Jump to content

Talk:Biryani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.107.198.169 (talk) at 18:58, 20 November 2016 (→Biryani versus Pulao). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Textbot 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Can anyone direct me to a User : Curry image for my User page ??[reply]

Untitled

This entire article sounds like a table of contents for a Biriyani cookbook and is significantly lacking in detail. My earnest request to the user community -please help improve this tem by provoding detail for each relevant type of biriyani, particularly around specifc cooking techniques and regional or special spices used. Also of great interest would be an indiation of traditional side dishes served. No, I am ot talking of popular side dishes, I am looking for traditional items, e.g. Hydabadi biriyani ith Mirhi ka saalan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.219.42 (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled

Hyderabadi Biryani has a different way of preparation; hence, it's called Hyderabadi Biryani. The ingrediant used are relatively different that used in the Biryani of North India.

Also, the Hyderabadi Biryani is served with "Mirchi Ka Salan" and some curd (Dah'ee ki Chatni). Mirchi Ka Salan is a Hyderabadi offering, exclusively. Manzoorkhan 06:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Raisins

Raisins seem to be a staple of the Biryanis I've had; is that characteristic of a particular region? -- Beland 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I dont recall ever having had raisins in my Biryani. I've mostly eaten Biryani in Bombay, India. 76.17.110.17 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The raisins are found in the Hyderabad version of Biryani, in a variation called Dum(da-um) Biriyani. It is to be noted that some regions might have multiple or a more local "hybrid" version of biryanis that might have evolved in accordance to local cuisine or influence, adding of raisins being one of such effects.Was†ed(Ag@in) ‡ † © 07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are raisins used in the kacchi biryani in Dhaka along with almonds, pista, saffron, rose water, poppy seeds, sour prunes etc.. As many of these condiments are not local and often expensive, they are used by the more expensive chefs. AuM01 (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani and Pilaf

What's the difference between Pilaf and Biryani, since they both seem to involve the same methods of preparation/ingredients, as well as originating in the Iran-India region? Le Anh-Huy 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani is generally roasted, where is pilaf is cooked in a broth.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the difference between pilaf and Biryani given in the main page (i.e. biryani is cooked seperately and then layered) is not correct and needs updating. The most popular biryanis in Bengal as well as Hydrabad are the cooked with rice and meat together. I agree with the point given by user Bless sins, though I believe the term 'steamed or baked in a sealed pot' would be more accurate than 'roasted'. AuM01 (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nastaliq script it is not

It is standard Arabic script. I don't think Wikipedia can actually have Nastaliq. elpincha (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani and turban colours

"Historians claim that the earlier Nawabs of Punjab wore a matching turban for each variety of biryani." Surely this is someone's idea of a joke? --Zubedar (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a joke, with no historical evidence to back that up and the reference page provided had nothing even close to the mention of the word "turban" in it. I went ahead and deleted that lame joke.Was†ed(Ag@in) ‡ † © 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lung & Mutton?

The 'types of biryani' section lists the lung-mutton Iranian variety first. I don't see why that version of the dish is mentioned first. It's not the most popular kind of biryani. In fact, I think it's a relatively exotic form. Putting it so close to the top of the article might misinform people who're just skimming. It's not as though the list is alphabetized and Iranian biryani should come first. The section on Iranian biryani is also quite short. Move it to the bottom?

Proceed boldly --Gro-Tsen (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on countries. In Iran biryani with rice is strange and non popular and in USA both of them! I suggest ordering alphabetical (by country name)

پوویا (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find why there are too many edit links near the video section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Codetiger (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nasi kebuli is not briyani

Nasi kebuli juga trdapat di Malaysia, cara pemasakan nya amat berbeza, jadi nasi kebuli gak boleh di kategori kan sebagai nasi biryani

Malaysia's Nasi Biriyani

The assertion that Nasi Minyak is a Malaysian version of Biriyani is incorrect. Nasi Minyak (or Oily Rice) is traditionally served at Malay weddings, and as the article says is served not only with rendang, but also ayam masak merah (a "red" chicken curry), dalcha(which is a vegetable curry of sorts) and acar. The ingrediants that go into the rice include oil & butter. This dish is possibly a variation of "Ney Chooru" (or Ghee/oil rice) that is commonly had by South Indians, and was possibly brought by them to the Straits Settlements.

This is true for Singapore as well, where Biriyani is thought of as an Indian dish rather than a Malay one, although variations of Biriyani are now available including dum biriyani

I'll leave this for discussion and make the change after a month if there are no objections.

