Talk:Tempura

This part seems rather odd to me. I doubt many readers would assume tempura is made of rice. Shouldn't we be describing what tempura is, rather than what it isn't?

Things not generally served as tempura include rice and other cereals, processed foods such as tofu (although some versions of agedashi dofu resemble tempura), and fruits. Notable exceptions are ice cream and banana.

If no one objects, I'd like to remove this, but keep the mentions of agedashi dofu, ice cream, and banana. --Dforest 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't really grasp this either...I have a hard time imagining rice or "other cereals" served as tempura. In fact, I was confused by this, unsure if it was talking about them being used as an ingredient in the batter, or a food to be battered and fried tempura style. Neither strike me as needing to be mentioned unless they really are commonly used somewhere in non-traditional tempura.

I didn't see anyone objecting here, but I note that this passage hasn't been removed.

--Ericjs (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

A common thing I've found in California/Nevada is tempura sushi rolls. This probably should be included in the page. I'm unsure of the extent of this phenomenon.

This is quite common around Boston also, so I assume also in other parts of the U.S. In fact it is common here in what I consider very authentic Japanese restaurants, who cater mainly to a Japanese clientèle.--Ericjs (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The origin of this word is said on this article to be from the "tempora" (la, "time") from "ad tempora quadragesimae". Japanese words from Portuguese claims that it's from "tempero" (pt, "seasoning"). I see one reference on the other page, and "citation needed" on this one, but I'm not sure the other reference is authoritative. Do we have a more verifiable trail in any direction?

If no one objects, I'll drop the version on this page (with zero references) after a while. --Drake Wilson 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is said that the Portuguese found Japanese food to be tasteless so they added seasonings and spices.

Temperar means “to add seasoning”

The word tempura does not come from tempero. It comes from TEMPERAR

Tempurá sounds just like “temperar” in Portuguese.

--Silvio Campello 23:47, 06 February 2007

That certainly makes more sense phonetically. However, we need a source... FilipeS 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it's any help, my Kojien lists both versions. "Tempora" (i.e. "time") is listed first, and "seasoning" is listed second, as an alternative explanation. TomorrowTime 06:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another discrepance between the origin of this entry: Even in the portuguese version of the Tempura wiki, the origin of the term is indicated to be originated from portuguese monks in japan. I quote from portuguese wiki for tempura: A palavra tempura deriva do costume dos missionários Portugueses em comer peixe durante a Quaresma, devido à proscrição Católica contra comer carne durante este período: em Latin, "ad tempora quadragesimae", significando "durante a Quaresma". Meaning: The word tempura derives form the habit for portuguese monks to eat fish and vegetables during "Lent", as prescribed by the Catholic Church. The monks referred to "Lent" with the latin term , wich is "ad tempora quadragesimae", literally meaning "during lent". So... during the "tempora" (for short) they did eat only fish and vegetable, eventually fried.From that the term "tempura" originated. This filologic explanation is reported in many cook-books and japanese history books. I confronted the italian wiki version, and even there there is an error, in my humble opinion, for they write that portuguese monks did name "tempora" the beginning of every new season. well... the Catholic Church, as far as I know, doesn't force people to eat fish in the beginning of every new season, yet , for sure, during "Lent" (translated: in italian "quaresima", in latin "ad tempora quadragesimae", in portuguese "quaresma"). Consider what I told you, and modify the origin of the term, if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.42.27 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE X3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.220.120 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear 69.124.220.120, it is indeed an honor that of the 1.7 million pages on Wikipedia you have chosen our humble Tempura article for your cheery celebration. However, I am afraid that this does technically count as vandalism and must be removed. I hope that does not kill your mood. Cheers, 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

Dear Felipe, THIS IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. I think you should have a look again at Wikipedia policies. You can´t eliminate a contribution only because you don´t like it. If you think that contribution is wrong, you should try to justify your point. If you insist on eliminating contributions that differ from your point of view without any justification, I´ll report it as vandalism. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Etimology is not an exact science. Most of times, authors just speculate, its what you did, and your source is nothing than jus another speculation. In my case, my source is the Spanish, Latin and Japanese dictionary, and the aknoledgement of the Spanish and Portuguese missionaries pressence in Japan. And that not makes my opinion less valuable than yours. Plus, I didn´t eliminate your opinion, just added another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talk • contribs) 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

