Talk:Japanese curry

Curry making

Seems to me that the way you make curry isn't from a "mix". —This unsigned comment was added by 71.106.169.235 (talk • contribs) .

Your point being? This is how the Japanese tend to make it. Shermozle 10:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true. Everyone makes it from a mix, even people in India and Pakistan. Granted, many of them make their own mix of spices, but it's still a mix. --日本穣 11:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've had the Japanese stuff on numerous occasions, and it is NOTHING like the Southeast Asian original version of the food. It's a greasy, savory thick yellow goo served over rice, with meat and vegetables. No hint of any "southern" herbs or spices. (or at least, none that I could detect). It's made with a cake of some flavoring, grease, and salt and etc. It's quite good, actually, especially when made with plenty of potatoes+carrots, hot dog chunks, and apple pieces.

By the way, the foodstuffs pictured at the bottom of the page in packages (the instant curry and the breadcrumbs) are not Japanese like the caption says. The curry and the breadcrumbs, at least, are Korean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.224.16 (talk • contribs) .

The curry mix is from House, a very well-known Japanese food products brand. The crumbs are definitely Korean, though. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"It is often criticized as a corruption of a "true" curry by Japan's Asian population due to its sweetness and lack of resemblance to other forms of the dish more directly related to its Indian counterparts."

This comment seems out of place. I think more people in Japan (and around the world) praise their interpretation of the Southeast Asian dish and enthusiastically fill their bellies with it on a daily basis. I am going to delete this sentence.

Yeah, and I would add that talking about "Japan's Asian population" is akin to saying "the US's North-American population." Utterly meaningless. Thank you, brits, for labeling Indians and other sub-Continental peoples "Asian", as if the rest of the freaking continent didn't exist. 38.117.131.2 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Curry Eating

I'm very sorry but I really got hungry after reading this article.

What's actually in curry roux?

I couldn't find a definitive recipe for curry roux (making it from scratch, not from packets). [1] is the closest I get to a recipe, starting from Indian curry powder. [2] (bottom of page) has some general stuff about the spices in the roux. Richard W.M. Jones 08:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Curry Layout

"Japanese curry rice is served in a large soup bowl, with white rice mostly on the left side and the curry mostly on the right side" - What is the train of thought here? Surely if, heaven forbid, someone created a dish with the reversed layout (rice on the right and curry on the left), you could crazily rotate the plate 180 degrees... --An 10:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the thinking is that since most people are right-handed that having the curry on the right makes it more accessible. I highly doubt a left-handed person would get weird stares for turning their plate 180 degrees. It's really just a matter of logistics. 75.111.36.226 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Similarly, if a table is set with forks on the right and knives on the left, you could crazily swap the two after you sit down. It's not about plates being fixed once they're put down, it's about the generally accepted proper way to serve it. —Qousqous 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

カレー vs. カリー

The two words (カレー karē and カリー karī) have different meanings in Japan. The Japanese variant of the Southeast Asian dish, which is being discussed here, is without exception referred to as karē, but karī may sometimes be used when talking about a non-Japanese dish. The two are not freely interchangable. I'm removing karī from the opening. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Curry from scratch - recipe

I have twice removed your unencyclopedic blogging, and will continue to. Wikipedia is not a how-to. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I've failed for long, to find information about making japanese curry from scratch.

Would you please explain why you allow yourself to consider it's vandalising to tell it's nearly impossible to find while suggesting in the summary that it would be nice to give the information ?

Either I was right, and attacking me for vandalising is just against wikipedia's ways, except if you are a taliban. Or I was wrong, and so then please, prove it by finding and giving a link to the requested information ! (My apologies, i don't come often, i don't remember the tag to sign)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.42.125 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a how to or a blog for you to say how hard it is to find Japanese curry. You want MySpace or Twitter.

--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again removing your unencyclopedic blogging. You won't find such blogging in any encyclopedia, it won't stay here, either. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, for an anonymous user, you're very sanctimonious. It is not the best thing to compare a user who actually knows what he's doing to the Taliban.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not have the exclusivity to self proclaim you know what you do (btw, Talibans also do). I'm not anonymous on every wikipedia. It's just that english is not my mother tongue, and that I do not come as much as in the past (years ago), especially because of people acting like you do. If many wikipedia editors act like you do, It might explain why so many people choose to criticize mistakes instead of correcting them !!! You are not the owner of this article and my interventions are not wrong. Wikipedia, is not made for your exclusive use, with you exclusive views. Remember : wikipia is a collective work, and collective is not you alone and if it was to be reserved to named users, it wouldn't be possible to edit it anonymously. And btw, it IS a near talibanic behaviour to revert systematically someone else's contributions without trying to find a compromise as well as to start a attack a normal edit without any previous notice, by sending a message like the first one you sent me :