Sumenon (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)SuMenon[reply]

File:Chicken Biryani.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chicken Biryani.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chicken Biryani.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Biryani - beware the mild biryani

"In most of the restaurants one has to ask to boost spices." This could probably be reworded so that it isn't expressing an editor's opinion as fact. --203.9.151.254 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Biryani

India have an ancient history. Sankskrit language is the ancient language of all the ancient empires. Rice was traded during the silk route as well that was established thousands of years ago. Some people are trying hard to fake it with fake references in history. India existed before the 15th century as well. Rice was a staple food even in the 1 century AD in India. So Rice and its dishes have local origins. Biryani have a Pure local origin. This viewpoint must be respected at all costs. If someone have any problem then kindly discuss it here and then add it on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintoo44 (talk • contribs)

No, Sankskrit language is the ancient language of "all the ancient empires", and Biryani is not a Sanskrit word. Multiple reliable refs (not just Pratibha Karan) cited in the article agree that the word is of Persian origin - they only disagree on whether it originated from the Persian word for rice (birinj) or frying (biryan). And it's kind of funny that you're OK with using Pratibha Karan as a reference when she says that Biryani was not brought to India by the Mughals/Timur, but you call her a "controversial" author, when she talks of its association with the Indian Muslims. utcursch | talk 14:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mintoo44: Regarding your assertions:

  • Biryani originated in Punjab Again, no source for this. All the sources cited in the article claim that Biryani either originated in the Mughal courts or in South Indian Muslim kingdoms.
  • "References that are derived from local cult books": These books published by HarperCollins, Oxford University Press, University of California Press etc. Karan's book is discussed in a secondary source. As mentioned earlier, you've yourself cited Pratibha Karan to prove that biryani orignated in India. But, you call her a local cult author, when she says that biryani originated in Indian Muslim cuisine and the word is derived from Persian language. Please make up your mind. Also, there are other sources which say that biryani is a word of Persian origin. There is not a single source which supports your claim that the word biryani derives from "basmati".

Also, you're adding completely unsourced content (your own opinions and theories), sometimes with fake references (e.g.) that don't even mention the word biryani.

Pinging @Nestwiki:, since s/he has contested similar POV-pushing by you on this page in the past. utcursch | talk 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mintoo44 has completely changed/rearranged the Biryani article, without discussion, to fit his own point of view. I did not revert what he had contributed but only reinserted the referenced paragraph that he had removed from the Biryani page. Then he removed the referenced paragraph again. So I reverted all his changes on the page. This is not collegial and collaborative attitude but it is POV-pushing by Mintoo. Nestwiki (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puffed rice

this line in the main article " In Bangladesh, puffed rice is also used." is a wrong information.

its really not possible to cook Biryani by Puffed rice, Even though there is a reference it's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.142.180 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South African biryani

This article gives only one half of the story of biryani in South Africa. There are two distinct biryani traditions in the country, this article only covers the Indian version, predominantly found in Kwa-Zulu Natal province where Indian indentured labourers (brought into the Natal Colony during the 19th century) founded a still thriving community. The other, not mentioned here, is the Cape Malay cuisine, prevalent in the Western Cape province, which comes from the descendants of slaves brought to the Cape from the Dutch East Indies when the Dutch ruled the colony, from the mid-seventeenth century to the end of the eighteenth century. The Cape Malay version is frequently called "breyani". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oon Soru

Jacob Sahaya Kumar Aruni's claim about "Oon Soru" is pretty much a promotion for his "ancient cuisine". Meat being cooked with rice is nothing unique. Literally hundreds of such dishes are found all over the world. Unless there any books / academic or scholarly source which support this claim, giving it prominence is undue weight. utcursch | talk 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani Origin

