This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
The article states that the book doesn't contain recipes, citing an article in the Independent. That newspaper article does say that. However, throughout the book are presented historical recipes. They're not recipes that he wrote, but they're recipes nonetheless. 67.183.140.240 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think by one definition of recipe, The Independent may be right. The book describes, rather roughly, processes of how to make certain dishes, but never applies the language of "2½ cups of this, 1 tespoon of that.." Could you suggest a better way to phrase it? MURGHdisc. 11:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
How about "Does not contain recipes in the traditional sense"? - Redmess (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
