Talk:Elizabeth David/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wootton Manor

This is described by the listings people as "Country house. Mid C17 farmhouse on site of mediaeval manor house (C14 masonry in north west wing) greatly enlarged by Detmar Blow...", which is not really the same as a "Jacobean manor house" (James I died in 1625). here Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be from Artemis Cooper. William Avery (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

POV?

David was an eloquent and intelligent but difficult woman who inspired both fear and adoration. She had many, many friends but could be a monster. She suffered a stroke that incredibly led to a loss of the sense of taste and affected her libido. This heralded the troubled final years before her 1992 death at her Chelsea home, where she had lived for forty years.

This paragraph sounds awfully POV to me. Are there any sources for it? Perodicticus 09:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The stroke bit checks out: "The little tiny malign blow which wrecked my sense of taste has also put an end (some might think high time too) to any interest I might still have had in sex" - p233, Writing at the Kitchen Table : The Authorized Biography of Elizabeth David by Artemis Cooper. Tearlach 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tearlach. I've removed the stuff about her personality until it can be better attested, and phrased the stroke bit more neutrally (it isn't 'incredible' for a stroke to affect the senses; in fact it's pretty common). Perodicticus 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we know when exactly Elizabeth David had her stroke? FB

Yep:

"A life marked by emotional pain was touched by tragedy of a bleaker sort in 1963 when David suffered a stroke. At 49, she was a heavy drinker, but still young to be so afflicted. Although she recovered, in a cruel twist of fate she was left unable to taste salt. Ill-health would dog her for the rest of her life".

Hot in the kitchen, Sunday Herald, 15 January 2006 (and confirmed by official biography via Amazon.com inside-book search). I've put it into the correct place in the chronology; the biography is also explicit that the stroke was of the cerebral hemorrhage variety and likely to be related to alcohol abuse. Tearlach 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Edits

Have removed speculative sentence on both ED's ancestry and her Uncle, Roland Gwynne. The Gwynne's owned land in Ireland (see the biography of ED by Lisa Cheney), but there is no evidence to suggest that they were necessarily Irish. Gwynne is also a distinctly Welsh name. Roland Gwynne certainly knew Bodkin Adams well (they were good friends), and he was certainly homosexual, but there is no direct evidence to link them as lovers. Cullen merely suggests the possibility, and such a suggestion is too speculative for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• The bio of David may say she was of Welsh stock, but that's because it didn't investigate the issue, it just believed what was commonly claimed by the Gwynnes (the Irish were looked down upon in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so it sounded nicer to claim one was Welsh in aristocratic circles). Cullen is quite explicit that the Gwynnes were Irish, and provides evidence. As for "such a suggestion is too speculative for Wikipedia", no it is not. This is not a bio of a living person, so such speculation is ok from reliable sources. Cullen seems reliable. Hence, it is fair to hesitantly say Roland "may have been a lover of suspected serial killer Dr John Bodkin Adams" as the article currently does. Note the word may. Malick78 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Chaney's and Artemis Cooper's biographies of ED (and also Jessica Douglas-Home's of Violet Gordon Woodhouse) plainly discuss the Dutch, Scottish and, yes, Sumatran ancestry of ED. The Dutch and Sumatran lines came through her paternal grandmother's line, the Scottish through her maternal line. I have referenced Lisa Chaney's biography at the appropriate point, but one could add the other two as well. Further clarification can be found at the Purvis family genealogical website, http://www.purvisfamilytree.com/, which appears to be an excellent resource for elements of this family. The Dutch, Scottish and Sumatran lines are, from a genetic viewpoint, equally or more influential than the Irish ancestry that Cullen writes about, and thus should not be omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please give edit summaries for your work, then it's more obvious if you are serious or not. As for refs, they should go in-line - not at the end of a sentence if they do not refer to the whole sentence. Furthermore, the Purvis website would seem to be self-published which isn't a good source (also, you gave the homepage - not a particular page with the info you refer to. Editors can't search the whole site...). Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Purvis website was merely a useful link that I though might be helpful. It does appear to be self-published, but much of the genealogical data on the site relevant to ED can be pulled from the UK Public Records office online. Anyway, this is slightly moot, as plenty of this kind of research was done for the Chaney, Cooper and Douglas-Home books. Citing them is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The Dutch and Sumatran lines came through her paternal grandmother's line, the Scottish through her maternal line." Well, having checked pages 5-6 of LC's book, it says that David's great-great-great-grandmother was Sumatran. That's 3.125% of her, isn't it? I guess we can say it's not important. As for "maternal line", not as far as I can tell from LC - Stella Ridley was English. The Scottish came from David's paternal great-grandparents (John (actually born in Ireland - see Cullen p623) and Agnes Gwynne) and grandmother (May Purvis, "not pure Scottish"). In future, could you please give page numbers for your refs? Other editors may desire to double check them and it'd be easier... Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do some rudimentary research on Wikipedia, you'll see that ED's maternal grandmother was Mary Georgiana Marjoribanks (1850 – 14 March 1909), who was the son of Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks, 1st Baron Tweedmouth, which is a Scottish title. The Marjoribanks are also a lowland Scottish clan. So, there are in fact Scottish roots on both sides of ED's family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.55 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Home economist