And more speculation: if tempura was originally a Portuguese dish, why became so popular only in Japan? if the success of tempura in Japan was the "battering", why only tempura became so popular? Battering is a very common way of cooking in Portugal and Spain. If we consider that the first and most important missionaries in Japan were Spanish, specially St. Francisco Javier and the jesuists, why do we have to accept that culinary habits were introduced in a very closed society as Japanese by a few portuguese traders? The fact, the only true we know, is that we don´t know for sure the origin of this dish. If you can contribute with any evidence, instead a few links to cookery websites or forums, it will be great. Until then, all we can do is speculate. And your speculation is not better than mine. Sorry if you think this will "harm" the prestige of your country, but I think its quite silly to mix patriotism with etymology, and I´m sure Portugal has 100000 things to be proud of better than a dish.Pinaster

(to Pinaster) Please stop adding unsourced claims to this article. As per WP:V all information must be verifiable, and if challenged, backed by a reliable source. Editors are entitled to remove any information for which no source may be found. The claims that tempura was introduced to Japan by Portuguese traders arises from numerous independent reliable sources. You are making an argument against the sourced information (as well as accusations of bad faith) based on what looks like pure speculation, without any sources or proof to back up your claims. At best, even if you were right this constitutes original research and as such is not allowed. In addition you are edit warring, having contentiously made the same disputed edit to the article five times in a period of just over 24 hours, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] which is also a violation of WP:3RR. If you persist you will likely be temporarily blocked from further edits of the encyclopedia. To make sure you have notice I will place a caution on your talk page to this effect.Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

(To Pinaster as well): I wish to clarify that, in my opinion, the article does not claim that tempura is a Portuguese dish. What it says is that the word tempura is of Portuguese origin, to the best of our knowledge, and that the dish may have developed from some dish cooked by Portuguese missionaries in Japan. But the tempora dish itself is a Japanese creation. I have no desire to claim otherwise, and if you feel that the article is misleading on this point I will support rephrasing it.

On a final note, when you add a new comment to a Talk Page, please do it at the bottom of the page, after all the old comments. FilipeS (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: This was copied from User talk:HelloAnnyong#January 2008.

If I have some time later, I'll give a 3O. Until then, I'm not going to take sides. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

About tempura, sorry, but dead links? spam? what are you talking about? You asked for sources and I gave you 10. Why did you revert so? User:Pinaster —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Two separate issues here. Read the talk page for the information about your sources. As for the spam links: five of them were to pictures of tempura, and two were to pages that don't exist. Read WP:EL for information on external links. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I´ve cheked the links carefully, all working, and with the cuoted information in my contribution (please, check it again). Is not Enciclopaedia britannicaa valid source? if you don´t suscribe or have it, you can´t check it, but thats no my fault, pal. And Monumenta Nipponica? I assume your triying to do your best, but, please, could you take a good look at my contribution. Are any of those sources worse than a link to a sauce maker (kikoman). Where is my contribution so? Does "tempura" article have an owner? Thanks a lot, I will appreciate your help. --Pinaster (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You didn't read the comments on the talk page. Just because an article says that the word "tempura" was brought by missionaries does not mean that it was done so because of Lent. For example, castella was brought to the Japanese by the Portuguese, but if I were to say that it was done so because of Lent, I'd be wrong. Unless the page specifically says that the word is derived from Tempora, it cannot be used. It's called original research, and it's not allowed around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry again, but this is very frustrating. Yes indeed, the sources that I cuoted say both; tempura comes from tempora: "the Japanese word tempura comes from the Latin word tempora" and "it was introduced by Spanish missionaires" please, check again. I never said that tempura was introduced by spanishh missionaires because of Lent. Could you read again and tell me where is that said? I just said that during Lent, Tempura is a good dish, since -as everybody knows- it has no meet. I don´t know why you say the links are not working, but they are working and saying exactly what I cuoted and you removed (still dont know why). Please, I repeat,"could you take a good look at my contribution"? regards.--Pinaster (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm done with discussing it here. If you want to talk about it, post your comments on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, still waiting for response.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talk • contribs) 21:35, January 11, 2008