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Japanese curry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What I added, is information I expect to find in an enclyclopedic article. It's just moronic to just tell that making a curry from scratch is a fairly simple process slightly more time consuming than using a sauce mix, but to reject in the same time any information about how to make it. It might be logical in japanese, since the recipe is probably much easier to find, but please, think about the people who do not understand japanese. Not just about yourself. a translation article is not bound to be the same as the original, especially when the needs are not the same. The near impossibility to find the recipe is not blogging but if a fact, unless one prove it wrong by giving more information about it. --85.27.42.125 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Again, as you were directed, read what Wikipedia is not. It may be acceptable on your native Wikipedia, (which I don't believe) it is not acceptable here. Wikipedia is not a place for how-tos, advice, or recipes. End of story. You can stop trolling anytime. And stay off my talkpage. Your comments go on this article's talkpage so everyone can see why I revert you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, quit acting so bossy. you are a user like others and you have no specific rights. the addition you reverted is only not acceptable in your subjective and rigid point of view. I agree that wikipedia is neither a blog nor a howto, but linking to a howto is perfectly acceptable and even recommended, and mentionning the non-availability of such information is as well pefectly acceptable, on the other side, a brief explanation about ingredients and/or a few specific tricks is also perfectly acceptable. Please don't forget that this article is not only a member of your dear japan project, but also of the food and drink project. you should probably have a look on other articles on this project and see they are much less rigid than you in their interpretation of what is acceptable or not. Finaly, since you like to give advices to others, please read this reminder : Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. 85.27.42.125 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Chris is right - Wiki is not a how-to, and this text doesn't belong in the article. I know you searched high and low to find a recipe to this, but this just isn't the right place to show what you've learned. You might want to create a blog to talk about it, or a third party website of some form to do that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I've found a recipe and I have the conflicting mention by a link to the recipe, and I still keep reverted with this message on my talkpage :

You have been repeatedly warned about your edits on Japanese curry. Wikipedia is not a manual, guide or recipe book, and the text you're adding is fairly inappropriate. Further, sections on where Japanese curry shows up in manga or anime violates WP:TRIVIA. We're not just supposed to have an indiscriminate list of every place curry has ever showed up. Stop adding this text or you will be reported. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's admit the part about trivia is correct, but the right way to do is not revert it but to check first if nothing is to be kept. Since I cannot have a constructive discussion with you, I have the feeling that something is very wrong here. When you just revert all my tentative to propose a useful content without proposing to reuse it in any way, it becomes difficult to believe you are acting in good faith and I will raise to the next level of conflict resolution with RFC. 85.27.42.125 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines, I've separated off your RFC to a separate section. Ignoring the trivia section, let's look at the text you added:

Here is a recipe to make japanese curry from basic curry powder and garam masala, and the formula to make the curry powder and the garam masala.

There are a number of reasons why that text is unacceptable. First, you're using Wikipedia for promotion of external sources, which violates WP:EL. Wiki is not meant to be just a list of links - we have actual content here. Second, the tone of the text is inappropriate. There's no place anyone would ever write "Here is a recipe for X" - that's more appropriate for a blog or something.

As a side note, you modified the Preparation section to read "Japanese curry rice is made from rice, curry sauce, vegetables (most often : onion, carrot and potato) and meat." That's redundant with the lead, which states "The basic vegetables are onions, carrots, and potatoes." The text doesn't need to be duplicated. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

References

RFC

• Question 1 : Is it right to systematically revert links to the recipe in an article about cooking, under the pretext that wikipedia is not a cookbok ?
• Question 2 : Is it right to systematically revert information considered as trivia without even trying to discuss/adjust/adapt it ? 85.27.42.125 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as clarification, the text in question is contained in these edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and you have now been told so over several days by three editors. There is no need to discuss/adjust/adapt it when your edits run counter to Wikipedia:Competence is required. It's time for you to stop. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

this is not the place for you to answer.

• First, you are part of the dispute and you shouldn't influence others.
• Second, I have only counted two editors, and both making japanese translation and this is highly suspect of collusion.
• third, you look only one side of the rules, refusing to look on the other side rules.