I thought she wanted to be known as a home economist, not a chef. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Olive oil from chemists

I am sceptical about her having to recommend buying olive oil from the pharmacy. French Country Cooking p 219, in a chapter on store ingredients entitled The Larder, recommends San Remo brand olive oil, which it notes can be bought from Delmonico's in Old Compton Street. The next entry refers to Almond Oil, which it says can be purchased "at chemists'". I wonder if some conflation has occurred here.

Later, in her 1987 introduction to Italian Food David recalled that "The purchase of a supply of olive oil, [...] entailed a bus trip to the Italian provision shops of Soho", not the chemist. William Avery (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But olive oil (BP - medical grade) was certainly avilable from chemists, and more easily obtainable there for the vast majority of the population, who were not within bussing range of Old Compton St. I'm not sure how old you are, and there is an element of mythology now around David, but I grew up in a house where initially the only olive oil was in a bottle of about 200 ml from a chemists, which I think was used for cooking for a transitional period. The article does not say she recommended buying olive oil from a chemists, merely that that is what her readership had to do, which is true. She was initially known through her columns in papers, & her books came later. Katherine Whitehorn's Cooking in a Bedsitter is (probably early editions only) a period piece which fully brings out the difficulties still experienced in this area in 1961, never mind the 50s. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But the article does say "David had to suggest looking for olive oil in pharmacies". I'm not old enough to remember, so the chapter on where to obtain ingredients in French Country Cooking strikes me as a valuable historical document. She does suggest buying olive oil (and VitBe dried wheatgerm) in Boots in English Bread and Yeast Cookery (1977), but I suspect that by that time these were being stocked as "health foods". I agree that this story could relate to a magazine article, hence my request for a citation. William Avery (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WA: Not everyone lived within a bus ride of Soho and there a recommendation as to where to get even the most purified and bland olive oil woud have been welcome to those fruitlessly searching for ingredients. Elizabeth David was "comfortably financed" and had upper-class connections to supply her with produce from the country. She could likewise afford to buy anything she wished to eat - including numerous experments to get a dish right - and to import for herself stuff like olive oil and wine direct from the continent at a time when this was prohibitively expensive. But she was aware that few had this option and that for the vast majority of her readership (which was predominantly upper-middle-class and youthful), ear-syringing gloop from the chemist was the best you could do.

The food available retail in the UK is taken for granted today. It is a very modern phenomena: up until the 80s the range of food available to your average Brit, urban or rural, was very narrow and it wasn't until most had access to big supermarkets (because of the explosion in out-of-town shopping in the early 80s) that stuff like olive oil became a standard food item rather than an esoteric luxury. Those supermarkets that existed before this were invariably an adaptation of 1 or 2 average-sized grocer's shop and stocked not much more than the usual post-war foods. The large chains were nothing like the size they are now and although they did stock a wider variety of food it was nothing like what is seen today.

I know it seems incredible to those born after the mid 80s but up until then, most urban Brits shopped at the local 'parade' where the butcher, bakers, grocers, (and until the late 60s, dairies) etc provided for most needs. For rural dwellers, there would be a single village shop and shop's vans from the town doing rounds with their meat or fish or greengrocery. This extended to things other than food - the local ironmonger and haberdasher supplied nails an socks although there would probably be an big annual shop in the nearest city or provincial centre, maybe at a department store. For families, this would be usually in late August, to get shoes and school stuff etc.