@Barthateslisa All Biryani has it's origins among South Asian Muslim communites. It's not consumed by other Indian ethnic groups. In India, Muslims aren't just a faith, many Muslims belong to an ethnoreligious group, such as the mapilla, or the Hyderabadi Muslims, or the Khojas. Stop looking at it from a religious perspective for a minute. Food has no religion, but food does belong to ethnic groups. You're not gonna say Matzoh Balls originated from Germany, you're gonna say they originated among the Jewish community in Germany, because.... the Jews are an ethnoreligious group. And you can't change that to fit your own personal history. Biryani originated from Muslim communites in the Indian subcontinent, not just the Mughal kitchens, as you have Muslim communitees all the way in the southern most parts of India, who were not ruled by the Mughals. In fact, if you look at all the major native forms of Biryani, they have their origins among the Muslim communities there.... I don't see why you have to change that. Saying that it originates just from the Indian subcontinent makes it sound like it's made among every single Indian ethnic group, it's not. Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV, Wikipedia is not a place to add POV, what u are adding is ur own thoughts, using an unreliable, non scholarly citation. Various theories regarding the origin of Biryani have been mentioned on the page, there are multiple theories regarding its origin by different scholors and food historians, many of which have been discussed on the page itself, its origin are not cited to any one RELIGIOUS group. When you say "MUSLIM", you are talking about the whole religious community, which is not culturally coherent or homogeneous, with different history, culture and cuisine. Muslims of India are not one ethno-religious group, but many, Tamil Muslims are different from Malayali Muslims, Hyderabad Muslims are different from Bengali Muslims and so on. Comparing them to the German Jews(Ashkenazi Jews) and matzoh ball is again incorrect coz Ashkenazi Jews is ONE group, Indian Muslims are not one group, also as matzoh ball's origin is clearly attributed to them whereas no such case exist for Biryani respectively. North Indian Muslims like Kashmiri, Punjabi or Pashtuns don't even eat Biryani, whereas all the South Indian Hindus do and have their own version of Biryani. So saying its a Muslim dish or of Muslim origin is like saying its a faith based dish or practice for all the Muslims, whereas it is just a regional dish, primarily from Southern India. A sweeping statement relating it to one religion is incorrect. Barthateslisa (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bartheslisa: No.... Why are you looking at it from a religious perspective. First of all, South Indian Hindus don't make Biryani.... I'm South Indian.... In fact, go search up "South Indian Biryani," you will find that the majority of the recipes have the name Muslim in it, because Biryani is associated with the Muslims of these places. South Indian Muslims do make Biryani, almost all of them, from the Dakhini, to the Mapilla, to the Rowder, to the Beary people. Kashmiris and Punjabis or Bengalis are not ethnoreligious groups. These ethnic groups don't have their origins among one single faith, but even still, the Muslims of these groups have their own Biryanis. Have you met a Lahori? Have you never eaten Kolkata Biryani (From the Nawabs of Bengal)? Kashmiri Biryani's a real treat btw. When we refer to "The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent," we're referring to the ethnoreligious groups that all just so happen to share Biryani in their cuisines. The Biryani "Phenomenon somehow got to the majority of these people. Not such a big deal. Once you say that it originates from the Indian subcontinent, you basically give it such a vague origin, but it has it's origin among the Muslims of South Asia.

You are running around in circles, lemme break this point by point to you,
  • Theories regarding Biryani's ORIGIN are discussed quite clearly on the page itself, it has many scholarly theories and its origin is not attributed to one source or related to one RELIGIOUS community. When you say "Muslim", then it is a religious group, not an ethnic, racial or a national group.
  • Biryani's origin is discussed on the page here, go through it, its scholarly work not some vague site like "indiacurrents"
  • So a misleading sweeping statement in the introductory para is not valid, when the origin of the dish itself is not clear and has many theories.
  • "The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent", is a not one ethno-religious, coherent group, with same cuisine, all of them do not eat Biryani, just like all Hindus do not.
  • The Hindus of South India do eat Biryani and have their own version of Biryani, while most Muslims in North India do not eat or have their Biryani version.
  • Point to be noted, Kashmiri, Punjabi and Pashtun Muslims do not have any Biryani in their respective cuisines. Kashmiris and Pashtuns have a Pulao, no Biryani. Punjabi Muslims don't even have that.
  • Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a diary or a book about your experiences, what you are doing is adding POV, not scholarly, encyclopedic content, so stop adding your POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bartheslisa: Oh lord.... Biryani, has its origins among the Muslim community in South Asia. Not even you can change that. And in India, only Muslims make Biryani. Hindus don't make Biryani, it's not in the populous cuisine. There are many theories of where it came from, Persia? Arabia? But there is no doubt that it has its origins among India's Muslims. I'm not adding any pov. If you don't like that source, than I'm changing it, but stop discrediting the people that it originates from. It doesn't help you. Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it for You to understand? You are talking about the ORIGIN of the dish, which is already discussed on the page and has its OWN SECTION, with all the hypothesis, there is no one theory of its origin nor is it related to ONE RELIGIOUS community, its not a religious food. No need to get all filmy,
  • Biryani's origin has many theories all are discussed in its origin section.
  • It is not restricted to one religious community nor its a religious food, so no sweeping statement about religion.
  • So called, "Muslim community of South Asia" is not one homogeneous community with same cuisine, its a totally nonsensical logic.
  • Wikipedia is not your personal blog, its an encyclopedia, treat it like one with scholarly input, not bias or POVs.

