.FlagSteward (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hindu Parottas loaded with danger, say docsRPSM (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this different from paratha? Can the difference be explained. From reading the lead sections of both articles they sound the same... Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there's no difference worth having separate pages, at best there are only poorly-defined variations and this page has very poor citations. I made the merge and redirected this page without further discussion as it was obvious and nobody else seemed to have cared to answer your query in all this time. AlternateCurrent (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if an admin / file mover sees this, please move the Gallery from this page over to paratha. AlternateCurrent (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@AlternateCurrent, this article still exists as a separate article. Did the merger not happen for some reason? I'm with you with merging this article with Paratha. PrathuCoder (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Paratha is made of atta/wheat flour whereas Parotta is made of Maida. Parotta is also layered, flakey and stretchy owing to the Miada while Paratha is tougher and not layered. Paratha is also stuffed while Parotta is never stuffed with vegetables. It is also to note Parotta is South Indian and while Paratha is North Indian and are clearly separate dishes 116.87.59.58 (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

the origins of parota are disputed and there is evidence for it's origin in the Jaffna kingdom in northern Sri Lanka. South Indian parota as a name is extremely misleading. No clear evidence has been given for it's origins in Kerala/the Malabar region. I think there should be a more appropriate name for this dish that isn't India centric. There is clearly evidence of Sri Lankan parotta, either make a separate page or revert this name. It is unacceptable to name a dish to a region in India with no real evidence. ~2026-14718-19 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Jeffrey34555, the user who closed the move discussion—as someone has now objected to the move, we should reopen the discussion.
To respond to your comment, I understand the concern that the title might be considered biased toward India. However, article titles are based on reliable sources, and there are several sources that say "South Indian parotta". The other term used for this is simply "parotta", the old name for the article. If the move discussion is reopened, you could consider this a vote for the old title (unless you have another option for a title, but I don't think there's anything else that makes sense). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll reopen the discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

No evidence of parotta in the culinary practices of the Arya Chakravarti kingdom of Jaffna is known. Parotta is distinct from the "Roti" traditionally cooked in Sri Lanka. Moreover, it is a dish more often associated with the Moors of Ceylon, who were not an influential population within the kingdom of Jaffna, and are known to have had greater exposure to South India. Sri Lankan Tamil historians considered Jaffna to be dominated by orthodox Shaivism, and Jaffna folk tradition emphasized the conservative aspects of its culture.

The considerable modern influence of South Indian cuisine in Jaffna is a well-recognized fact, dating back to the colonial period. The assimilation of many South Indian dishes into the Ceylonese culinary repertoire, particularly that of Jaffna, may give rise to a popular perception of their “indigenous” origin. It is also worth noting differing opinions within Sri Lanka, since other communities, notably in Batticaloa and along the western and southern coasts, also claim this dish as their own.

Furthermore, the term "South Indian Parotta" can be redundant. The distinction already exists between PAROtta and PARAtha, which clearly share a common origin.

~~~ Drusekoana (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No one is claiming that there is indisputable evidence of it's origin in Jaffna, the claim is that there is no clear evidence for it's origin in India (the modern day national state). It is highly disputed (simmilar to dosa, there there are also 2 competing claims). If you look at Kurush Dalal's work, Kerala did not historical grow wheat and so could not have made parotta.The Jaffna kingdom is in an arid region and would have relied on imports and may have had more access to wheat because of this. Now, as for parotta, in Jaffna it is called veechu rotti, ie veechu means the act of throwing (to make it thinner) in tamil. So a veechu rotti is essentially identical to a parotta in preparation. They never claimed they used the word parotta, they called the dish by a different name and the name is still in use even today. Now the point still stands, there is no strong evidence of the origin for this dish in india. Nor is there evidence of it being considered a non-native dish by Sri lankans. So the burden of proof for assigning this new regional name has not been provided yet. There may be indan works (limited to the nation state) that may call it a South indian parotta within the context of the nation, but this dish is international and so using a regional paper or work does not make sense. Additionally, as stated before the distinction already exists between PAROtta and PARAtha and so there is no confusion there as well. ~2026-14718-19 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

i think we need to make a new move request. I don't know how ~2026-14718-19 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement about the burden of proof. You're right that, if the article were to state that the dish originated in South India, then that would require a burden of proof. But in this case, we are only discussing the title of the article, which is based on whether a term is used in reliable sources. I have shown that reliable sources use the term "South Indian parotta", so that satisfies the burden of proof that the term is used. (Whether or not the term is actually accurate is a different question. It is relevant to the title, but there are other factors to consider.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)