Anyway, olive oil was - until well into the 80s and probably beyond - considered by many older Brits to be something you used to syringe ears and lubricate bowels with and it was indeed sold by Boots, Timothy White's etc. I know that if you went on holiday to Cornwall in the 70s (where the food shops - and the standard of dining out generally - were then quite possibly the worst in the UK during its worst ever modern culinary period other than immediately post-war) and wanted to buy olive oil to make a dressing for the crabs or mussels you'd picked up from the picturesque but sewage-washed beaches ("Why don't the locals eat this stuff?" my parents would muse), then unless you bought your own, that's where you got it from.

Tl:dr version: We fried Spam in lard (pocked with burnt bits) and boiled spuds to grey lumps and smeared them with marge and considered ourselves well fed. We knew no better. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes! You try to tell today's young people (and some middle-aged ones) and they just don't believe you. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I've added info, refs and images (quadrupling the size of the article), and put it up for peer review. All comments gratefully received. It would be good to get the great and good Mrs D on the front page. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I added some material to the Lead. The first paragraph was just one line long, and this expansion is also an attempt to give a better "flavour" of David's importance. Please revise if this should be refocused. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Overtagging

This article should not be tagged with "place" projects like London and France. It is not about places. The other tags currently on the article seem reasonably related to the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth David/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 27, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed in the GA Review comments themselves. Thank you!
2. Writing quality is quite good, however I'd recommend posting requests for previously uninvolved copyeditors to WP:GOCE and also to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. A few other recommendations as well:
3. One-sentence-long-paragraph as first paragraph in the lede/intro, please could this perhaps be expanded and/or merged?
4. Also, one-sentence-long-paragraph as last paragraph in intro/lede, maybe this could be merged or expanded upon?
5. Italian, French and other cuisines - overly long blockquote, perhaps this quote could be trimmed down, or even just paraphrased?
6. 1960s - another big blockquote, could this be paraphrased, or at least trimmed?
7. Awards and legacy - subsection ends with long quote, perhaps this could be trimmed, or paraphrased?
8. Books - this section might be more aptly named, Works, even if it's only books, it's more standardized that way.
9. Portals - perhaps {{Portal bar}} could be used, to add relevant portals as a footer template at the bottom of the article?
10. See also sect - missing. Perhaps a See also sect could be added, with relevant links to perhaps between three and five articles of relevance to the reader?
11. Further reading - missing. Maybe a Further reading sect could be added, to suggest to the reader books or scholarly journal articles or the like, if the reader is interested in more info on the topic?

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Duly cited throughout.
2. However, a few cites are missing key info.
3. I'd suggest using WP:CIT templates to help fill in more info. For example, cites 66, 67, 73 and 74 are missing author fields, publisher fields, accessdates, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: article is indeed thorough and broad in scope.

4. Neutral point of view?: article is written in a neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability?

1. Stability questionable. See further specific questions below.
2. I'm noting problems in the edit history as of 6 May 2013. Appears to be stable since then, but perhaps these could be please elaborated upon and explained as to what happened?
3. Talk page inspection shows no problems going back a significant amount of time.

6. Images?:

1. Image check of the following images:
2. File:Elizabeth-David.jpg - a free use alternative could be obtained. Would it be possible to attempt to contact copyright holder of relevant images, and try to convince them to release license by a free use license like Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0?
3. File:Elizabeth Gwynne (David) 1923.jpg - free use licensed, but could this image please be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and have more information fields filled out with the information template?
4. File:Norman Douglas.jpg - image on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out okay.
5. File:David-mediterranean.jpg - fair use rationale asserted, but shouldn't really be used on this article. It's okay as fair use for the article about the book, but not really for the article about the author. The textual descriptions are sufficient here.
6. File:Elizabeth David gravestone.JPG - image on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out alright.