85.27.42.125 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First, though it's true that Kintetsu and I are both members of WPJapan, but he didn't contact me personally about this issue; I became involved because of a 3O request that you made and I took. Second, Kintetsu and I are allowed to post in the RFC section just as much as you; we're allowed to defend our beliefs here. And third, can you explain what you mean by "refusing to look on the other side rules"? Do you mean how you think "linking to a howto is perfectly acceptable and even recommended, and mentionning the non-availability of such information is as well pefectly acceptable, on the other side, a brief explanation about ingredients and/or a few specific tricks is also perfectly acceptable" and we don't because of Wiki policies? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean that you both stay focussed on the dead encyclopedic side of wikipedia, and you reject what makes it a living media:

• Kintetsubuffalo who presents himself as a wise and competent user who knows what he does, first attacked me on my page, with a last warning for vandalism and disruptive behaviour when I just did one normal edit. This is unacceptable behaviour and tagged here as harassment.
• Wikipedia policies are designed to make it a living tool to share knowledge with the reader, and not to make closed articles intended for the aedonic pleasure of the writer. This is why, as a reader, I feel that there is a need in the article. I don't find acceptable to reject every ways to provide this information, either by including it, either by providing a link to it... especially since this information is hard to find.
• Wikipedia policies also suggest neither to act like a fanatic, nor to stick to the rules and that instead of reverting, one should try to find what is good to keep in material provided by other editors. Both of you ignored those principles and stayed focussed on the rigid/dead encyclopedic principles. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia !
• I understand that you both may have taken me for a newbee because I didn't care to use a user name, but you shouldn't. I may not remember all the codes and shortcut because I don't use them often, But I know the principles and I know how to search for the information. I'm a wikipedia occasional editor for more than 6 years and reading you both, I have the feeling that the most important principles of wikipedia are loosing themselves.

85.27.42.125 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I never said newbie. The word is troll. A user who can't capitalize properly-i.e. "Japanese", who adds chat to an encyclopedia and then insists it is right for it to be there even after seeking a third opinion that concurred it doesn't belong there, who doesn't even sign their posts even though it says at the top of every talkpage Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). and who then points fingers at all other users when it is clearly wrong is a troll. Or a dick. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Japanese Curry in manga and Anime" section is inappropriate per WP:TRIVIA. The inclusion of the content pointing to justhungry.com smacks of advertising for that site. The only part of your edits which would be fine for inclusion is the "(most often : onion, carrot and potato)" clarification of vegetables. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I know that it's better to avoid direct linking in the text, and that's the reason why I linked it in the <ref> format. In that way, this link is as valid as the one to japan self maritime defense forces which is not even in english and with which you seem to have no problems !!! There are tons of external links in wikipedia, I don't understand why you have problem with that one. that's a link to the searched information, that's all. It is not even a commercial site ! In addition, the information is perfectly verifiable, you just have to try it !
• Reread WP:TRIVIA: It's more about how the information is to be organised, than if the information is to be added or not ! btw, this is not just trivia since it is about a recurring subjet, not just an occasionnal mention.

85.27.42.125 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between linking to justhungry.com and linking to the JMSDF site: the former is a commercial site, and the latter is a government informational site. There is a huge difference between the two. As for the trivia bit, I'm well aware of what it says, and the content you were trying to add was inappropriate and irrelevant for the article. While links from the anime articles to this article are fine, unless the anime or manga is primarily or significantly about Japanese curry, there is no need or reason to link to the anime or manga articles from this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

JMSDF is in japanese and google translation does not make very usable information. Justhungry.com gives a usable information and I don't know where you saw it is a commercial site. btw, I don't think that one way linking is a very good encyclopedical practice. It doesn't help to find the information. The reason why I think it is important, is because japanese curry is probably known to occident because it's regular appearance in the manga. This is something irrelevant if you are japanese, but not for occidental people. That's a good reason, not to stick to the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.42.125 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That the JMSDF site is in Japanese is irrelevant as long as it has good information. Non-English sites can be used, especially when they are in the language related to the topic (as is the case here). As for Justhungry.com, it's not as commercial as some other sites, bit it does have an affiliate shop. In addition, it's a blog, and blogs are generally not acceptable as sources for articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This source seem to be accurate and the fact that it is a blog is not critical, providing that you can point on the precise article you need, blogging may just be an easy way to make and update a website. Now, I have no problems if we provide the same information on another form or from another source, but we MUST provide it or else, we implicitely promote ready made products by refusing alternative to the reader, and this is more commercial that just linking on this site.85.27.42.125 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we are definitely not promoting commercial products in this article if we don't include links to that blog. Mentioning that there are commercial brands of curry available is not the same as promoting them. Also, blogs are almost never reliable sources, so may not be used as sources. I'm beginning to suspect that you have some direct connection to that site since you seem so adamant about including a link to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interrest

