Talk:Chicken tikka masala

"even by Indians"

"even by Indians" Should we really call them Indians? I have a feeling that the word is more associated with Native Americans than people living in India Leszek 23:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Then what would we call the people of India? India-ers? 218.190.64.94 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Hindus? That's what the Indians disambiguation page says is an altenative name for them Leszek 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindi is a language. Hinduism is the religion, and its practitioners are Hindus. The word you're looking for is Hindustani ("-stan", land) 59.144.36.249 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Clue: can you work out why the European visitors to the Americas called the indigenous peoples "Indians"? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All this talk about Indian is non-sensical. World isnt America and Wikipedia isnt America. It is not upto non-Americans to accomodate American misnomers. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, more associated with Native Americans?! That's the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard. An Indian is someone from India, how could you ever misunderstand that? 82.2.173.61 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The more problematic issue is that many (most?) "Indian" restaurants in the UK aren't run by Indians but by people from neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh. The language lacks a decent word to refer to all people from this region - "asian" seems to be the best we've got, but it doesn't sound right to my ears and also has the minor downside of confusing Americans. It's a shame Desi isn't more widely used. PeteVerdon 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the British taste for Indian (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Punjabi, ...) cuisine started in British India before Partition, so "Indian" is not entirely inappropriate, unless you are suggesting that "Italian" restaurants have to be staffed by people from Florence and Naples? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was a particular problem with this article, just making a general observation. (And airing my dislike of the term "asian" in this context.) PeteVerdon 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

South Asian, surely? That covers India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and maybe Bhutan (though Bhutan is culturally fairly different). BovineBeast 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fun fact! Lessek appears to be from Poland, not the U.S. Don't you think it's stereotypical to assume it's always Americans who think this way, then go on jeremaids about how the world isn't the U.S. and how "Wikipedia isn't America?" Apart from the fact that Wikipedia was concieved by Americans, of course. 68.90.122.247 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how Americans are blind to that small bit of land between the Middle East and China commonly referred to as "Asia" by the rest of the world. Perhaps it was institutionalised in the 1950s as a cunning plan to disguise the true size of the USSR. Although it still doesn't explain how India has managed to end up in North America. --JamesTheNumberless 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a USAsian would be so ill-educated, self-centered and racist as to think that the word Indian referred to an American. Kjb 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the UAE, subcontinental (subcon for short) is often used as a shorthand for people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka 125.22.36.2 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution: Call them "Indish". That's what I do, and it's understood perfectly. But yeah, blame Europeans for "Indians", "soccer", and all them. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 01:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI everyone I know all around the World generally refers to Native Americans as "Indians". Americans and Europeans alike. In my language (Hungarian) the word "Indián" is derived from the English "Indian" is used. Our term for "Native American" is used almost exclusively in scientific context. Though differentiating is easy here, since Indian in Hungarian spelling is "Indiai". Anyway... My opinion is that just because Nat. A. people are dumbly referred to with a wrong term is no reason to not use the term for what it really means. Just use "Indian" and if someone is ignorant enough to think it means Nat. A. then it is their own problem, not ours. Or just add a mouse-over hint that says "people from India". ~ Storm 62.201.114.85 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If this were the Finnish Wikipedia this discussion wouldn't be needed. Finnish has two words for "Indian": intiaani meaning "native American" and intialainen meaning "citizen of India". JIP | Talk 09:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole continent is Asia, so anyone from there IS Asian. At the southern side, we have India, home to (wait for it) INDIANS. An older term for eastern Asia was the orient, so that Eastern Asians were referred to as Orientals. 2.221.73.136 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Meaning of "tikka"

I am interested in the correct meaning of the word 'tikka', in general and in this particular context. 82.21.49.89 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tikka" is a method of cooking meat marinated in yoghurt and spices in a tandoori or clay oven. Whereas tandoori chicken is cooed on the bone in large pieces for tikka the meat is cut into bite-size pieces.

Incidentally I ate tikka masala -- chicken I think, but it may have been lamb, in New Delhi in 1971. I was curious about the name (as I knew both tikka and masala separately) and asked the waiter for an explanation. He said the tikka'd meat was then cooked in a masala sauce.

Confusing line

What does this line mean?

This is also true of claims that "Leo and Oasis" from KUSU first invented the dish, Tom Smith however disputes this claim intently.

Sounds like a vanity edit to me --AW 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins

The British TV Programme QI revealed the origins of Chicken Tikka Masala as being from a curry house in Scotland (Glasgow or Edinburgh I think). It could probably be found on this site's QI Transcripts if you look closely enough. I initially put this on as fact, which it is - it was done by extensive QI researchers. That should go on as the true origin of Chicken Tikka Masala, as it has absolutely nothing to do with Pakistan or India apart from the ingredients used. Similarly, it is more important than "possibly from the British Isles" - it DID come from the British Isles. If WikiBooks has "The QI Book of General Ignorance", you may even find it in there. Alex Holowczak 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the fact that QI have concluded this is the last word on the subject. I believe the OED has done some research though, will try to find out.

Pish, tosh. Do you know any 'researchers'? If they didn't just Google or swipe it from Wikipedia, then I'll eat my hat. Rogerborg 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Rogerborg. Guffydrawers (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be easy to trace by searching the name of the dish in archived newpaper articles? I can't believe someone wouldn't have written about it back in the day. Maybe you could at least find when and where it originally became popular ...Thegallery (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The British TV program A History of Us did a large piece about this topic, including reporting that the origin is an Indian restaurant called Shish Mahal in Glasgow. It is attributed to Ali Mohammed whose father moved from the Punjab. "It was 1971, and Ali was suffering from a stomach ulcer and mainly eating soup...to add to his woes, one day a customer complained that his Chicken Tikka was too dry and Ali had to think quickly...the Chicken Tikka Masala was born and it was an instant hit." It goes on to say "More than half a dozen others also laid claim to the invention...but Ali's local MP was firmly behind his case, and even tried to get official recognition from the E.U." "He entered a motion in the parliament to recognize that the Chicken Tikka Masala came from Glasgow," said Ali's son. "It was our gift to the people of Great Britain, and that's what we're proud of." -OHB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.43.87 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to hear of the TV program. By the way, Early Day Motions are mostly pointless. Only very few actually get selected for debate in parliament. Sincere as this one may have been, it achieved absolutely nothing. An application for Protected Geographical Status should go to the European Commission, not to Westminster.
Guffydrawers (talk)

Pronunciation

The section on here about pronunciation seems a bit strange. Even if the Scots invented CTM they didn't coin the word "tikka".

Exile 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true that Scots never coined the word Tikka, however, the word has become anglicised in Scotland when refering to this particular dish. Tikka pronounced in the Scottish manner is perfectly legitimate, and is not an 'incorrect' pronunciation. Claims from south of the Scottish border that it is incorrect can be recieved quite badly in Scotland, so this section does seem useful or relevant.

Wikipedia is not a social anthropological bulletin board, so it's irrelevant. Neither is Wikipedia for original research, and it is unsupported by reference. That's two reasons to remove it, and so it's gone. Personally, as a native Scot living in Scotland (Glasgow, specifically), I have no problem with pronouncing it like a civilised human being. Any arguments in favour of accepting the gutteral gruntings of Rab C. Nesbitt as being representative of All True Scotchmen will be treated with the contempt that they deserve, as will your racist concern trolling. Rogerborg 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye right then, explain a couple things to me: Firstly, who gave you the right to say what pronunciation is civilized? And Racist? RACIST? Do you want to explain that one to me please?!

I am intrigued as to why there is such resistance to the Scottish pronunciation of Tikka being included on Wikipedia without including a horribly biased slant. If the culprit who keeps adding this slant could furnish me with some decent reasons why I would appreciate it.

It's irrelevant, and *you haven't provided a reference*. Are you having trouble understanding the basic idea of Wiki*pedia*? Rogerborg 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to be the judge of what is relevant, the reference is forthcoming.

I would have thought because tikka is an Indian word (meaning BBQ'd Chicken), as opposed to a Scottish word, the Indian pronunciation would be the correct one?58.170.76.132 10:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe if you have a read of the discussion page on the Tikka disambiguation page you will find lots of wonderful information explaining why in Scotland there is a perfectly acceptable and recognised alternative pronunciation.