NOTE: Please respond, below, and not interspersed in the GA Review comments, above. Thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses

1

1. Noted, and, as you see, duly acted on.
2. Peer review already carried out, with contributions from, inter alia, User:Brianboulton, who has 69 Featured Articles to his credit, to my mere 19.
3. I find it uncomfortable when sentences of little mutual relevance are forced together to avoid the superstition that single-sentence paragraphs are necessarily a bad thing. Fowler, Gowers and other guides have no truck with the notion.
4. Para is in fact two sentences.
5. Happily, the length of the quote is, by concidence, the same as that of the example given at Template:Quote box; so I think we can take it that it meets WP standards.
6. This is a long quote, though I don't think anyone objected to it at peer review. I have pruned it; it is now shorter than the example at Template:Quote box.
7. I don't think it is possible to cut this without distorting it. I think it makes a ringing peroration to the whole article. Interestingly, it is, in fact, shorter than the earlier block quotation in the "France, Greece and Egypt" section, to which you have not objected.
8. As they are books I prefer the more precise term. "Works" would be misleading, unless I added the many hundreds of articles ED published over her career.
9. I do not know what this means, but if you think it would be helpful please don't hesitate to add it.
10. Nothing leaps to mind. I have, naturally, used the most relevant publications as references, and one doesn't want duplicate mentions of them.
11. I avoid "further reading" lists these days, as they have provoked at FAC the very reasonable question, "If they are worth reading, why haven't you referred to them in your article?"

2.

1. Noted
2. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to identify the examples to which you take exception.
3. I have steered my solo FAs and GAs through without recourse to the citation template. When collaborating I have occasionally had to use them, and I find they don't help accuracy, but just take twice as long as doing the job oneself. Happily, the matter remains one of personal choice – for the present, anyway, though I fear the worst.

3. Noted

4. Noted

5.

1. See below.
2. An inexperienced but good-faith editor adding uncited material. Now amicably sorted out (and cited).
3. Noted.

6

1. See below
2. Having checked with the British Library and the London Library, I am satisfied that no free-use image exists. The one used is a very well-known image of Mrs David – one might almost say the image – and it would indubitably be a waste of time to ask the copyright holder to release the rights.
3. By all means, if anyone has the expertise to do so. The template on the image page would deter me, but I know next to nothing about Commons except that it can be relied on to let you down, as I have repeatedly learned to my cost when image reviews at FAC have revealed that images ought not to have been in Commons at all.
4. Noted
5. I seem to recall this was glanced at at PR. Image removed.
6. Noted.

I think the above covers all the points you raise. Happy to expand, if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article Review passed

GA Review passed. Thanks very much for such helpful responsiveness to the points raised, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone rectify this mistake in the article? I'm not sure what it is meant to say - but I am certain that Elizabeth David did not start WWII.

"She started the War having to flee the German occupation."

"Fleeing the German occupation at the beginning of World War II"

89.243.57.167 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This has already been corrected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Alcoholism

ED was a heavy drinker throughout her life and some sources suggest that the last decade of her life was a period of uncontrolled alcoholic decline. There is no mention of this in the article, which comes across as distinctly reverential. ED's gastronomic importance would not be diminished by an honest and open description of her darker side. --Ef80 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Some reliable sources for this asseveration? Not substantiated in the sources cited. Tim riley talk 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have RS to hand, or I would have edited the article myself. I would simply ask that an editor more familiar with ED's life than I am adds this information. The obits published after her death don't mention the drinking, but they are understandably reticent and respectful - ED was something of an icon, after all. I don't think the heavy drinking is in serious dispute although the chronic alcoholism may be. --Ef80 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the ODNB or either of the biographies suggesting "uncontrolled alcoholic decline". Tim riley talk 06:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wootton Manor

This is described by the listings people as "Country house. Mid C17 farmhouse on site of mediaeval manor house (C14 masonry in north west wing) greatly enlarged by Detmar Blow...", which is not really the same as a "Jacobean manor house" (James I died in 1625). here Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be from Artemis Cooper. William Avery (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And the architectural term refers to a style which continued after the eponymous monarch's death, rather than being a strictly chronological term. See Jacobean_architecture#History_and_examples. William Avery (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Barely - that's a very poor article I hope to get round to rewriting. It doesn't stretch to "mid-century". Cooper has no claim to be an architectural historian, unlike her dad. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. "Mannerist" is the term used by www.parksandgardens.org. 20:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No sign of a justification for thatin the detailed description. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: This entry by Historic England has some considerable detail on the property. It seems that it was in the ownership of Mary Priccilla Gwynne-Longland, the eldest daughter of Rupert Gwynne and sister of Elizabeth. She died in 2002 according to this. Her eldest daughter, Sabrina Harcourt-Smith (the mother of Ed Harcourt) is the current owner. Karst (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520095929/http://radcliffe.edu/schles/subjects.aspx to http://www.radcliffe.edu/schles/subjects.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See this comment about dates of her influence

