Talk:Vindaloo

social rituals and masculinity culture

the article, in particular in the "restaurant curry" section, states that vindaloo came to be defined as just an extremely hot curry that men would come to eat after pub closing time to show off their manliness. I'm slightly surprised to see this on this particular page, as to the best of my knowledge, that showing off ritual was, maybe still is, more associated with Phall, a dish with no prior history that seems to have been created specifically for that purpose. should there be corrections here, and additions on the phall page, or did I miss something back when I learned of these things? Svartalf (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. Wikipedia works from Reliable Sources, and the claim is impeccably cited here. Phall is a far more recent creation than Vindaloo (and it doesn't have a laddish football anthem named after it); no doubt it is moving into Vindaloo's place, and no doubt future sources will so describe it. But this article's scope is Vindaloo, and what it says about that curry is well-documented. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

British rule

What means "When the British took over Goa, they took over the colony's cooks ..."? Goa was under portugese occupation from 1510 until December 1961. Then it became part of India. It was never ruled by the British. ~2026-11838-13 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I've checked the source and fixed the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Tindaloo

What about tindaloo then? Maikel (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be very doubtfully noteworthy, with extremely few Google hits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead wording

Some reasoning for edit on 7 June 2026, I was trying to reflect the cited sources more directly in the lead by clarifying the chronology: Portuguese carne de vinha d'alhos, Goan vindalho, Anglo-Indian usage, and later British curry-house usage. The article body already treats these as related but distinct contexts, and is poorly sequenced in the lead (with the article peppered with editorialized language)

My concern was only that the lead should summarize the chronology and terminology in a way that reflects the cited sources and article body, as it fails to do this. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing, and for attempting the difficult job of wording the lead. The immediate issue with your version was that "dish of Goan origin" suggests that the worldwide modern dish is Goan, which is not so; according to Collingham, cited right there, it's British, and the article body says that in terms. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Pat Chapman

I invite Chiswick Chap to put his case for removing the content cited to Pat Chapman's book. Can I suggest that any argument that is based on "my analysis of the text is he doesn't offer evidence" is a non-starter. Pat Chapman is a writer on food, particularly curries, which seems to make his ideas notable. It doesn't matter if he chose not to show evidence in the book. It doesn't even matter if he says "it is, because I say it is". It's a theory offered by a notable person and it's not up to a Wikipedia editor to decide it's not good enough.

If it can be demonstrated to be a fringe, minority theory, then there may be a case for removing it. If there is significant opposition to it from other authorities, then the article can reflect that. But it seems to me that there are no hard facts on the matter, so different ideas can be reflected. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The point about Chapman is that he knows how to cook, but is not a scholar. We agree he's notable, and reliable for recipes; much less so (if at all) for colonial culinary history. I think that stating that it's his proposal is sufficient: readers can look at the contrasting claims and make up their minds as they like. The normal Wikipedia approach to sources that are expert in one area but not another is to mark them as doubtful sources to be used with care, and perhaps that is what we should do with Chapman, but it doesn't matter here if the wording clearly indicates that this is his proposal. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But are we applying the same criteria to others cited in the article? Is Glyn Hughes a scholar? Raghavan Iyer? Only Lizzie Collingham reaches the standard for inclusion you suggest. Chapman, as the winner of awards from the industry, seems to me to be every bit worth consulting as Hughes and Iyer. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, they're in there now, for better for worse. It appears to be quite hard to remove sources even if one added them oneself! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)