User talk:Darkfruit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk:Curry
Special:Diff/1338401933 and the following talk page edit today are similar to the etymology positions made by the user, YawnkeeDoodle, Special:Diff/1319163004, and OrigamiSoft, Special:Diff/1338305113. If you are related to these users, or the same editor, please clarify. Zefr (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- It’s honestly poor form that you think because of our convergent views on a subject that we are related or the same editor. I’m a new user, and I have no relation to those users.
- And on another note, your response to my position totally misses the mark and is rather telling. The substance of my critique is *not* to outline regional genealogies of dishes under this general term. It is to correct factual inaccuracy in the etymology section.
- But if you wanted to draw my attention to the two sections you mentioned, I took a careful read of them both — and am more dubious of your management of this page. 1) The placement of British curries above South Asian in the presenting order is dubious and largely indefensible/undesirable. Not only for obvious reasons, but because it has readers seeing the discussion of its origins in South Asia, before reading them. And 2) the treatment of the debate around “curry” is even more strange and non-neutral. How else can a reader interpret one British-Indian’s view being highlighted and framed as the conclusive view on the matter? It’s puzzlingly shallow, and pointedly specific. Darkfruit (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nor is this historical point at all addressed, despite your claim - “[The term originates during] the British-occupied Madras Presidency. Rooting its origin in Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, and the broader dravidian language families is accurate, but grossly incomplete”. Please – direct me to the text that discusses this history anywhere in the article. Darkfruit (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your views. Please note, further to the above, that Wikipedia is not a forum and has rules quite unlike forums, chat-rooms and other such places on the Internet. In particular, it is forbidden to make statements on talk pages that could be construed as attacks on other editors: the policy is No Personal Attacks. Arguments must be stated entirely impersonally. I do hope this is clear as it is central to how we work here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I’d appreciate you following this advice yourself. Assuming the POV of another contributor is verboten as well, yes? “Saffronising” was a choice, and not an impersonal one.
- ”That all sounds very reasonable, but the final phrase is concerning. "Place of origin" may sound simple and neutral, but it isn't. The cuisine began there of course, but it was modified by foreign influences and cultural exchanges over many centuries; and curries developed further in Britain and elsewhere. We must avoid both colonialism and saffronising.” Darkfruit (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I recall, I asked if it might be saffronising (rather than saying that it actually was), because that is a danger in such articles; but that's not the point here. On multiple influences and cultural exchange, I've tried to make that as clear as possible in the face of sometimes extreme opinions on both sides (sometimes simultaneously). But enough of theory: such arguments are endless, and do not lead to better articles. The Etymology section is already quite long enough, and it makes clear the Dravidian origin, the Portuguese connection, and the early appearance in Britain; we can't really do more in a top-level article on a broad subject, per WP:UNDUE. You are free to create an article Historical origins of curry and go into substantial detail there from the available sources. If you do that, I suggest you avoid too much reliance on linguistics and etymology or someone (not me) will get it deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have not been actively reviewing the curry article recently, as I chose to step back given the tone of the discussion. However, I have been brought back due to claims that I am a sockpuppet account. That is a serious allegation under WP:SOCK, and it should not be made lightly or without evidence.
- It also appears that editors offering an alternate perspective are being accused of “saffronising” the article. As I understand it, saffronisation refers to the imposition of a right-wing Hindu nationalist viewpoint. I have been accused of this, as have Yawkee doodle and Dark fruit. I would appreciate specific diffs or explanations identifying what, precisely, in the points raised constitutes a Hindu nationalist perspective.
- More broadly, the pattern of edits gives the impression of privileging a colonial-era framing of the dish, one in which its identity is primarily defined by its later global reinterpretations rather than its South Asian origins. While discussion of international adaptations is appropriate, systematically shifting emphasis away from its documented historical and cultural roots risks reproducing a colonial narrative that recenters the subject outside its originating context. Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not inadvertently amplify perspectives that marginalize foundational aspects of a topic when reliable sources clearly establish its origins and development within South Asia.
- At the moment, it appears that substantive content concerns are being reframed as ideological motives. That is not conducive to consensus-building. However, I am not assigning motives, I am asking that we focus on reliable sources and policy rather than labels. OrigamiSoft (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have had nothing to do with any accusations of sockpuppetry (and have no opinion on the matter), nor have I even begun to suppose that Darkfruit is saffronising: I definitely do not think that is the case. Conversely, I carry no brief for colonialism, which I regard as an equal error in the opposite direction. Curry certainly came from India; and it has certainly been spread around the world, partly by the British. And I totally agree with OrigamiSoft that our focus must be on sources, within policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I’d contend it’s clearly time for GAR escalation. Per your observations and mine, at least two contributors continue to engage in bad faith and one is deploying personal attacks— labeling contributors with a divergent view as sympathetic to right wing Hindu (North Indian) nationalism. Comically so – given that half the country (namely South India) has received the brunt of Sanskrit-imposition and continues to be marginalized by these groups. And both cannot fathom that a convergence of views suggests a deep inaccuracy in the existing article (and their own contributions), but appear convinced that ideological motivations are the only explanation.
- Frankly – I am new and so I don’t know to what degree this level of obstinacy and parochialism exists within contributors who have managed a page for some period, so I will defer to you if you’re more familiar with the process of initiating a review. If not, I’m happy to pick it up later this week. Darkfruit (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Issues of management are not part of the GA criteria, so however disagreeable, they aren't a cause for GAR. It'd be more productive to use Sen and other historical sources to extend the text to cover what needs to be said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- The issue I’m resolving via GAR is not that of management – it’s related to article quality. And the further I read, the more clear it is that a more comprehensive approach is required. Thus rather than litigating section ad nasueum, I mention management to note how intractable these discussions will be. These are not minor edits, and the article in its current form is damaging to public discourse. Darkfruit (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Any practical cited suggestions for changes to the text will be acted upon promptly. Since the GA criterion for coverage is simply that it addresses "the main points", this article should easily clear that hurdle. If I find anything in Sen that seems at all major, it'll go in at once, for example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- The issue I’m resolving via GAR is not that of management – it’s related to article quality. And the further I read, the more clear it is that a more comprehensive approach is required. Thus rather than litigating section ad nasueum, I mention management to note how intractable these discussions will be. These are not minor edits, and the article in its current form is damaging to public discourse. Darkfruit (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Issues of management are not part of the GA criteria, so however disagreeable, they aren't a cause for GAR. It'd be more productive to use Sen and other historical sources to extend the text to cover what needs to be said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I recall, I asked if it might be saffronising (rather than saying that it actually was), because that is a danger in such articles; but that's not the point here. On multiple influences and cultural exchange, I've tried to make that as clear as possible in the face of sometimes extreme opinions on both sides (sometimes simultaneously). But enough of theory: such arguments are endless, and do not lead to better articles. The Etymology section is already quite long enough, and it makes clear the Dravidian origin, the Portuguese connection, and the early appearance in Britain; we can't really do more in a top-level article on a broad subject, per WP:UNDUE. You are free to create an article Historical origins of curry and go into substantial detail there from the available sources. If you do that, I suggest you avoid too much reliance on linguistics and etymology or someone (not me) will get it deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- For your reading pleasure – since it’s taken you this long to find this article during your tenure on Wiki.
- Wikipedia: Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Darkfruit (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)