Since all my propositions/requests, whatever their form, to add information/link about the nature of japanese curry are systematically reverted to the benefit of ready made curry, and since the other editor make no effort whatsoever to propose alternatives, I suppose there is a hidden interrest to deprive the reader of this information.85.27.42.125 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me (as I stated above) that you have some driving need to have that blog listed here on this page. You should know that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags and that being listed here is not going to increase ranking on Google for what is increasingly appearing to be your site. Trying to turn this around to state we (Wikipedia) are trying to "deprive" readers of this information is disingenuous and fallacious. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

COI tag?

I've reverted this addition of a COI tag on the grounds that it's wholly invalid. None of us are even remotely affiliated with any organization that deals with Japanese curry. It's not like any of us work for Vermont Curry or something. Honestly this issue is getting completely out of hand; we've really just got one very tendentious editor, and we might want to look at taking this to ANI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing tendancious in asking for a public information to be disclosed. I was also thinking about going to arbitrage, but things need to be taken care of in the correct procedure order85.27.42.125 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is tendentious if there is no reason for it. Unless you can show there is some actual conflict of interest here, continuing to add that tag will be viewed as disruptive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absent Links

I've inserted links in some of the non-english ingredients cited, as well as in both places from the section Other varieties.

There's actually an explanation of hayashi sauce in parentheses, so the linking was more a suggestion for a future addition.

Hokkaidō was already linked twice, but both entries appeared after this section. I'm not completely familiar with Wikipedia standards, but guess the first entry takes precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denismattos (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Updating

Thanks, HelloAnnyong, for the almost immediate redirecting of hondashi. That's the article I was originally looking for.

Also, I'm sorry for forgeting to sign my comment above. Denis Mattos 03:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denismattos (talk • contribs)

Heh, no problem. Not sure what to do with those other links.. maybe a translation of the Japanese articles if I get some time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Korean cuisine category

This article doesn't belong in the Korean cuisine category. Merely being popular in a region doesn't mean it's part of that cuisine. Bibimbap is popular in urban US cities - should we label it as being part of American cuisine? Pad thai is available basically everywhere in the US, but should it be labeled as American cuisine? The same sort of logic applies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's like calling McDonald's "Japanese food" just because it's popular there. (Actually, I don't even want to call it "American food"...) Boneyard90 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

2007 Shipment

According to the link supplied, the shipment for curry roux was 82,687 百万円 (million), which is 82.7 billion yen, not 827 billion yen. If indeed 827 billion yen worth of curry roux was shipped, House Foods would have made 400 billion yen from curry roux alone, as it accounts for half the instant curry market. Yet, total revenue (including overseas and other products) for House Foods in 2008 was only 234 billion yen. This further confirms that the original 827 billion yen was incorrect.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese curry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722101857/http://kutsunazemi.daa.jp/newsite/activity/paper%26report/consultingreport/2010/fujikawa_doc.pdf to http://kutsunazemi.daa.jp/newsite/activity/paper%26report/consultingreport/2010/fujikawa_doc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential new source

• Wired, 2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• A History of East Asia, Holocombe 2017. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Curry Picture

Is it just me, or does that look like a picture of Thai curry? It looks like a picture taken in Bangkok of some kind of Thai curry served over rice (ราดข้าว), or maybe of Thai curry at a Thai restaurant in Japan. Japanese kare is much darker and thicker, and does not have little bits of pounded red chili like you see in this picture. In fact, I think I see either fish balls or maybe prawn parts, as you would find in Thailand. I think of kare as usually having potatoes and carrots.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.26.43 (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur, that does not look like a typical dish of curry & rice in Japan. - Boneyard90 (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The dish at the top of the Japanese page looks like a typical Japanese curry dish. If there are no objections, I suggest that the image from the Japanese page be substituted for the one currently in use. - Boneyard90 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Resemblance in other regions

Japanese curry has little resemblance to curries from other regions

This is not correct, as Japanese curry was based on British navy curry you can still find many similar things in British regions in the form of curry sauce and the curries based on that sauce like British Chinese curry 82.1.32.188 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)