Hello from a Glaswegian tikka lover. If I understand correctly, this section implies Scottish people pronounce tikka as 'tick-a'. I was quite surprised to see this - I've lost count of the number of chicken tikka masalas I've ordered over the years in Scotland and particularly in Glasgow and every time it's been mentioned (including by the owners of restaurants serving the dish) it has been pronounced 'tee-ka'. Any other pronunciation is spoken by a tiny minority. I propose to remove or amend this section to reflect the facts. Neil McKillop 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh so you have the authority to say beacause you do not hear people saying it only a minority do, do you? That seems quite conceited. This section may be edited to show that in Scotland the dish can be pronounced either way and that tick-a is certainly not a wrong pronunciation, as this does cause a great deal of irritation to people in Scotland who are attempted to be corrected by people with your outlook "ooh I haven't heard it pronounced like that before, it must be wrong". A discussion on this subject can be viewed in the discussion section of the Tikka disambiguation page. Oh yes, I almost forgot, I did not realise restaurant owners were philologists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.74.34 (talk) 09:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Cite an independent reference that confirms the claim, or GTFO. Rogerborg 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rogerborg is a florist.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Link Description

The text describing the "Spaghetti and meatballs" link at the bottom refers to the widely spread myth that Italians do not in fact know of the dish (generally accepted as untrue), does it belong here? Wallenberg (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Britains 'true national dish'. POV?

The intro states that it has been hailed as 'Britains true national dish' but i find this statement very POV as it was made by one politician in a deliberate attack on an opposition political party. I always thought wikipedia was meant to avoid personal opinions and this very much seems the case. I have no doubt about the huge popularity of Chicken Tikka Masala but from my experience very few people consider it a national dish on a par with fish and chips or Roast dinner, and anyway by this logic cornflakes could be considered a national dish as they are eaten by millions in the UK every day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.30 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable though, see a simple Google search. This is reflecting real-world practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But a quick look at the results only shows that it is a British dish which i do not contest, However i am syaing that it is not a national dish. The article itself states that it was a curry shop owner modifying an Indian dish to suit the British taste. The only comment that appears refering to it as a national dish is the one by Robin Cook and as the BBC article states this comment was made as an attack against the Conservatives. Thus i think that including that quote is POV. Would statements by Hitler on Jews be considered neutral if they were reported on the BBC?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.30 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not a reasonable arguement to make - it's an entirely different field of work. But, as it happens, the BBC meets the reliable source criteria and isn't publishing Hitler's comments as fact is it?

Furthermore, it was the British who went to India and asked them to thicken up their stews into sauces in the 18th and 19th centuries, to mimic British dishes, tastes and sensibilities (ie, more like gravies). Real or original Indian curries were not like modern dishes, and were informed by British migrants. There is much more behind the history of this dish than meets the eye.

Do you have a source that states CTM isn't Britain's national dish? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok well there won't be a source that would say that because after all unless it is a direct response to Robin Cook's comments then there'd be no point. However read the following telegraph article and you'll understand what i'm saying [1]. Can sushi honestly be considered the british national dish. After all in the same way as Chicken Tikka, it is very popular and has been modified for the British pallet. The same goes for McDonalds. Again very popular, modified slighty for Brits but never a national dish.

See also this [2] which highlights also how the whole Chicken Tikka Masala as Britains national dish debate was stired because of Robin Cook's comments. In fact notice how virtually every website that makes the statement that it is the 'true' national dish, just as RC said it. Also as you see google searches as valid sources compare [3] with this [4] or this [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.30 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chnaged the intro to now state that the quote came from one person (Robin Cook), so that it now reads as a political opinion rather than a widely held belief. Personally i see it as POV and think it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.30 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're underplaying the extent to which the "Britain's national dish" comment has widespread appeal. Clearly not everyone would accept it's Britain's national dish, but far more people subscribe to the idea than Robin Cook. It may not be right or correct, but it's clearly entered British discourse. I completely disagree that "virtually every website that makes the statement that it is the 'true' national dish (says it) just as RC said it", here are three links from a simple google search for the term "Britain's national dish" (all in the first couple of pages) which refer to it in general terms -

"By then, fish and chips was Britain's national dish, and remained so until chicken tikka masala pressed its competing charms." [6]

"Forget fish and chips -- curry is Britain's national dish" [7]

"Britain's national dish, according to the English Tourist Board, is - wait for it - not roast beef and apple sauce, but Indian curry" [8]

Roast beef and apple sauce? Surely that should read roast beef and horseradish sauce (or roast pork and apple sauce)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.137 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The last source even references the English Tourist Board as repeating the idea. Again, it may not be correct, but it has entered British discourse (unlike the idea that sushi is Britain's national dish).