The etymology section still all these years later shows evidence of a petty argument. It says the etymology of tempura IS from the ember days word and then says it MIGHT be from the seasoning word. Alexandermoir (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This word does not exist in Portuguese. Temperar does exist, but it means "to season", not "to heat or harden in oil". Search here. FilipeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you're sure (and it's pretty easy to be sure about if you have a handle on Portuguese) then it's best to simply remove the statement because it's clearly wrong and makes us look silly. I would be interested in better sourcing on the whole story of Tempura - the word and the dish - coming to Japan via the Portuguese. The material that said Japanese didn't do any deep frying before that is also worthy of expansion and better sourcing. It's very interesting stuff, but a bold claim I would like to see a reference to a real historian or authoritative research, not a light-hearted blurb from a food website (those are notoriously unreliable). We're also in a feedback loop. We say something on wikipedia about where a dish comes from, within a few weeks food fans all over the world repeat what we say, and now if you're looking for a source you're finding a misstatement there that we helped perpetuate!Wikidemo 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so. First off, I have to disagree with the addition of the sentence on témpora. Without any sources, there's no way of verifying the information. I know I learned the same origin of the word that's listed on this page. The Japanese version of this page is considerably more informative, and although it does mention some other type of dish that may have been there at the time, it says that the other dish may have led to fritters (フリッター) or some such. So in short, stick with what's on this page, at least until we can get some verifiable sources around here that say otherwise. In related news, I've warned FilipeS and Pinaster against edit warring and WP:3RR. Rather than just reverting each other, try talking it out - that's why we have talk pages around here.

Hopefully this helps. I'll be watching this page and will try to lend a hand where I can. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pinaster, you don't need to be passive-aggressive. Adding a bunch of links and quotes into the page isn't helpful. I'm going to revert your edit off the page because it's messy and hard to read, and instead add your addition below so we can discuss. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But there is another theory that says that the dish already existed when the first missionaries arrived at Japan from Spain, and they called it "témpora", (from the Latin tempora, fasting period at the begining of each season) because they found this dish perfect for the Lent:

“the Japanese word tempura comes from the Latin word tempora. Japanese people started enjoying tempura after the introduction of Christianity in Japan in the 16th century when Francisco de Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit, arrived in Nagasaki, in southern Japan” Yuko Tamaki-Welply

Member of TranNet and translator. http://www.trannet.co.jp/pre_up/web_news/2007/1010.html.

“Tempura was actually introduced into Japan by Spanish missionaries in the late 16th century.” http://www.geocities.com/japanese_gifts_online/japanese_recipe/tempura_recipe.html.

“In all fairness, it is worth noting that the Japanese borrowed this technique of frying in a batter from the Spanish missionaries who came to Japan in the 16th century.” Doram Gaunt, food critic, Haaretz newspaper http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/932077.html.

"From Spanish missionaries Japan learnt the method and found it very much to its own taste. Eylenbosch, JM, 'Foreign survivals in the Japanese language', Monumenta Nipponica, Vol 3.

"Tempura is distinctly Japanese, but the dish was introduced to southern Japan by Spanish and Portuguese missionaries in the late 16th century. Scholars say the name comes from the Portuguese "Tempora," or Lent, the period when the missionaries would go meatless and turn to seafood." Betty Shimabukuro, http://starbulletin.com/1999/07/07/features/story1.html.

"The batter-frying technique was introduced into Japan by the Portuguese and Spanish in the late 16th century" http://www.britannica.com/

Another theory traces it to the Spanish word for temple - templo. http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/Hiroshima/Things/87.html.

(outdent) Alright, here's what I'm seeing. No one is debating the fact that it came from the Portuguese - that much is true and verifiable. Rather, the issue at hand is whether or not the word 'tempura' has to do with Lent. While a majority of these links say that tempura was brought by missionaries, they don't specifically state that it has to do with Lent, and unless they say that they do, they can't be used to verify the claim. To do so would be violating WP:OR. Of these links, only http://starbulletin.com/1999/07/07/features/story1.html and http://www.trannet.co.jp/pre_up/web_news/2007/1010.html mention Lent. Both of those links are sketchy at best. I suppose we can include them, but I'm hesitant, as they don't strike me as being particularly reliable. Does anyone have any thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added one sentence mentioning Lent, and it uses those two references. Opinions? Does this solve the problem at hand? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, Annyong, when I asked for a third opinion, didnt mean that I wanted someone to revert my editions for his own opinion sake. I do appreciate your help, but I don´t agree your POV. What I was trying to say is that there are at least 2 theories: portuguese origin, and spanish origin, and both with supporters and detractors. No evidences at all, only opinions. So, I added sources to held the second (spanish) theories, but you decided to eliminate them, for... spam and dead links? Well, check the links again, and the other sources without links. The result, is that only the portuguese theory is reported in the article, and leaving it without discrepancy, nearly as a fact. I agree, my last contribution can be hard to read and messy. But messy and hard to read doesn´t mean false. Excuse me, I´m quite new in Wikipedia, and I´m not used to work with links and so. I´ll try to make it look more tidy.--Pinaster (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again, you're missing the point. There are two issues at hand here. The spam and dead links were from the bottom of the page, where it says External links. Pictures and dead links do not belong down there. Okay? That's not why I gave a third opinion; that was my own work on the page.