I've written a bit about the way the bibliography suggests her influence came later than it did in reality. This is because she was on radio and grainy old tv long before the books were published. See the full spiel on talk:Elizabeth David bibliography. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

She did next to no television or radio. See her information on the BBC schedules (from 1923 onward) for the few ocassions she was on. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What's more, she returned to England in June 1946, and published A Book of Mediterranean Food in 1950, and the article already says she was writing articles in Harper's Bazaar in 1949. So there wasn't a huge amount of time available in any event for any activity before then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a gentle note to that effect on the bibliography talk page. Tim riley talk 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree print journalism was much more important than broadcasting. Hardly anyone saw early tv anyway, especially from David's audience. Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"had an impact on" vs "influenced"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:SchroCat has twice reverted my alteration of "had an impact on" to "influenced" and the following colon/lowercase letter to a semicolon/capital letter. He referred to my version as "awful", cited WP:BRD (with no indication of irony) and asked me to comment on this page. Well...

To "have an impact on" public opinion is a lazy and imprecise metaphor, seeing as "impact" is a physical event and public opinion is non-physical. Besides, what was the "impact"? Did David increase/decrease/change the discussion, or did she, um, influence it? It was clearly the latter, so why not say so, instead of using a cliched and less exact phrase? As for the semicolon, it's not a right/wrong issue of grammar, but a semicolon better separates two sentences, while keeping the semantic link between the two statements. A colon implies that one clause is lesser, but we have two statements, the first is a summary and the second is a detailed exemplification. Either would stand alone, without the other: hence, a semicolon is more appropriate.

Ewen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you should have kept to BRD (when you were initially reverted, you should have come to the talk page, not tried to force it back in.

"Had an impact on" and "influenced" are not synonymous. Close, ocassionally synonymous, but not the same, and in this case, she more than influenced things. I see you have gone through many articles in removing the term from articles, regardless of what the text may or may not say (your removals are so quick, it's just not possible to have read the article to make sure you're doing the right thing, rather than just having a bee in your bonnet about a particular phrase). The problem with editors who just don't like particular phrases is that they cannot see tha there are times wherethe are suitable, and times we they are not. This is in the latter category.

I called "awful" your decision to drop capital letters into the middle of sentences and spaces around dashes where there should be none: I have no idea why you thought it was a good thing to do, but making formatting and text inconsistent (particularly on an article that has been through a couple of reviews relatively recently) just because you prefer something different isn't good practice. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As you also reverted my edit then perhaps BRD was also something you could have observed? Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet about "had an impact on" as a phrase. It's shit, literally; the first things that i think of as "impacted" are faeces. You do presume that I can't assess an article in the time I take to edit the phrase, so; Did Elizabeth David "more than influence" food culture? In what way? How does "had an impact on" better describe her effect than "influence"? Obviously she could not literally have had an impact on an abstraction such as culture, any more than I can use a hammer on the concept of "society", so why use this cliched, verbose metaphor when there is a simple, clear and precise alternative - "influence"? Ewen (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the phrase doesn't mean it should be expunged. If you want to know about her impact, then read the article. I have no idea why you think of shit when you hear the word "Impact", but that's a different kettle of fish. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it because there is usually a less verbose and more precise word or phrase. I read the article, obviously, and there was little about her literally hitting anyone or anything. She did affect, influence and inspire people, though. As for the other "matter" then I suggest you educate yourself by reading Fecal impaction. Ewen (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of fecal impact, but that is not the sole connection to the term any more than "hitting anyone or anything" is. I suggest you refer to a good dictionary for further details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So you are aware of fecal impaction, but you 'have no idea why [I] think of shit when [I] hear the word "Impact"'? A "good dictionary" also includes the word "disingenuous", you know. Anyway, I still see no good reason to use the tortuous metaphorical phrase "had an impact on" when the simple verb "influenced" is clearer and more exact. Ewen (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because there are many other things to which impact is connected; I still don't know why "shit" should be the first thing that comes to your mind. Other words in the dictionary include tangential, tiresome and misguided, if you want to play silly games, but at the end of the day, David had more than an influence: she had an impact. Once you understand the two terms are not synonymous we can move on. Again, the dictionary would come in handy for you about now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Another outbreak of tin-eared pedantry. The two phrases have different nuances, but those with monomaniac obsessions fail, as usual, to detect them. This sort of thing is wearyingly familiar. I've just checked Fowler and the OED, not that there was any need. Tim riley talk 19:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So, SchroCat, you think "impact" means "influence" but... more so? I'm not sure everyone would agree. Besides, I never said "had an impact on" was synonymous with "influenced" but rather that "influenced" more exactly described David's effect on culture. Well, a clear way to say "more than an influence" would be "great influence", "substantial influence" or so on. An "impact", on the other hand, not only means (metaphorically) an "effect" but also implies a negative effect, and also refers to physical, destructive collision: and that's confusing and imprecise language. Ewen (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't say that, there is a none-too-subtle difference between what I said and how you have re-phrased it. Either way, the point appears to be moot: the consensus seems to be against you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ewen may be shaky about vocabulary, but he is a record-breaking speed reader if, as he claims, he actually read the article - between 20:44 and 20:46 yesterday as his edit history reveals. Tim riley talk 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, you do assume that I had no prior knowledge of Elizabeth David. Would *you* care to enlighten us why her "influence" was actually an "impact"? SchroCat has failed to offer any substantial explanation on this point. Ewen (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't assume anything, or seek to challenge your good faith. If you say you read the article before making your change I should not dream of calling you a liar. I congratulate you on being able to read 10,000 words in two minutes. Tim riley talk 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Much as I congratulate you on avoiding the key question: In what way is her "influence" better described as an "impact"? Ewen (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not seen the phrase deprecated in any style guides, so it would seem to be somebody's pet hate. Furthermore, "positive impact" is a common enough combination, cringemaking in some contexts, but evidence enough that not all impacts are negative. Mere "influence" is weak, though ED could be termed "influential". Her influence extended to something akin to "citation impact". I wonder if we are now to consider that too a banned phrase? William Avery (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ewen, you delude yourself about the "key question". The key question is whether we are to take notice of a drive-by bulk edit. The question of whether your pet phrase is better than the existing wording is not a key question, or indeed a question that need detain us further. It is already answered, and we have wasted enough time on your King Charles's head. Tim riley talk 20:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, William. Yes, it's a pet hate of mine but that does not make it wrong. I would say that "positive impact" implies that, in general, "impacts" are not "positive", or at least they have to be qualified as being "positive" or "negative". In which case, why shoehorn a noun into the phrase "had an impact on" and not use the verb "influenced"? You say "influence" is weak, but how are we to measure and justify the extent of someone's influence?

And just because it's a pet hate of yours does not make it right. If it is acceptable in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, then it seems to be that the arguments against are little more that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, perhaps I missed it, or perhaps you avoided it again, but in what way is her "influence" better described as an "impact"? Ewen (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For somebody who can read 5,000 words a minute, Ewen, you seem to be remarkably inept at reading everything above in this thread. You think "influence" is better than "impact". Nobody else does. Everyone is out of step except you. Let's have no more of this tiresome distraction. Tim riley talk 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, you haven't seen the number of edit "thanks" I have from replacing "have an impact" phrases with "influence", "affect" etc (they outnumber the reverts by I-can't-be bothered-to-count to 1) so I'd just sit back down on that point, Tim and SchroCat. I notice that, populism aside, you still avoid answering my question. Ewen (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you can't call consensus and close a conversation when it's simply two vs one and the two can't explain a simple, key question. Ewen (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Edit warring to re-open something that's closed...? Jeez... Despite your lose grip of maths, three four people don't see it as an improvement, and you arethe only one pushing for a change. Where it is used in this article, "had an impact on" is more appropriate than "influenced". - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Impact and influence are synonyms. There is no reason to simply impose your preferred term for one that is already in an article, especially an FA. Certainly, once you make a suggested change and one of the article's regular editors resist the change, WP:BRD requires you to go to the Talk page to see if you can raise a new WP:CONSENSUS, rather than simply edit war for your preferred version. It is clearly nonsense to say that impact suggests a negative impact any more than that influence suggest a negative influence. Your campaign to make this change to your preferred phrase is simply a power play: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. ... The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat: Closed in your opinion. "more appropriate" in your opinion. (Loose grip of maths versus "lose" grip of spelling? Let's not go there.) Prepared to justify either of those opinions? ... Not so much. Well, you can co-opt William to your side if you want to make three but "correct" isn't always democratic, you know? I'd respect an argument that said "we need four vague words in place on one exact word because..." but I'm not seeing that, and I'm still waiting.

Ssilvers - the article's regular editors do not own the article any more than you or I do. I've not edit-warred the content (it is currently the "had an impact" version) and you will note that I started this section of the Talk page. No, "impact" and "influence" or not synonyms (A bullet did not "influence" JFK's skull in Dallas...) though their meaning can overlap: this is why I contend that "influenced" is clearer and more concise than "had an impact on" - "had an impact" has a greater range of meaning than "influenced".

Ewen (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can do this in words of one syllable, but trying to get it into Ew-en's brain that there is no need for a-ny-one to just-if-y the ori-gin-al word-ing: it is for Ew-en to just-i-fy a change and he has-n't. It is only a 'key question' on planet Ewen. Tim riley talk 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious now. As you seem unable to accept the fact that four people disagree with you (yes, four), then we'll say external sources say she had an impact on food culture [1], [2], [3] and The Times obit. You can keep banging your drum as much as you want, but in this case its use is justified and is backed up by the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can Pat-tro-nise you too, Tim. Does that help the dis-cus-sion? Or should I keep it mo-no-syl-la-bic? Now, seeing as we are talking about reverting the edit of "influenced" for "had an impact on" then it would seem to be the key point, eh? My contention is that a single, exact word is an improvement on a four-word, cliched and vague phrase. I did say that before and invited anyone to explain why my choice of words was not better. So far, not a lot.

SchroCat - it says nothing that some sources choose to use the phrase you prefer, when there may be a better, clearer choice of words. You still have not said anything in favour of "had an impact on" than "lots of people like it". Lots of people like [insert popular but stupid choice here] Ewen (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Google has '"elizabeth david" influenced "food culture"' at 16,500 hits and '"elizabeth david" "had an impact on" "food culture"' at 135: 134 not including Wikipedia. Ewen (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have crossed over into tendentious levels of comment here. You are not listening to what people are saying, and refusing to accept the consensus that is developing; you are also mischaracterising what I have written. Your campaign to remove this phrase that, in the case of this article is supported by the text and reliable sources is misguided and increasingly disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck what a Google search says: unreliable sources, personal sites and uninformed drivel. Yes, she influenced other chefs (particuarly modern ones), but she had an impact on food culture. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm "Tendentious" but you don't give a "flying fuck". Hmm. Anyway, you started throwing the weight of numbers around with your references, I just thought I'd lend some objectivity to that line of argument. Sorry if it didn't work out in your favour. I listen to what you're saying but at no point have you, or anyone else, said why "influenced" is not an improvement on "had an impact on". I've not reverted your last edit, or tried to shut down this discussion (which I began). How "disruptive" is that? Ewen (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the wording you have to establish a consensus. You haven't. To borrow Attlee's remark to Harold Laski, "a period of silence on your part would be welcome". Tim riley talk 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"you started throwing the weight of numbers around with your references": nope. Nothing about weight of numbers of references, but the quality of references. There is a massive dfference between the two, and you need to try and understand that: there is no objectivity in throwing numbers without looking at what they actually show, and the raw numbers show absolutely nothing. It's comparing apples and pandas. "at no point have you, or anyone else, said why "influenced" is not an improvement on "had an impact on": nope. several people have provided examples, source and support as to why she did more than "influence" food culture. You have provided nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT to try and change the status quo as part of an ongoing campaign you have, in which you know nothing about a subject, but are hapy to change the phrase without looking into sources or circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, you will notice that I have left the wording alone, though you have consistently failed to justify that wording. As for consensus, I would quote Dick Tuck.