No sources as to who invented it. Someone needs to make it clear that it is not clear, ironically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.67 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect quote

A quick browse of the internet shows that Robin Cook refered to it as 'a true national dish' and not 'Britain's true national dish'. The source may be BBC but it seems they are guilty of falsely editing the quote. See this Guardian article [9] for a transcript of Robin Cook's speech and in particular para 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.30 (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"A Bangladeshi restaurant in Glasgow"

This would be highly unlikely as the Bangladeshi community in Glasgow is miniscule. The vast majority of Glaswegians of South Asian descent are of Pakistani origin, and the vast majority of the remainder of the Indian Punjab. Moreover, I live no more than 200 yards from the restaurant in question, and can assure you it is Pakistani. Does anyone have access to the books that are cited as sources? Sounds to me like someone is projecting experience of London subcontinental restaurants (most of which are run by Bangladeshis) onto Glasgow (where very few are). I'm aware, incidently, that I'm challenging WP:RS with WP:OR, which counts for nought: I'm not suggesting that we remove the claim, merely that a) we ensure the sources actaully do verify the statement and b) do more research to see if there are any competing claims.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, source three (the Guardian article) makes no mention of Glasgow, nor to the "too dry" story generally: it merely makes a brief and off-the-cuff claim that the dish originated amongst the Bangladeshi community. Since source two (the BBC article) mentions only the Glasgow connection and source three the Bangledesi connection, I'm guessing the two have become conflated despite the fact they're actually competing claims. FrFintonStack (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin change possible flame war

A user, not logged in, changed the origin to say India alone. (Only one flag now.) Should this article be locked to prevent a flame war? I asked two of my friends in the United States today about this dish and they said it was British. They are both from India. This is a disputed issue and that section of where it came from should be locked until some evidence either way is submitted. 68.100.66.192 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Indian

An anonymous user from the UK at 95.150.13.249 decided to add the following to the Origins section:

"Despite there being no claim by the English that this dish is theirs, it appears in the Wikipedia pages on 'England' as being "Anglo-Indian" origin. This is part of the intrinsic arrogance of the English to presume / assume that all things British can be claimed to be English.[[10]]"

I have undone this edit as:
- the term Anglo-Indian includes citizens of all the parts of Great Britain. Please see the WP article or a good dictionary
- a comment on the article on England should be made within that article's talk page
- it is POV, without sources and offensive, so breaking multiple Wikipedia rules
- such comment does not belong in an encyclopedia article

Guffydrawers (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Paneer Tikka masala

WHY "Tikka masala" redirects here and why is there no article of Paneer Tikka Masala????? It is is paneer, it is vegetarian and it is totally Tikka Masala. I was eating that very often in India. ~ Storm

If you think an article should be in WP you can create it (subject to WP rules, of course). Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I see there now is an article on Paneer Tikka.
Guffydrawers (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Origins debate

We regularly get edits to this article querying how the dish originated - the only current cited claims are those of the origins in Punjab and Glasgow. I've often had discussions about this with Indian restaurant people in the UK and they tend to be of the view that it originated in England, with the consensus falling on either London or other restaurants. I also vividly recall a programme on TV about the history of curry (I think it was on Channel 4 about 15-20 years ago?) that featured two chefs in Luton, of English origins, who worked in an Indian diner and allegedly created the dish. I am just posting this by way of an appeal to see if anyone else recalls the show, has come across other stories/referenceable materials, etc? I am fairly sure the current information we have on it is incomplete and it would be good to have more. Post here if you know of other sources. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph asserting that the dish 'probably' originated in the Mughal Empire, a claim not backed up by the source cited. Please note that the Dubai Standard is not the true source of the text. The text is that of the Telegraph Online article from August 2009 already cited. Dubai Standard neither credits nor dates the article. Guffydrawers (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The owner of the restaurant in Glasgow is not Indian what so ever he hails from Pakistan so giving undue importance to Indian claims is invalid. South Asia is the appropriate word to include all claims. 86.145.74.129 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence from reliable sources to substantiate your claims that the restaurant and Balti cuisine are Pakistani. South Asia(n) seems fair where there is insufficient evidence that origins are attributable to a specific nation within the region. Thanks Guffydrawers (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

British Origin?

