Talk:Curry

Stop reintroducing errors when I've tried my best to correct them

@Chiswick Chap

"In the Philippines, curry may have been introduced by sepoys (Indian soldiers) in the 18th century. Pinoy style chicken curry is flavoured with garlic, ginger, and onion, fish sauce, and curry powder."

This is just completely incorrect.

1. Kare-kare may (a very important distinction) have been derived from curry introduced by sepoys, or it may not, and may be derived secondarily from older Indian-influenced dishes in Southeast Asia. Or it may be something that only appeared in the Spanish period and is not derived from Indian curry at all. That's the point of the longer explanation. The source I provided that discusses this in detail, Esquire, is a pretty reliable magazine (Wikipedia even has an article for it) which you just arbitrarily removed. Kare-kare itself is not at all similar to Indian curries and is not a type of Indian curry, but it may be influenced by Indian curries. That's a completely different thing from the sentence you replaced it with.

2. Kare-kare is also completely different from Filipino chicken curry, which is a modern variant of a native (non-Indian) ginataan dish that just adds curry powder to ginataang manok. That's literally it. It's just a native dish with added curry powder.

3. Speaking of ginataan. Like other Southeast Asian dishes that use coconut milk, they are also sometimes translated into English as "curries" (with sources as examples). But that doesn't mean they are from or derived from South Asian curries.

This is the same situation as the Thai gaeng, which are native and are not derived from South Asian curries, but are translated as "curry" in English anyway, because English sucks when describing Asian things. These are still within the scope of the article as explained clearly in the lead paragraph, and as you yourself said in the previous section of this talk page. Not everything called "curry" in English is from India.

4. The use of the term "Pinoy" here (despite its use in the source) is unsuitable for Wikipedia. "Pinoy" is an informal term for "Filipino" or "Philippine". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles.

5. This is merely a food article. You can't seriously expect journal articles for everything when there are topics that are simply not scientifically written about a lot. Like the cuisines of smaller countries. Sources from small recipe sites are perfectly acceptable if they can easily be cross-checked and reinforced by other similar sites (the frustration with this is how Wikipedia:Citation overkill happens), are not contentious, and are not self-serving/promotional. Most of the other preexisting sources in this article are also from similar cooking/recipe sites. Including the source you retained.

You specifically removed AmusingMaria (which is more a personal recipe site), and that's fine. It was there to just reinforce the other source: Esquire. Which, in contrast, is a reliable secondary source.

I do not know why you removed it and all the others. Or why you felt the need to summarize a complicated topic that I had to describe in detail for clarity, into two horribly inaccurate sentences that aren't even verified by the single source you left behind.

I'm not just an IP editor obviously. I'm a retired Wikipedia editor. Just remove the sentences you added altogether, if you can't be bothered getting it right. It's better for the Philippines entry to not be here at all than the wrong information be quoted again and again by other sites from here. Like what usually happens. Wikipedia finds new ways for me to cringe every time I still use it.

I won't bother writing more. I retired precisely to avoid these long-winded arguments. Just know that the replacement summary you've written is laughably wrong. 143.44.193.226 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I've directly used your text but cut it down a bit to harmonise with the accounts of other countries in the region and avoid WP:UNDUE weight. Anything stated there is thus your summary of the situation, reduced to avoid excessive detail, nothing more than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and correcting. I honestly fully expected to be ignored as an IP editor. The revised summary is correct and much better phrased than my lengthier version.--143.44.193.226 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)