Talk:Mulligatawny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I don't think mulligatawny is a non-vegetarian dish. KRS 02:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I hope rewrite has cleared up the confusion - it is two different things. Justinc 00:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But how can it be an Indian recipe and include beef? My recipies for Mulligatawny are all chicken recipies, not beef. Cows are sacred in India! --WiseWoman 15:09, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

read the article, it is an Indian vegetarian recipe in India, adapted by the British into a beef recipe. The British in India didnt particularly respect the local customs (cf Indian Mutiny. I have never seen a chicken version, that sounds very peculiar indeed. Justinc 1 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
  • Wisewoman, you are forgetting the provenance of mulligatawny ;) It is Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Indians love beef. India is a secular country and Muslims, Christians etc are free to slaughter and eat cows. And they do. Poweroid 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicken version here: http://www.recipezaar.com/4891 Bwithh 16:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, one could make an octopus version if one cared; it's simply a matter of substituting the meat :) Poweroid 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I disliked the branding of the commercial tinned soup, so have removed it.--Timdownie 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Seinfield

The reference to multligatawny achieving fame through some American program called Seinfield is a completely unnecessary reference. Others have deleted it but it keeps reappearing. Any claim of the program bestowing "lasting fame" on the dish is ludicrous. Most people in the rest of the world have never heard of the program much less seen this particular episode. Poweroid 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No way! I know I'm late for this discussion, but if somebody'll listen, it's a very important reference in popular culture. And besides it's not "some American show", it's a very well known TV show, I mean it's even popular here in Argentina. Slartibartfast1992 17:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Seinfeld was quite a prominent show here in the United States, but a reference to the dish in a single episode of the series would not give and has not given mulligatawny "lasting fame" as the article claims. Moreover, such an assessment is subjective, and I do not feel it fits in an article on Wikipedia. Though awareness of the existence of a soup called mulligatawny may have increased, I sincerely doubt a reference in a single episode of Seinfeld has given it lasting fame. Do you have any sources for this claim? --V2Blast 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First time I learned about Mulligatawny was from the Seinfield episode I happened to see in a hotel while being on a business trip. This made me to look it up and now I intend to cook and try it. Is the Seinfield episode relevant to the name? You tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.231.238 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call this an article?

As far as I can see, there is no mention of beef in the article, which is usually the main ingredient of the soup. Furthermore the one reference link is to an innacurate recipe for a version of the dish which seems to have every ingredient replaced with the common contents of a New York Italian deli. It's not even an Americanised version of the soup, it's an obscure local NYC creation with the same name. If this is Mulligatawny then spag boll is authentic Italian cuisine, someone please find a more appropriate reference and someone please give a clearer definition of the soup. --JamesTheNumberless 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this article. It says right off that it is an "Anglo-Indian dish" but then refers to its "Anglo-Indian adaptation." The whole description is muddled and conveys little sense or information. I still have no idea what Mulligatawny is and whether I want order it delivery from this restaurant.

Maybe you understand the article but don't under Mulligatawny ;-) The problem is that recipes for the dish vary widely and there's no way of telling what your local takeaway's version will be like. Unless you order it, of course. Poweroid 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld again

Look, I know peole working on this article have disagreed against it, but because you wouldn't answer me in the previous discussion about this, I'm reopening it. First reason to add the Seinfeld popular reference to mulligatawny: It will expand the article. Second reason: It will do no harm. Just one paragraph, a new section called "popular references" or "cultural references" and that's it. Third reason: Cultural references are important for every article. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore must provide most pieces of relevant information. So, as if this was not obvious enough, I state my conclusion: Add a "cultural references" section and list the Seinfeld reference. Does anybody disagree? Slartibartfast1992 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no problem with that, as long as it doesn't claim mulligatawny has received "lasting fame" as a result. --V2Blast 23:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. Feel free to remove that bit if it ever pops up. Slartibartfast (1992) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Handling trivia: "Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir lands on Kenny McCormick, killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir." Similarly: in the Seinfeld episode "The Soup Nazi," Mulligatawny is a speciality of a character. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to The Soup Nazi, and not very important to Mulligatawny. This piece of information has no place in this article - it's not relevant. No other encyclopedia has information about Seinfeld in their entry on Mulligatawny, and neither should we. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Whatever, I was just trying to add some cultural references to this incredibly short article. Barely notable soup, if you ask me. I'm actually starting to consider an AfD discussion for this article. There are certainly no references to prove its notability. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)