SchroCat, you still have said nothing more than, in your opinion, "impact" is synonymous with "great influence" without considering that "impact" has other meanings and that its use in the phrase "had an impact on" is clumsy, imprecise and cliched compared to "influenced" Ewen (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have not said that. You, however, have said little more than '"had an impact on" is clumsy, imprecise and cliched compared to "influenced"': that's your opinion and carries no weight against both the status quo and the consesus against you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Arithmetic isn't Ewen's strong suit any more than Eng Lang is. I cannot quickly count how many times we have explained to him that nobody is required to justify the existing wording, but that he is required to justify and gain support for a change. In the absence of any hint of that his editing is now becoming a distraction bordering on disruption, it seems to me. 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Arithmetic would suggest that just 1% of 16500 sources using "influenced" is greater than the 135 using "had an impact on", you know? I appreciate that "nobody is required to justify the existing wording" which is (a) why I have left it as it is and (b) why nobody has actually justified it (I guess). You're free to leave the wording as it is, obviously. Ewen (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, raw numbers are little to do with things. Quality over quantity is key, context equally so. The problem with the monomaniacal obsession in swapping out a disliked phrase for a preferred word is that it doesn't take context or quality of source into account. Time to move on, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you did say that "David had more than an influence: she had an impact" so I took that to mean "great influence". As I said, Oswald's bullet had "more than an influence" on JFK's skull, but that's probably not what you mean by "impact" in this context, right? So why not use a word that nobody can misinterpret? Like "influence"?

As for "raw numbers". Yes, there are a few sources which use the phrase "had an impact" but there are many more that say "influenced" (e.g. Daily Telegraph obit). So, the consensus seems to be against you there. Ewen (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

JFK has nothing to do with this, neither does that one definition of impact. As I've advised before: use a fucking dictionary to see that "impact" has more uses than your rather narrow interpretation. Your refusal to acknowledge that it is used in this context in a way acknowledged by the dictionary is bordering on trolling now.

Oh dear. I see that just changing a phrase is about as much as you can manage: it certainly isn't judging sources or how to use term. As I have already said (more than once I think), yes she influenced. She also had an impact on. Time for you to stop being quite so tendentious here and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Both are rather vague but sometimes inevitable words or phrases. "Impact" is at least less common. As someone writing on art history, i have an automatic distrust of "influenced", often a sign of a poor grasp of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, SchroCat, there is a definition of "impact" that is relevant to your case but there are other ways to use the word. Can you say the same of "influence"? No. Is "had an impact on" more concise than "influenced"? No. Why use a vague phrase when a more concise and exact word can be substituted? Ewen (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

FFS, this is getting utterly tiresome. Let me try again: "influenced" is not more concise or exact than "impact". That's just your opinion, nothing more. "Influenced" is a hackneyed, imprecise and overused word. (See: no more or less true than your learned opinion on "impact"). - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's now 3 editors disagreeing with you, & no-one else is likely to bother to read all this before commenting. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. Nobody is persuaded. William Avery (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, "influenced" is more concise than "had an influence on" by the very definition of the word "concise". As "impact" has various meanings then "influence" is more exact, it having fewer meanings. QED.

Johnbod, William, DILLIGAF? As I said, I kept the page as the majority want it. Despite your numerical superiority, nobody has explained why my choice of words was not more concise and more exact than the original, but there you go. Ewen (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Less words does not mean greater clarity, nor a more precise description. Your logic on the QED is deeply flawed, rather facile and utterly incorrect.

The choice has been explained, it is just that you have decided not to accept it. As the consensus is against you, your continual pushing of your agenda is just trolling to get a reaction now, and I think it best that this thread is now closed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you said "had an impact on" was more concise than "influenced", which flies in the face of the meaning of "concise". Similarly, you admit that "impact" has multiple meanings, whereas "influence" has one, so if I don't hear a convincing argument for your choice of words being clearer, maybe it's because it is not clearer at all? Of course you want to close the thread - go right ahead and stop writing, that will do it - but it still lacks an answer to my points. Ewen (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.