Noe-Colonialism is funny sometimes. I will have to study the sources, it's funny considering it's Mughal Origin from the family recipe of Zaeemuddin Ahmad of Karim Hotel in Delhi Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is hilarious. You complain about neo-colonialism (seriously?) yet reference the colonial Mughal empire. Funny shit. Also, how the hell would this even be considered something akin to colonialism when it's Indian & Bangladeshi people in the UK claiming it's their dish? --109.150.5.94 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Mughal Empire was based in India, it's capital was based in India, it's administration was in India, the British Empire was located in the Western fringes of Europe. If you are a Greek cook based in China, the food cook there based on your ancestors cuisines doesn't make it Chinese. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If a Greek cook based in China devises a dish based on his/her ancestors' cuisine then the place of origin of that specific dish is China - even if the dishes that it derived from originated in Greece, surely. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That is if he has done a new dish in China, but if he was cooking the same ancestral recipe it is not Chinese cuisine, the same way this is not a Scottish or British Cuisine Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture is actually Paneer Tikka Masala

The picture is actually not chicken tikka masala at all. It is paneer tikka masala. Someone zoom in and see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.130.53 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Which picture? If you mean Kelly Sue's photo, the one with chunks in it, then follow the link to the image source on Flickr and you'll see it's Chicken Tikka Masala she cooked herself from a magazine recipe. Guffydrawers (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2018‎‎ (UTC)

Using the word "masala" in "masala sauce" is redundant

The article states: "Chicken tikka masala is chicken tikka (chunks of chicken marinated in spices and yogurt) that is then baked in a tandoor oven, and served in a masala (spice mixture) sauce."

Apart from the fact that I'd change "baked" to "cooked" (bread is baked, but not meat), I propose changing this to simply "... and served in a sauce" or (better still) "... and served in a spicy creamy sauce".

The term "masala" refers to either a dry spice mix or a paste made out of various spices. All curries use one form of spice mix or another, therefore all curry sauces are "masala sauces". The use of the word "masala" is redundant. ["chicken tikka masala" is an odd name for the dish, since it literally means "chicken tikka spice mix", but that's another issue]

Also the first line of the article reads: "Chicken tikka masala is a dish of chunks of roasted marinated chicken (chicken tikka) in a spiced curry sauce." I'd say the word "spiced" is redundant here. All curry sauces use spices, that's what makes them curries. Saying "a spiced curry sauce" is like saying "a tomato-based ketchup" imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.137 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on your suggestions I have simplified the first paragraph of the Composition section. Feel free to edit the article yourself. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've changed things in the past and had them changed back, so I'm wary of this happening again. It just ends up in a childish tit for tat, so I prefer to just leave a comment on the Talk page and let people figure out for themselves how to best interpret the article. I'd change what you wrote though to: "Chicken tikka masala is composed of pieces of chicken tikka (boneless chunks of chicken marinated in spices and yogurt) that are cooked on a skewer in a tandoor (clay oven), then served in a creamy curry sauce." The tandoor clay oven is key to this dish because they reach very high temperatures that simply aren't possible using a conventional electric or gas oven (up to about 500 Celsius). This causes the meat to cook very quickly and char in places in the intense heat. Since no or very few meat juices come out of the chunks of chicken when cooking, I don't think roasting is the right word to use here, so I changed "roasted" to "cooked" above. I'm not entirely happy with "creamy curry sauce", but I can't put my finger on why exactly. It may have something to do with the fact that when I think of a curry sauce I generally think of a sauce that is various shades of brown depending on the dish, as opposed to the orange colour of this dish (or the yellow colour of chicken korma). That's why I originally wrote "spicy creamy sauce". Also is the footnote still valid now that the text has been changed? I don't have the book so I don't know what text in the book is being referenced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.137 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)