Barthateslisa (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barthateslisa There is scholarly input in it..... Biryani is not made by any other Indian community. And you know that. I don't know why you keep changing the edits. Wikipedia's not a place for you to change history. Your reverts are illegitimate, as you clearly have some sort of problem with the word Muslim. Which you removed from two places. Who were the Mughals? Muslims... who were the other nawabs who created their own biryanis... Muslims. If you clearly hate putting the word Muslim in this article, then just eave it alone. Stop trying to discredit people. You also changed the Tukish and Muslim communities of Macedonia to just Turkish communities... Macedonian Muslims, and Turkish Macedonians are two different ethnic groups, not the same.Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not you personal diary, nor your blog. Read about the NPOV, and plz spare the lecture. I again repeat, there is an ORIGIN SECTION on the page, kindly bother to read it. Stop trying to add your bias or POV. Since 16th May you are doing this charade. Masala, Pav Bhaji or Kachori is not of Hindu origin, A burger or a pizza is not of Christian origin, Noodles are not of Buddhist origin, and Sushi is not of Shinto origin. Stop bracketing all the communities as per you bias and favoritism for religion, as MUSLIMS, if its MUGHALS, then they are mentioned, so are the Arabs and Persian. All Muslims are not one group with one cuisine. Repeating for the umpteen number of time, its origin has many theories, all of whom have been discussed and mentioned in the ORIGIN SECTION. No sweeping statement regarding one particular theory. Barthateslisa (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barthateslisa You're not making any sense.... Biryani is only found amongst south asian Muslims. In in their cuisine. And it was also sourced. You have no right to remove that information. You do realize that the Biryani eaten amongst the Mapilla is not from the Mughals. It was brought by Arab traders. There are many Muslims ethnoreligious groups in India, and they all share Biryani. Stop looking at it from a religious perspective. There are many theories of its origin, but all those theories are amongst south Asia's Muslim community. Deleting it for the umpteen number of time is not gonna change history. For example, Roti, can be said as originating from the Indian subcontinent. It doesn't have a specific ethnic background. But Biryani, is from the Muslim community. Two books, that are sourced in this wikipedia article support this statment. You clearly have some sort of problem with the word "Muslim" even when it's sourced, and it's not used in terms of religon. In fact, one book has it right on the front page. So your editing is illegitimate. You obviously don't have a problem with the word "Hindu" in the article. Well obviously you don't. Stop with your bigotry, because knowledge is more powerful than your edits. Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have an Islamist bias, with an urge to add MUSLIM, when the fact of the matter is that MUSLIM is a vague term in context of culture and cuisine, all MUSLIMS do not eat the same food, as far as Biryani's origin is concerned it has many theories as per different writers and scholars, who pont towards different era and different origin, not restricted to one ethnic or religious community. So no, adding Muslim community in the intro para is INCORRECT, just coz you like it doesn't make it correct. Since 16th May you have started this charade of pushing your POV and bias on the page. It was not their earlier. And I have not added Hindu or Christian any where. Barthateslisa (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Barthateslisa, @ Hammad.511234, Here, user Hammad.511234 is hell bent on pushing his POV based on personal experiences just as he does it in hyderabadi muslim articles.. i think its best to avoid arguments with a 'self proclaimed expert' on all things 'hyderabadi' or 'muslims'.. What i would like to see would be the content/openion Must be having strong backing of third party and reliable sources --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99 And my content was sourced. But he keeps removing it. In fact, my content was sourced with article used in the page before me... he just want to get on with his POVS, or he has a problem with the word Muslim. In fact, he previously deleted the word "Muslim, when referring to Turkish and Muslim Macedonian communities, he just left Turkish and Macedonian. Macedonian Turks, and Macedonian Muslims are two different groups. Hammad.511234 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are just not getting it or what? You are adding your bias and POV as a the final truth on the subject, the topic of discussion is Biryani's origin, which has MULITPLE theories, all of which has been sourced and mentioned here on the page, its you who want to push his POV or his favored theory by mentioning a religious community in its origin, which is vague and incorrect and presenting it as the only real theory, you have been doing this since 16th May, so its you who have started this charade. Again READ NPOV. Barthateslisa (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current description ' Indian subcontinent' is appropriate rather than writing 'Muslim' angle in intro... this should be closed. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, User:Hammad.511234 is not even getting the idea of what his fault his, he is just not bothering to use the origin section instead focusing on selected citations, to push his POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bartheslisa: You misquoted the source on "Muslim centres," the book sourced says Muslim centres. Lucknow was free of Mughal rule since 1724, and the Biryani went a long way from there. Awadhi cusine developed its own distinctive flavour, so idk why you changed that part. I'm not talking about the origin, the origin is mentioned as coming from the Arabs to South India, and the Mughals to North India. But my edit mentioned among which community the dish is found. So idk why you removed that either, it was even sourced with 4 sources, and I can give more sources if you please. Everybody knows that Biryani is associated with South Asia's Muslims. Hammad.511234 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are again not focusing on what is your problem, I request you to please familiarize yourself with NPOV, instead of coming up with your own theories and POV. The ORIGIN of Biryani has many, I repeat MANY theories and hypothesis, all of which have been mentioned on the page itself in the ORIGIN SECTION. You can not be selective and declare the ones which are suiting you narrative to be true and present them as the final word, which is exactly what you are doing by adding "Muslim" in every narrative. Also you need to familiarize yourself with history, for example, Awadhi cuisine is an offshoot of Mughalai cuisine, also Lucknow didn't become a separate country, it was pretty much connected. Both Hyderabad and Awadh originated a Mughal garrisons. And no, Biryani is not "associated with South Asia's Muslims" coz South Asian Muslim is not a coherent group, they all have different cuisine, like the Hindus or Sikhs or Christians. Barthateslisa (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bartheslisa: It's not my own theory... The origin of Biryani can have many origins, that's nice, but they all are from the Muslims of the subcontinent. Biryani is only found among the cuisines of South Asian Muslims. No one else makes it. Awadhi, is an offshoot of Mughlai cuisine, so what? They're not the same, and you're misquoting the book. Awadh did become a separate kingdom in 1724, and the same goes for Hyderabad. ANd what about the South Indian Muslim communities who make Biryani, with no connection to the Mughals? All Biryanis originate among Muslim ethnic groups in South Asia. Biryani is common among all of them, so your points are not justified, especially when all the claims are sourced, and are well known. Are you going to tell me that Sheer Khurma is a dish of Indian origin? No.... it's common among all Muslims on Eid. Religious groups sometimes develop their own cuisine. Hammad.511234 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it or what? Biryani's origin has many theories MANY, many of which have been mentioned in the origin section, its upto the readers to draw the conclusion, not the page. You can not be selective about the choice and declare ur preference as the final and only truth. And btw, your history is incorrect, Awadh and Hyderabad were offshoots of the Mughals, they were established as garrisons by the Mughals, all of their cuisine and culture was of Indo-Mughalai origin from Delhi, read the 18th century Indian history for that. Though that does not matter here, as according to many theories Biryani precedes Mughal invasion. And again let me point towards your argument, you say, sheer khurma-which is of Central Asian origin btw-is "common among all Muslims on Eid", which is factually wrong again, it is not eaten by majority of the Muslim communities, but only in the former Mughal centers like Delhi, Lucknow, Hyderabad etc. Muslims of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Assam, bengal etc do not eat Sheer Khurma, I repeat again, Muslims, or "Muslims of South Asia" are not ONE COMMUNITY, in terms of Culture and Cuisine. So sheerk hurma is of central Asian origin, not MUSLIM ORIGIN. Similarily, Biryani is of Indian origin, not of Muslim origin, many Muslim communities in India do not cook Biryani nor do they have a version of Biryani of their own. Most North Indian Muslims do not eat Biryani, and most South Indian Hindus do. Barthateslisa (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this statement is incorrect and truly personal opinion --> "Biryani is only found among the cuisines of South Asian Muslims. No one else makes it." this is clear evidence yet again that user Hammad.511234 has strong POV attitude and will probably not listen to other editors..especially @ Barthateslisa ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani versus Pulao

I have removed the paragraph in the etymology section talking about vegetarian biryani and pulao as it does not belong there. There is already an extensive section talking about the difference between biryani and pulao, which led to inconsistency in this article with that extra paragraph in the etymology section. I also had it's only source as an opinion piece done only just a few months ago with no actual factual evidence for the claim. I'm perfectly fine with people saying veg biryani is not biryani, but if you're going to put that in the article you need a factual source rather than a source that is just an opinion. It also needs to be in the proper section. The etymology section is there to explain the origin of the word, not to advance personal opinions. 75.107.198.169 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biryani&oldid=750595579"