Tell me. The page right now mentions both theories. What is the problem there? And what is my so-called POV? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ohh, okay. I just figured out what the problem is. You're arguing the Spanish vs. Portuguese issue. I've amended the sentence I added to include the Spanish. Is it okay now? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou very much. Much better, but it could be much improved. It is not an "Spanish vs. Portuguese issue" They are just two theories, and not neccesarily opposite. Maybe 10 lines for that is too much, but 10 words its too little. Anyway, thanks again.--Pinaster (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So what about chicken tempura. It certainly doesn't fall under either seafood or vegetable, yet it is as common as the other two, at least in Japanese restaurant in the U.S., including some I've visited that I consider very authentic ones and which seem to cater primarily a Japanese clientèle. Is it only common in the U.S.? Or is it common in Japan too, but not considered "traditional"? And is perhaps what is "traditional" somewhat dependent on the region of Japan, and this article based on experiences in a certain region?

--Ericjs (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen it, but I have seen chicken katsu. Maybe you're thinking of that? Although really, you could make tempura out of pretty much anything you wanted if you felt like it. — Gwalla | Talk 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've seen chicken sasami (fillet meat) pounded thinly and wrapped with shiso leaf and ume (pickled plum) served as tempura. I'm not sure what the name is, though. (just tori no sasaminiku no tempura). If chicken is cut into large chunks and seasoned, it's more likely karaage or tatsutaage, which are generally considered to be different from tempura.　Update - the Japanese article has specific mention of "Tori Ten" (chicken tempura) which has its own entry here [6]. This seems to be a specialty of Oita Prefecture. --Japwn (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking this because that's what I found out having bought from a Chinese supermarket in New Jersey. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The History section states that Tokugawa Ieyasu died from eating too much tempura. Really? No reference cited. His wikipedia page states that he died of cancer or syph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.171.70 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

First of all, there are many, many references to tempura being popular. And also, especially (but not exclusively) in the United States, chicken is used for tempura as well. And those who revert the kind of edit I made risk looking like a jerk. 67.80.144.146 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit because it is not a traditional Tempura and your edit is already described in #Outside Japan section. If you wish to add more, please expand the section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that in Japanese restaurants the word tenpura is actually written using katakana (天プラ), and not hiragana as in the article. I wanted to verify whether this is customary or if both are commonly used. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't that create more confusion? Shouldn't that all be classified under "outside Japan"? Cgk999 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Generally, fried foods which are coated with breadcrumbs are considered to be furai, 'Japanese-invented Western-style deep fried foods,' such as tonkatsu or ebi furai (fried prawn)." I think the history of deep fat frying should either be explained properly or left out. Plunking this cryptic reference in the middle of a long sentence is just confusing.Zipzip50 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The most popular seafood tempura is probably ebi (shrimp) tempura. Types of seafood used in tempura includes:

prawn shrimp squid scallop crab ayu (sweetfish) anago (conger eel) fish Catfish white fish cod haddock pollock coley plaice skate ray Huss (Various fish species including Galeorhinus, Mustelus, Scyliorhinus, Galeus melastomus, Squalus acanthias - also known as Spiny dogfish or "Rock salmon")

Mushroom tempura Vegetables tempura is called yasai tempura. The all vegetable tempura might be served as a vegetarian dish. Types of vegetables includes:

There are several issues here with the English, for example "vegetables tempura". Also the list of foods seems rather silly, what is the point of making such a long list of different kinds of seafood? NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

"In Bangladesh the blossoms of pumpkins or marrows are often deep fried with a gram of rice flour spice mix creating a Bengali style tempura known as kumro ful bhaja." There are several problems with this sentence.

First: It probably shouldn't be here at all without some reference that Bhajia and Tempura are related, rather than being another fried food.

Second: Bhajia can be any number things dipped in batter and fried, not just blossoms.

Third: The batter is made of Gram (chickpea) flour or rice flour, NOT "a gram of rice". This chickpea based batter is quite different than Tempura batter. Ref: http://bengalcuisine.in/kumro_phool_bhaja "Make a thick batter with gram flour, salt, red chilli powder, black cumin seeds, turmeric powder, rice powder & water." Ranvaig (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

why does "tenpura" appear? --142.163.194.152 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply