Talk:Ina Garten/Archive 1

Archive 1

Multiple Edits

Sorry about the thousand edits, folks. Information on this woman is hard to dig up and is found in disjointed bits and pieces, not to mention I have to constantly fact-check. Thanks for your patience. Air.dance 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When did "brisket" become known as a Jewish dish? This is a cut of meat, popularly used by many non-Jewish folks - especially for smoking and BBQ.

Gay Icon

Ina has a large gay following, and almost all of her friends who come over for dinner are gay. I wonder what you all would think about adding her to the gay icon page? Ideas? Rellman 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that myself, and here's the stumbling block I hit -- I see a difference in how Ina's gay friends are presented on-screen versus her straight ones. The straight couples are always presented as such, but there's nary a reference to the partners of her gay male friends. For example, I distinctly got the vibe from one of her episodes that she was cooking for a friend and his partner, but she referred to him as "so-and-so's guest" or "so-and-so's friend". It could be a Food Network thing, it could be an Ina thing, it could be the preference of the men in question, but it bugs me. However, in contrast, she specifically mentions gay couples as a facet of the changing face of "families" in one of her cookbooks. Overall, I think I have to vote no on the gay icon inclusion for right now; however, she has more books and episodes coming out, so my opinion may change if she takes a more vocal stance on her support for the gay community. Cheers! Air.dance 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In addendum, I added a small snippet to her article regarding this. Air.dance 00:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more about her being a gay icon. "Icon" is not a word to throw about freely. Ina Garten may be popular with gay people, but no way is she in the same league as Cher, Madonna, Melissa Etheridge, etc.

How does the writer know her friends are openly gay? Because of the way they dress, act, ??? rich 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

We are using YOUR choice of words by using FAN alone. Is this going to be an ongoing, necessary battle over a word? A fan site has an absolute implication of being unofficial.

First, that site in no way belongs here -- it's clearly stated in the rules that fansites are almost universally unacceptable as external links. Second, many fan message boards are endorsed by and/or connected to the celebrity in question. This one is not and I believe it should be stated as such. I originally removed the links entirely as they are both extraneous and lend nothing to the articles in question, but decided to let them remain if they were tagged as fan sites. I will admit I should have been clearer in my original request that they be tagged as fansites -- I took it as a given that you would understand I was asking for a disclaimer and not my words verbatim. -- Air.dance 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer - I took it at face value, not as something I was supposed to make implications a suppositions about. And while many fan sites are celebrity endorsed, even more are not. THank you for letting us add our link here.

We'll consider the issue agreed upon then. Since you were kind enough to pare down the long description to the current one, I'll give from my end and not insist on the "unofficial" label. And you don't have to thank me -- this is as much your site as it is mine, no matter what disagreements we may have. -- Air.dance 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting this article up for FA consideration soon, and so have removed the fansite link as it was a soft violation of the rules and would not adhere to Wiki standards. Thanks. Air.dance 11:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article

This article is clearly worthy of GA status so I've promoted it. In addition to that I have meddled around a little bit - I added a note to say she didn't graduate to her infobox; I know that the full details are in the text, but it did seem a rather misleading summary of her education without it! Other than that, I fixed a spelling but otherwise spelling seemed okay too. Perhaps the tone is a little uncritical, but as a whole I think this article is doing well. Would be interesting to see how it copes with FA; I am sure it will be nominated sooner rather than later! TheGrappler 20:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! In the interest of making it even better, can you clarify what you mean by it's "uncritical"? I tried to include what criticisms I could find of her cookbooks, show, etc., as I really want it to be NPOV and not fancrufty. Thanks again, I appreciate the promotion a lot. Air.dance 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncritical doesn't necessarily mean "showering praise" - the article clearly isn't fancruft. Being critical might mean taking a wider or comparative view, for instance, how does she rank in terms of fame and success to other American culinary stars? It might be hard to gauge that statistically but maybe viewership and book sales figures would help. As a Brit, with no exposure whatever to Ina Garten (though I guess I had vaguely seen her talked about on U.S. websites) this article should be telling me whether she's still a quietly rising star or whether she's hit the big time. My impression is she's just recently hit the latter and is still on the up, but is a long way off being the undisputed American Queen of the Kitchen - if that is an accurate impression, you're doing a good job, but could you make it clearer and back it up a little? One thing that makes it hard for me is the lack of reference points - so-and-so-without-a-Wikipedia-article said something good about her, or somebody of the calibre of such-and-such-also-lacking-a-Wikipedia-article worked for her is both unconvincing and a little disorientating (it can make me feel that, since I don't know who this people are, I am utterly lost) - these people either have articles or deserve them, so why not use [[...]] around their names? Nothing wrong with having some redlinks come up - might encourage someone else to write about them! When I did a little background reading, it seemed to back up my interpretation of the article (you certainly have the fundamentals about her correct, that goes without saying) but I'd feel more comfortable if I didn't have to read so much into it - it's bad enough with newspaper articles etc which are trying to basically sell the shiny-new-talent-of-the-moment rather than giving a broad overview of her work and significance, which is basically what this article should be focusing on (and, by and large, it is!). You might also want to check out the vocabulary. Was her book really "literary" for instance - it would be unusual for a cook book to be known for its literary merit, so the word might do with dropping. Are her best-known dishes really "trademark" - I am sure someone else cooks the same dishes! Perhaps they are her "hallmark" dishes? So, my advice is basically wikilink more individuals, watch the language, and don't be afraid to take the spotlight off her on to the bigger picture. Is she being credited with changing America's tastes? Or riding at the front of the wave of a change in taste? Is she now in the instantly-recognisable celebrity bracket? Is her fame quite localised e.g. to a particular part of the U.S., maybe she is making it in Canada or further afield too? I'd like to know. And the fact that your article has made me want to know, despite the fact I have pretty much zero interest in cuisine and celebrities, is a good pointer that you have written a pretty fine article! The fact that I still don't know is a good pointer that it's not a complete one ;) Then again, they never are, are they? Keep on going with it, I'd be interested to see how it copes with the FAC toothcomb. TheGrappler 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are an absolute peach for being so helpful. I followed your (excellent) suggestions of wikifying important names, chucked out some sketchy words in favor of more neutral phrases, and am now gather refs and awaiting my brain to slowly churn out some writing to address your other points. I'm going to work on it a bit more before submitting it to FA and see if I can't cover the things you mentioned, as well as wait for the slow.. slow.. slow trickle of information to add some more factual stuff. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the help, my friend! Air.dance 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Flickr pic

I found a picture of her on Flickr [1]. Could someone more familiar with flickr than myself ask the author to make a cropped copyleft-licensed version of that picture available? Raul654 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the author an e-mail a few weeks ago, but haven't gotten a reply as of yet. Air.dance 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Maybe a reminder email is in order? Raul654 11:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Air.dance 11:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Still no answer, but hey! I just realised you're the wiki-of-the-day guy. Let me ask you, why did you want this specific pic? Is it because my fair use pics rule the article out for front page featuring? If so, I could grab a screen cap of her and replace one of the fair use pics if that would be more acceptable. Air.dance 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to avoid fair use on the main page if possible; a screencap, however, is still fair use. Raul654 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Hopefully this guy comes through then, or maybe one of my friends will turn up with some pics from the book signings this winter. Air.dance 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, didn't get any word back on the Flickr pic, but I did find someone else with a self-taken photo. She uploaded [2] and made it copyleft, and I've replaced one of the fair use pics with this one. I edited my wiki-of-the-day request to insert this new copyleft pic. Let me know if I need to do anything else to bring it in lines with your requirements! Thanks! Air.dance 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem

It seems to me that several issues regarding the sentence "Garten is known to guard her privacy closely, giving few interviews and declining to take part in Food Network charities and activities." must be taken into account in the continuing assessment of this article. First of all, I would like to say that declining to take part in charitable activities, when the majority of one's fellows have chosen to do so, is widely regarded as a negative quality. Some may disagree but, I contend, the large part of our audience is in accordance with such a view. Then I must explain how offering such an unsupported explanation as "Garten is known to guard her privacy closely", for an ostensibly poorly-received action like declining to take part in charitable activities, is questionable at best, and indeed should be altered with all swiftness for the sake of wikipedia's widespread image as a reputable source of information. The perceived flaws of said encyclopedia are, in fact, such a persistance of editing by biased editors as I believe has caused the afore-mentioned error of which I spoke. ````

I was the author of the offending sentence, so let's see what we can do to improve it. Do note that it reads "declining to take part in Food Network charities and activities", not "declining to take part in Food Network charitable activities." I used those two examples to illustrate how she does not participate in many of the publicity activities that her FN colleagues are famous for, i.e. group activities that include but are not limited to the specific charity organizations that FN sponsors. I don't know that it reflects poorly on her to state that, it's simply fact. Also, up-article, there's mention of her involvement with Planned Parenthood, so I don't think noting her lack of involvement with other charities is a black mark on her reputation. Note that it's simple lack of involvement, not an anti-stance, statement, or position against these charities. If you think there's a better way to illustrate my point, do share, as I'm open to any suggestions to further improve this article. I'm starting to think the sentence is badly worded myself -- would "giving few interviews and declining to take part in Food Network publicity activities" be better, perhaps? FYI, you can sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end, like this "~~~~". Air.dance 06:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI there is no evidence that she doesn't support charities anonymously, as many prominent people have done and continue to do so, so I think the observation that she apparently doesn't is unnecessary for the article, given its weirdly (and perhaps incorrect) negative connotations. Just because she is not openly connected with any charitable activities does not mean that she doesn't do so. Or even that it's worth placing in the article. One could say that about the subjects of many, many articles on Wiki, but to what end? Also, she gives many interviews when she has a book appear or when the subject is cooking or her show; a quick look at ProQuest or any other periodical search engine shows many (admittedly brief) interviews she has given, so the present observation needs to be tempered.67.142.130.46 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what I added that's not checking out. I am using ProQuest, the search engine for newspapers and periodicals. I cannot sign in at the moment because my satellite dish is not allowing me to. My member name is mowens35.67.142.130.46 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the passages from the Times article of 1981, written by Enid Nemy and access via the New York Times website (I had to pay to access the article, because it is part of the archives; just go to nytimes.com, type in ENID NEMY INA GARTEN in the search engine on the home page and you will find the article easily):

Graph one of NYTimes article: Ina Garten's parents weren't at all happy. Their daughter, with a prestigious White House job, was resigning to open a grocery store. A grocery store! they chorused in bewilderment. Why? Why indeed? My job in Washington was intellectually exciting and stimulating but it wasn't me at all, said Mrs. Garten. Graph 17 of article: Mrs. Garten, who received her M.B.A. from George Washington University, works from 7 A.M. to midnight six days a week from May through September. Her husband joins her on weekends. During the winter, when she moves back into New York, she continues the catering part of her business.67.142.130.46 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the quote she gave the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (30 November 2006, page 1T, article written and interview conducted by Bill Ward), re never having seen the movie "Barefoot Contessa" --

Q - Have you ever watched the movie "The Barefoot Contessa"?

A - You know, I've never seen it. Isn't that crazy? You know, I bought a specialty-foods store that was already named the Barefoot Contessa. I keep saying one of these days, I need to see that.67.142.130.46 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The pilot license fact does not check out on the Minn Star-Trib website. There is an article by the same author one day later than the date you cite, and nowhere does it mention anything remotely like this. You keep saying "use ProQuest", but I find it strange that the website of the newspaper in question would not have this article, yet has one almost identical in title, author, and date without this fact. If you can cut/paste the snippet that states she does indeed have a pilot's license, I will gladly retract my statement and let you edit with no further impedement to your progress.

I also think I see the problem with your editing history -- you're on a shared IP address, aren't you? (Library, school, etc.) This is probably the reason for your multiple warnings (other users vandalising), if you are indeed making good-faith edits. Air.dance 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And here is her direct quote re her pilot's license (Raleigh News & Observer, 22 November 2006, page E-1) ... fyi, I cut and pasted the wrong citation initially ... and a further fyi, funny that you AUTOMATICALLY assume that any edit is vandalism, even with a citation. I suggest you write a thoughtful note and not be so rash.

DIRECT QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: When Garten and her husband, Jeffrey, were first married, he was a paratrooper stationed at Fort Bragg near Fayetteville. "And I decided I wanted to learn how to fly, so I got my pilot's license," she in a telephone interview from her home in the Hamptons.67.142.130.46 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI re my internet service; I am not on a shared service; I use satellite, at my home.67.142.130.46 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After over 50 vandalisations from various users to this article since midnight, your IP address having a history of vandalising articles, and you YOURSELF leaving somewhat strident edit summaries (i.e. "this article is full of opinions and assertions"), I think you can see where I'd make the assumption. However, I'm not going to put you through the wringer over this anymore than I already have -- I'll concede I was wrong and offer you a sincere apology, and from here on out, assume any edits you make are within good faith. Clearing up the fact that you accidentally entered the wrong citation now makes sense, as I had searched the Minn Star-Trib site extensively and found nothing. Now, I found the article in question (in the Raleigh Obs) and it's confirmed. I'm satisfied (and quite happy you dug up such an obscure fact). As it stands, I was wrong and I freely admit I was wrong on this one, and again apologise. Or as the kids would say, I guess that's me told. Happy editing. Air.dance 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI the INA GARTEN article is full of opinion and assertions not corroborated by citations (this isn't stridency, it's fact), ie noting that her circle of friends being primarily gay, et cetera. And though my IP may be cited for vandalism, it hasn't been me. I use satellite and can do nothing else; WIKI won't let me sign in because of the satellite connection, as a WIKI supervisor has told me, and nothing can be done about that.67.142.130.46 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully realise and actually believe that the vandalizations on your IP address aren't your work -- my point was that after innumerable vandalizations to this article today, you may be able to understand why I jumped to a conclusion. However, that's besides the point, the point is I apologise for jumping to said conclusion. Moving on, re: her circle of friends being populated by many gay men -- seeing as her television show stars her *real-life* friends (as stated by her), and almost all of them are *openly gay* men (i.e. appearing with their partners, etc), how is this an assertion? Air.dance 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just frequently following a television show and making presumptions as per the perceived open gayness of its guests just doesn't cut it, factually or editorially. Unless Garten herself has stated in print or video that her social set includes many openly gay men, it isn't worth placing in Wiki. To do so constitutes an observation (and an unsupported one) rather than fact, ie being backed up with a citation. Which is what Wiki requires. As I have painfully learned over the years, just because something appears obvious doesn't mean it's true, at least, not without a factual statement. Also, does stating that she has many gay friends with their partners featured (hey, they might be bi, you never know, or entirely sexless at home) really enhance the article in any way, ie measurably? 67.142.130.46 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also for the sake of argument, one could observe (wrongly for Wiki purposes) that IG's social set seems to include few if any black or Asian people, since they have rarely if ever appeared on the program to my admittedly limited knowledge. That is why I think the gay couples featured (if indeed they are gay and not bi, etc -- what about lesbian couples?) mention is pointless without context or factual underpinnings that have to do with an encyclopaedia article. Otherwise, the comment seems slanted toward making a political or sociological agenda that Garten may or may not share.67.142.130.46 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was somewhat concerned with the amount of peacock and related terms, and the points you bring up are valid. If we can find citations, great; if not, they should be removed to strengthen both the reliability of the article and the article's prose. — Deckiller 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Second or first child?

Note the article states that she, at the age of 15, went to Dartmouth College to visit her brother; therefore he must have been a student and therefore he must be her senior, therefore she must be the second child not the first.67.142.130.46 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Zabar's on the west or east side?

Someone near-instantly reverted my edit saying that Eli Zabar's shops were on the west, and not east side of Manhattan, so I'm posting an explanation. Although Zabar's (the big specialty foods store owned by his family) is indeed on the Upper West Side, Eli Zabar's little empire is on the East. See [3]. Bgruber 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why mention her pro-choice stance?

Would we put a mention in an article on Hillary Clinton about what style cooking she does? The comment of Garten's "pro-choice stance" sticks out in this article like a sore thumb.rich 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree204.126.250.88 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it this mention of Planned Parenthood just said she did a fundraiser for them. It's the part that says "Garten is believed to be pro-choice". By whom?

Well, here goes, I'm going to edit that section.rich 03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bossier City

Ina, On Friday, March 23, 2007 I was in El Chico's restaurant sitting with my baby grandson on a bench waiting for a friend when a woman walked in, smiled at us and entered the restaurant. I immediately knew it was you. I told my husband I saw you when I came home and he thinks I'm nuts. I'll eat my straw hat if it was not you. Was it you? Vivian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.5.1 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I would suggest placing an ad in your local newspaper's 'Missed Connections/Parting Glances' Personals Section as Wikipedia is a reference source, not a Social Networking site. Also, your husband is right, you must be nuts. Ina Garten has way too much class and is far too well connected to be subjected to El Chico's in Bossier City. I suppose she had the Enchilada Platter with beans and rice? As for how to prepare the straw hat you have agreed to eat, I would suggest serving it w/ a light balsamic vinaigrette. As Ina would say, "How bad can that be?!" --MathewBrooks 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot Contessa on Food Network

There are several (minor) problems in this section.

Catchphrases was misspelled.

None of the catchphrases are sourced.

If we're going to say that "Mmm...So Good" is a catchphrase, then we should add "Bake at 350 degrees for 30 minutes" as it is equally commonplace on a cooking show. Furthermore, I have only heard her comment that "Jeffrey will never know" once or twice hardly making it Barefoot jargon. Meanwhile, "The best part? Sharing it with friends" is used in nearly every episode and was not mentioned. (I believe it to be one of the core beliefs of Barefoot's "earthy but elegant" philosophy. But I digress.)

Lastly, the statement "..comparing her television presence to that of her mentor, Martha Stewart, but with a softer edge and more nurturing" is self-evident. A hand grenade is softer and more nurturing than Martha Stewart.

--MathewBrooks 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation

conte, dinner party and emporium need disambiguation Randomblue (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

InaGarten

I loved her old house--and now she seems to have moved to a new one. I would love to read the details of how and when she built either one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabotgirl (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a new house, but a structure she had built on the property especially for filming the show. There hasn't been much said about it, but she's mentioned it a few times -- she calls it a "barn." Nice barn, eh? Air.dance (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCCCover.jpg

Image:BCCCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCP.jpg

Image:BCP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCStore.jpg

Image:BCStore.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pr abbey@hotmail.com (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Problems with this article...

There are numerous references to butter in this article that change the flavor (no pun intended) of the article from neutral to hostile. Editors are advised the this article needs to be cleaned up.Pr abbey@hotmail.com (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed references to her husband being a halfwit and the term "butterfucker" as being inappropriate. Some true halfwit has inserted references to lesbianism and majoring in butter, butter this and butter that that should be removed by the "owner" of the article. Her recipes DO have lots of butter but they have no place in what is supposed to be a reference biography. Pr abbey@hotmail.com (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Successful Political boycott needs substantiation

It would be worth noting only IF a substantial percentage (say 10%) of her audience left her solely because of concerns about her political opinions but there is no substantiation. We need numbers of people that dropped her show exclusively because of that for verification from a Reliable source, please.

The rare person wanting a description of Planned Parenthood and has never heard of it clicks on the Wikilink. She does a cooking show and a mention of her political affiliations is fine but it is not why she is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Here is the link to the wiki Verifiability policy : WP:V --Javaweb (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)JAvaweb

Reference for Science fair

<ref>{{cite books| title= Barefoot Contessa at Home: Everyday Recipes You'll Make Over and Over Again | author= Ina Garten | coauthor= Quentin Bacon | page=160 | isbn= 9781400054343| year=2006|publisher= Random House |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rLjZZVyWAvgC&pg=PA160}}</ref>

which formats like Ina Garten (2006). Barefoot Contessa at Home: Everyday Recipes You'll Make Over and Over Again. Random House. p. 160. ISBN 9781400054343. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) --Javaweb (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Translation

Can someone add translations for the recipes in the introduction this is "english" wikipedia and is supposed to be informative and encyclopedic not a place for wankers to show off their french 114.76.63.231 (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not worth including but...

Google's homepage for Thanksgiving 2010 exclusively featured Ina Garten's recipes. --Javaweb (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Make a Wish

Your decision to not include the facts regarding Ina Garten and Make a wish are reflective of a personal opinion, not, in fact policy. There is no manufactured controversy, the events did in fac occur and should be included if wikipedia purports to be factual (which most would agree it is intrinsically not). To include something along the lines of "proving herself as horrible as she seems, Garten refused a wish" would be inappropriate (BUT TRUE). Your refusal to include facts are clearly biased by your own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.158.192 (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between relevant biographic information that is noteworthy to include in an encyclopedia, and trivia/gossip. Per Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Policy, the Make-a-Wish story is the latter, not the former. We've already discussed this topic ad nauseam, you can see the discussion just up there on this very page. Please stop now. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't gossip at all, because it really happened. The fact is, it occurred and did come off as a "scandal." Sandra Lee has come under criticism for her Semi-Homemade concept, and that's in her article. Other celebrities have criticisms and controversies listed in their articles. It is relevant biographical information, regardless that it is a negative event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.80.190 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one major reputable print newspaper (NY Times, WSJ, etc) that thought this was important enough to cover. In your Sandra Lee's example, it was covered by such sources and more to the point it actually has something to do with what she is famous for:being a cook. Ina Garten is a lady that demonstrates how to cook for adult parties. She has raised tons of money for charity, done work for Make-a-Wish, none of which are in the article. Most folks in Wikipedia have done ZERO for Make-A-Wish and that does not get mentioned. Rather than rehashing the same discussion again, I'll refer you to the voluminous discussion above. --Javaweb (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I would agree this "controversy" should not be included unless significant discussion in serious sources can be found that indicates it has genuine importance to her career and notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Demiurge1000's comments. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this. This one link--which didn't even work when I tried it--is not enough per WP:BLP. Likewise, the way that section was written was inappropriate and editorializing. Until other sources cover this, we are bound by WP:BLP to be cautious. It's not worth it. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who oppose including discussion of this whipped-up, faux "controversy" to the biography of Ina Garten. Though the incident received passing mention, it is trivial in this person's life story, and including it would give undue weight to a minor incident. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not one reputable source eh? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/ina-garten-cancer-patient-barefoot-contessa_n_842246.html, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dailydish/2011/03/barefoot-contessa-ina-garten-rejecting-make-a-wish-cancer-patient-enzo.html

That's five seconds of searching. Get real. Should be included.

User:76.205.119.116's comments

(This topic has been reprised by User:76.205.119.116 again in early August 2011) Since User:76.205.119.116's comments equally pertain to

• User:Freshacconci
• User:Zenswashbuckler
• User:Ale_jrb
• User:Aecamadi
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Javaweb

and are of interest to other editors of the Garten article, I am copying them from User_Talk:Javaweb to here.

your refusal to include relevant and factual information re: garten reported on abc.com webpage (reliable source) is in fact a violation in and of itself. The quote is directly taken from the abc.com page and therefore not editorializing on the part of a contributor. Additionally, i am the parent of a cancer survivor (5 year old) and a make a wish recipient and to any individual like myself, gartens refusal to grant a wish is relevant in more ways than one. IF you do not wish to include any of garten's personal views, then ALL activism should be deleted as it is an expression of beliefs held by her. I have contacted wikipedia once to address this, I will do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.119.116 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

end of comments

I'm sorry to hear about your child's illness. The treatment required to save their life is horrific.

>
> I have contacted wikipedia once to address this
>

Here is that discussion from late June 2011. --Javaweb (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

To think that Make-A-Wish can accommodate every wish that an applicant makes, or that every celebrity meeting request can always be accommodated, is a) naive, and b) to not understand how the program works, or what is logistically possible.

Make-A-Wish works very hard to grant the applicant (a child under 18 suffering from a life-threatening illness) the wish of his or her choice. But there will always be limitations. Some things just aren't possible, practical, or logistical. The most popular request M-A-W receives is a trip to Disney World or Disneyland. These are almost always granted. The organization is set up to accommodate trips of these kinds. Other popular requests are for specialized computers that are adapted for a disabled person's special needs, or installation of a private swimming pool or therapeutic hot tub. These are relatively easy requests to make possible. Some applicants do request meetings with celebrities, usually in the sports or entertainment world. For the most part, celebrities do try to accommodate requests for meetings with Make-A-Wish children because it's positive public image relations, and they like helping fans in need when they can. But it's not always possible for a celebrity to accommodate every Make-A-Wish request. When applicants make celebrity meeting wishes, M-A-W will always tell the child and his or her parents to have second or third choices ready because they know they may not be able to coordinate the meeting, or get the celebrity to go to the child's classroom or come to their birthday party, the various kinds of requests children make of their favorite stars.

I know a family with a chronically ill child who asked to meet with a celebrity. I can't remember which celebrity now, but it was someone who could not accommodate the request. The girl's second choice was to meet the Olsen twins (Mary-Kate and Ashley), who were young teens at the time. There was a wait time of a few months, but eventually, the girl and her parents and siblings all enjoyed a cruise with the Olsens. They had a blast, and were treated to many other fun and exciting special surprises. The girl and her family were delighted with the granted wish, and I know they had no disappointments. The child did not linger over the ungranted first wish, and the parents were quite happy with M-A-W for bringing so much joy into their otherwise stressful and challenging lives.

I find it quite unreasonable for anyone to fault Make-A-Wish or any individual celebrity for being unable to accommodate every request for a celebrity meeting. Make-A-Wish is a most commendable charity that has been brightening the lives of extremely ill young people and their families since its inception, which I think was the 1960s or 70s. They should be applauded for their noble work, not lambasted for requests they couldn't grant, which are the minority. Individual celebrities should not be denounced for turning down a M-A-W request either, in my opinion. These are people with a multitude of obligations, and heavily-booked schedules, with possibly hundreds of thousands of fans requesting to meet. Among those large numbers probably are many who have sad or even tragic situations and who are deserving of a brief respite of joy. There is simply no way any public personality can accommodate every fan who asks to meet them, have them to dinner, or land an invitation to their ranch or mansion, etc. --Aaronsmom12 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Aaronsmom

Seriously Ill Boy's Mom says "STOP THE MADNESS"

"PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS". Angels for Enzo. Retrieved 2011-03-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) (Title was ALL CAPS in the original. I guess she really means it.) This is what the Mom has to say:

PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS- This all started with a call from “Make a Wish“ on Friday warning me that TMZ published a story about Enzo’s wish being denied. WHAT? WHY? We were already moved on and getting excited about swimming with dolphins. Enzo started sleeping in his swimsuit because he wanted to be ready when he dreamt about them at night! Ha!...I want to make it VERY CLEAR we have NO ANGER OR ILL WILL toward Ina Garten. Enzo made his request and she declined, end of that story. As much as I know it has REALLY angered people, she has that right. Furthermore it is not our wish to hurt Ina Garten in anyway. Enzo found great comfort in watching her cook when he was going through his toughest times and for that we are so grateful...I believe that this media frenzy that has been going on now for about 72 hrs. was originally rooted with good intension. People don’t like to see children suffer or be disappointed. Most people want to reach out with love and support and as a family we are truly humbled (and quite frankly shocked) how many people have taken to the blog sites and media to express their feelings about this. I think the shocking thing is how fast the support and loving passion turned VERY angry, hurtful and vulgar. Even criticizing “The Make a Wish” foundation. They have been nothing but kind and generous (to MILLIONS of people). Bottom line is this is supposed to be about Enzo and he would hate what is going on. He STILL loves “The Contessa” regardless, because THAT is who he is.

— Enzo's Mom

The link was mentioned on March 25, 2011 "Make-A-Wish Foundation® of America Ina Garten Statement". Make-a-Wish-Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

This incident was endangering the Make-A-Wish Foundation's mission. A Celebrity has more charities to help than resources to provide because the needs are so great and one person can only do so much. Their ability to do their job depends on their reputation. Who would ever sign up for a charity and help them out if they were going to get a high-tech lynching from it in return? Lots of seriously ill children will get their wishes turned down that would have been fulfilled otherwise. MILLIONS of seriously ill children will be disappointed. The only one that benefits is the scandal sheet that got the website traffic.

{{I think the above poster is missing the point. The effect is just the opposite. Upon seeing this news, celebrities would realize that they are accountable for their actions, and if they don't want the bad press that Garten received, they should act accordingly: i.e. not shoot down the dying wishes of cancer-ridden children. Come on.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.36.2 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 67.241.36.2 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask anyone misled by scandal sites to communicate how you feel about them exploiting your instincts to stand up for sick children and what your new understanding of this event with anyone you communicated with in the same forum you used before. Please ask them to do the same. Do not mention the scandal sheet where you got misled because you will just be giving them more page views.

The morals of this story:

• wait for the facts to settle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
• More lies are told through omission than commission. Lack of context, framing the issue to distort things, etc.
• Only depend on reliable sources that don't use these tricks.

--Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

Private Personal Life

While some may have speculated that she "declines to take part in Food Network charities and activities." because of a penchant for privacy, the ability to choose her own charitable causes to contribute to rather than some corporation picking causes for her is more likely. That's how most pick charities, especially when more folks are asking than can be provided for. As for "activities", She is just as likely to be too busy. --Javaweb (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Agreed. When a reliable secondary source comments that it's a key facet of her career, that distinguishes her from other celebrities... then Wikipedia should cover it too. I'm not aware of any such commentary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

How shocking! Someone successful in show business and the gourmet food business who wishes to keep her offscreen life private. How refreshing! Let's emulate her attitude when we write about mid-tier celebrities, who haven't agreed to make every scrap and every shred of their private lives fodder for the pathologically hungry public. Viva WP:BLP! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

I've created an entry for this dispute on the BLP Noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ina_Garten. I hope that I have represented both sides accurately -- feel free to weigh in with further discussion/clarifications/corrections there, as I feel that discussions on this talk page have ceased to be productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this type of incident should be included in any BLP. All of the coverage is generated from blogosphere opinions that paint the subject in a bad light for emotional reasons, not factual ones. However, I am willing to try to work on an NPOV mention for this article, provided that we can get general consensus on the fact that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on anybody's part.Jarhed (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that there is any reason to mention this whipped-up, faux controversy here. Even one sentence would give it undue weight, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no other editors are interested in collaborating with me on an edit, I withdraw my offer and my vote on this issue is no mention of the whipped-up, faux controversy in this article.Jarhed (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interested in the Barefoot Contessa article?

Those interested in the Ina Garten article may also be interested in the Barefoot Contessa article as well. Once there, click on the star icon to keep abreast of it. --Javaweb (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Make A Wish Foundation

While admittedly I came here through a humour site, I find it concerning that information may be absent from this article because of the personal views of several editors (referencing the discussions above).

If an issue related to a person received a significant amount of media attention, it is notable and proper to include it in their articles. It is irrelevant whether or not this attention was misguided, or whether the issue has subsequently been resolved. What is relevant is whether the sources reflecting this controversy were reliable and notable (ie not tabloids), and whether this controversy has had a significant bearing on that person's life relative to other events.

Unfortunately the discussions above seem to have been divided on the lines of one side complaining Garten did not grant the wish, the other side countering that it was not possible for her to do so. These arguments completely ignore the fact that the controversy may have occurred, and may have received attention to the point of notability. Comments such as "Most folks in Wikipedia have done ZERO for Make-A-Wish" and "I find it quite unreasonable for anyone to fault Make-A-Wish or any individual celebrity for being unable to accommodate every request" contribute nothing to the discussion.

If somebody puts in a well placed source into this article about that controversy, please don't just take it out. Sit down and have a reasonable discussion about whether it is notable and proper to include. Cut all the crap about how Garten was evil or about how she's a saint, that only makes people question whether your intentions are being prejudiced by your views on the issue. Just work out whether the controversy should be reported, and be done with it. Guycalledryan (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What a white washed garbage article. Have fun losing your featured status.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this section does discuss the issue with proper policy points without any of the emotional handwringing you mention. There is consensus at this time to leave that information out as it is WP:UNDUE and really is not widely covered. freshacconci talktalk 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it has been widely covered: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/ina-garten-cancer-patient-barefoot-contessa_n_842246.html, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dailydish/2011/03/barefoot-contessa-ina-garten-rejecting-make-a-wish-cancer-patient-enzo.html

That is five seconds on Google. Get real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.39.143 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly wide coverage. Read WP:UNDUE. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are just the first 3. There are over 16,000 hits for articles about this on Google. There is clearly wide coverage. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.39.143 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of unilateral steps taken by overzealous editors, and I want to put a stop to it. I've restored this section, and before someone just goes to remove it, I would like to have a calm discussion. I would also appreciate it if someone who is more knowledgeable about WP to put some tags up so there isn't more vandalism.

Wikipedia editors should all act in good faith. This means, in a nutshell, that your efforts should focus on making the page more encyclopedic (regardless of how you feel about the topic), and also that you should help other editors to acheive this goal. If you find a section that is unverified and badly-written, you should not feel compelled to do another editor's job for them. However, if you remove content that is verified, but maybe not as valuable as you think, or possibly not as well-written as you would like, you are acting in bad faith.

This topic is encyclopedic, verified, and noteworthy (Ina herself has had to address the issue, and official statements have been made about this). There are opinions about whether the content is significant enough to remain, and perhaps some improvements can be made to better comply with BLP. However, there are no obvious problems (nothing defamatory), so there is more reason to include than to exclude. Please work in good faith with your fellow editors to improve this article, rather than to mold it to your personal opinions.98.148.21.119 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that there appears to be a reversion war, I want to point out that simply stating it violates BLP or re-pasting WP:UNDUE is not sufficient. The question has been raised, and arguments have been made in favor adding content. Editors acting in good faith will counter those arguments, or explain other reasons why the content should be added. Simply reverting the page without explanation is childish and does not help improve the page.98.148.21.119 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The reversion war is entirely you. Consensus was previously reached not to include this information. To suggest otherwise is bad faith. If you want to introduce this material, the burden is on you to present your case here and not simply reinsert it. That violates WP:3RR. Several editors have explained why this material should not be included using Wikipedia policy. Read this talk page. It's all there. You accusing editors of vandalism or not understanding Wiki policy is bad faith, and might I add, childish. Tagging is not sufficient when WP:BLP is concerned. freshacconci talktalk 12:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fresh, no matter how many times I ask for evidence of such discussion, all you do is say there was one. My only choice is to let the page cool down, and revisit this later. I hope by that time, you'll be able to help other editors in good faith, and do more than post links to wiki policy pages.98.148.21.119 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that another editor had deleted a whole section. This is the section I was referring to--a whole discussion on this very topic. I have now restored it. freshacconci talktalk 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I also find it ridiculous that this story is being censored fwiw. If undue is a concern then mention it briefly and in no way does this violate BLP. Thats absurd. AaronY (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong.

Repeated use of high and mighty sounding words like "objective" and "nothing defamatory" don't make it so. The fact remains, TMZ broke the story and every news web page that carries this is either an aggregator (e.g. the Huffington Post piece basically just repeats the bare bones, linking to ABC no less than three (3) times in an article that is six, count 'em six (6), sentences long) or the entertainment desk. Therefore it's gossip, therefore it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia page. See also WP:EVENT. If this turns into Ina Garten's Google problem, or something similarly weighty enough to warrant mention outside of humor pages, blog posts, and entertainment "news," then it will warrant inclusion. Until then, any accusation that editors opposing inclusion are failing to WP:AGF is entirely unwarranted. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BLPGOSSIP:

1. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable. Yes, ABC News by itself is a reliable source.
2. Ask yourself whether the material is being presented as true. Yes, it's been verified by Pereda's family.
3. Ask yourself whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The article, as it stands, is entirely devoid of any criticism of a public figure. Inclusion of verifiable criticism does not, in itself, create undue weight.

Also, from WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This story meets all of those criteria.

WP:EVENT is a notability guideline -- read WP:NNC. This story is not notable enough for its own article, but it is definitely notable enough for inclusion in the Ina Garten article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to read some fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VNT. Consensus was reached here. The fact that other editors wish to change consensus means that you need to establish a new consensus here on the talk page. As I pointed out on your talk page, the admin who protected this article clearly established that consensus was reached and that this information violates WP:BLP. It is up to you to try to co me up with a new consensus based on Wiki policy. That has not happened yet. The first consensus still applies. We do not go by a simple majority. In any case, if you actually read the section above, a simple head-count still favours not including this info. I am going to remove this section again as it violates WP:BLP. Do not reinsert it unless you reach consensus to do so. freshacconci talktalk 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the consensus? All I see is a proclamation by someone, while anyone who reads this talk page can see there is not a consensus, and rather a couple people defending the discluding of sourced information, while a number of people are arguing the opposite.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the section I am referring to, there are six editors who agree that this is not appropriate. You are referring to the later discussion which is mainly yourself and a couple of IPs who may be the same editor. And none of you cite relevant policy. Likewise, as I mentioned, the admin who protected the page agrees that consensus was reached. You may disagree but that changes nothing. It is now up to you (and anyone else) to argue why this info should be added, citing relevant Wiki policy. When an article is in dispute and especially when it concerns a living person, you 'do not repeatedly reinsert the contentious material. freshacconci talktalk 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for including the material. There is no such consensus. There are easily more people saying it should be included than not at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.176.20 (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Concensus is not a vote. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And you need to say why this material should be included. That's how you build consensus. Consensus was reached previously not to include this material--and this was done by citing relevant Wiki policy. Those editors who wish to add the material, regardless of the number (although it seems like it's about 3 or 4), need to cite policy as to why this material should be included. The burden is on you: not only because you wish to add disputed material, but because this is a WP:BLP issue. So you can't simply reinsert the contentious text and tell other editors to justify its removal. It's the other way around. freshacconci talktalk 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

God you are a control freak. The material is sourced, neutral and noteworthy. There is no reason to NOT include it. You simply don't want it in. The only justification actually given for it not being included is undue and not widely covered, both of which have been proven incorrect by a number of sources being included. And there was never any consensus, just a unilateral deceleration of consensus. I swear, some people just cannot accept it when people want to edit their precious article in a way that doesn't 100% satisfy them. Get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.176.20 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If there wasn't consensus, then the disputed material can't be included. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes this information anymore trivial than some of the other information included in the article?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You won't get an answer for that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.176.20 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You can scream "I have sources!" as many times as you want, but if they keep being blogs, entertainment "news," and tabloids, you're not going to succeed in changing consensus. Get a real WP:RS or two and try again later. Gossip != information. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL. So ABC, Huffington Post, LA Times, Business Insider, Washington Post, etc. don't count for sources anymore? What a joke. --67.90.176.20 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If your sources weren't the entertainment desks and blogs hosted by these publications, your scorn and ridicule would be much more effective. As is, none of those counts as news; if I were a "reporter" working for the department responsible for keeping up with Us Weekly, I wouldn't tell people I was reporting the news, I'd tell people I was writing a gossip rag (and probably jump off a building shortly thereafter). Your Post source doesn't have to be Bob Woodward, but please come back with some kind of serious reporting before trying to bring this up again. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case lets delete everything from any article on an entertainer.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to revisit the consensus issue.

Having read the cracked article cited above, I came directly to Wikipedia to verify if it was really true. I was surprised not to find the information, since well documented scandals tend to be mentioned here. I made the edit to the page as my first contribution to Wiki, and was quite surprised that it had been removed entirely. I have registered now to comment on the complete removal of what I consider legitimate information in the public domain. There is no question that this event happened, Garten's PR team released a statement in response to the claims with an explanation, some of which I quoted in the article. According to the BLP page, Garten is a public figure, and the information is not libelous, and should be included even if it is negative. In this case I hoped to present an overview of what happened with consideration for both sides, hence the mention from Pereda's mother to leave Garten alone, as well as the statement from Garten's PR team. As for information about celebrity scandals, dismissing "ABC, Huffington Post, LA Times, Business Insider, Washington Post, etc." with "If your sources weren't the entertainment desks and blogs hosted by these publications" is very unfair. May I remind you that Ina Garten works in Entertainment. Celebrity scandals will be reported by entertainment desks and blogs, as it is the nature of that kind of news, I would also like to see reportage from The Economist on this story however, they cover different kinds of stories, so ABC News would have to do.

As far the the BLP issue is concerned, I make the following assumptions: 1) Ina Garten is a public figure. 2) Ina Garten works primarily in the Entertainment industry. 3) The Make-A-Wish Foundation incident is true. 4) The story was covered by many news organistions, some with follow ups articles.

Given that Garten is a public figure, the substance of the story is true, and has been reported by a broad variety of news organistions, that alone merits its inclusion.

" If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

As for the sources issue, ABC, LA Times and Washington Post are surely reputable enough sources, they were certainly reputable enough to receive a statement from Garten's PR Team. This is an entertainment story about an entertainment celebrity, so it is hardly surprising that entertainment desks are the ones publishing it.

This has been quite a disheartening experience as a first time editor, I do not support censoring news, and certainly don't like the idea of 1984 style history revisions. If there was bias in my writing, then rather flag it and allow myself or someone else to try and clean it up. Please do not use your personal interpretation of the Wiki rules to justify the removal.

Is there no way to neutrally include the incident?

Zippy1979uk (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLP issues, we do not simply flag it. We remove the text and discuss it on the talk page. And you will not get very far collaborating with other editors by accusing them of censorship or comparing their actions to 1984. Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. When it comes to living people, caution is always the best course of action. freshacconci talktalk 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some good faith misunderstandings of the BLP policy here, so it may help to expand a little. As I've noted at User:Demiurge1000/Thoughts on WP:BLP, the BLP policy does not exist solely for the purpose of avoiding libel litigation. The BLP page does not say that if something is not libelous and the person is a public figure, then the information should be included. What it says (amongst other things) is that we should write conservatively about living people. How we do so is a subjective decision. However, what the policy does also say is that, where an addition of information is disputed, the burden is on those who wish to add the information, to establish a consensus that it should be added. (So the question of whether the people opposing this addition have or have not established a consensus against its inclusion, is irrelevant.)

"Notable, relevant and well-documented" also touches on the question of whether there are "history revisions" going on here. First of all, for there to be revision of history in the sense that you imply, there has to be a history to begin with. There is no work of history that discusses this incident; there is no biography of Garten that mentions it. It is not a significant event in her career. Did it lead to her cancelling events, appearances, contracts or book releases? Or making any other changes to her lifestyle or professional work? Has a reliable source said that it significantly affected sales of her books or viewing figures for her TV shows? If this were a politician who had an unwise sexual liaison that was later exposed, and had a significant impact on their career (losing an election or resigning a position), then such an incident would be worth including. But it's not a significant incident in her life or career in that way. You mention that Garten's PR team released a statement about the incident. But we can safely assume that they release statements more or less constantly; not all of the things that they make statements about, get mentioned in this article.

"Well-documented" is another subjective judgement, but its meaning goes beyond just "has been mentioned in several publications which have editorial control". It implies requiring a judgement on whether the incident has received serious coverage, and indeed, as others have said, serious coverage outside of gossip sections and similar. I think the fact that serious publications have not picked up the story even though Garten is a very well known figure, may suggest that this incident is not well-documented and is not going to be well-documented. Wikipedia also has a specific meaning for the term "notable"; it is unlikely that Wikipedia would keep a separate article about an incident this minor, and therefore I don't believe the incident is automatically notable enough to be included in a biography of Garten just because it has been mentioned in some reliable sources.

As regards the possibilities of mentioning the incident neutrally. In theory, a short neutral sentence on it, referenced to the more reliable of the sources that have mentioned it, might be possible. But the only place this might reasonably fit would be in the current "Personal life" section, and I note the majority of this, talking about her private life and heritage, is completely unsourced and reads rather like someone's personal opinion. It needs referencing, re-writing, or removing. So for now, it really doesn't look very practical. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. And, for goodness sake, many of the references currently cited in the Ina Garten article are from those same "entertainment desks." Reference #23 is from Slate. Why is information from that source reliable in the current version of the article, but suddenly "unreliable" with regards to the Make-A-Wish Foundation incident?

Also, the appropriate action, when seeing a contentious edit, is: talk, don't revert. "We remove the text and discuss it on the talk page" is not Wikipedia policy, even when dealing with WP:BLP (WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply, since the content was not unsourced, or poorly sourced -- ABC News is a reliable secondary source, per WP:NEWSORG). It's obvious that here we have a content dispute, and the previous consensus is being challenged. The correct course of action is to reaffirm consensus, not simply state "Consensus was reached previously not to include this material" and revert the edit.

One step might be determining if any of the following: ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, or OK! Magaine count as reliable sources. Shall I check with the good folks at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? And if there is consensus from the Noticeboard that at least one of those is a reliable source, will you agree to its inclusion in the Ina Garten article? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming that consensus cannot change. It is somewhat deceptive to make that claim. The problem is, few valid counter-arguments have been presented to change consensus. Most arguments in favour of this information can be summed up as "it's true". That's not an argument. And of course, verifiability, not truth, is what we are concerned with. And yes, we remove contentious text until it is resolved. If someone wants to add something and other editors object, it is up to the former to justify it and not to edit war. This is why this article has been protected (see WP:BRD). As for the sources, no one is denying the legitimacy of the individual news orgs in and of themselves but if we are to read WP:BLP completely, we are told in no uncertain terms that sources are not enough. It's the quality of sources. Under Criticism and praise: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This applies here. One family has complained to the media and made it into an issue. Some news outlets have covered it, but not extensively. It's one minor issue and we are not a news organization. Nor are we expected to be "balanced" in the journalistic sense. WP:BLPGOSSIP clearly states "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." We need to determine if this is important enough to include per WP:UNDUE. I'd also like to suggest that an appropriate next step would be the BLP Noticeboard as this is an issue around living persons, not sources. freshacconci talktalk 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is making an argument that can be summed up as: "it's true." What we are saying is that the information is verifiable. Please read the very first paragraph of that policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." We are claiming that this information has been published in multiple reliable sources, therefore it has met the criteria of verifiability. It has also, obviously, met the criteria for reliable sources. You've failed to explain exactly why this information is not verifiable, therefore I assume you are conceding the point. I also take it you are also conceding the point that the sources are reliable, since you state "this is an issue around living persons, not sources."

You have also failed to demonstrate how this information qualifies as gossip. I have raised these points above, but I will re-post here:

1. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable. Yes, ABC News is a reliable source, and it is just one of many reliable sources that have reported on this issue.
2. Ask yourself whether the material is being presented as true. Yes, it's being presented as true, and it is true. It has been verified by Pereda's family, as well as the news organizations reporting on the issue.
3. Ask yourself whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It is relevant. The article, as it stands, is entirely devoid of any criticism of a public figure. Inclusion of verifiable criticism does not, in itself, create undue weight.

As for WP:UNDUE, how does the inclusion of this verifiable criticism possibly qualify as "disproportionate?" One critical sentence, verified by multiple reliable sources, in a sea of biographical material and praise (from those same reliable sources)? What is un-weighty about that? And yes, by the way, we are expected to be balanced, per WP:NPOV. Whether or not this is a "minor issue" is irrelevant -- again, read WP:NPOV. It is not a minority viewpoint (no one is disputing the verifiability of the incident or the reportage), so, per WP:V and WP:RS, it should be included.

But I am more than happy to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard (unless you'd like to do so yourself), and I will abide by whatever consensus is reached at the board. If you do not concede that the issue is verifiable and that the sources are reliable, we can post to the appropriate notice boards as well.

Also, note that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. WP:TALKDONTREVERT is a policy. I would advise you take some time to learn the difference. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can cut the smarminess and remember to be WP:CIVIL. Secondly, who exactly is "we"? Who exactly are you speaking for? Further, telling me about "verifiability, not truth" after I already mentioned it is bizarre. My point is, of course, that most of the arguments for inclusion amount to just saying "it's true". Few policies are actually cited in the arguments. And do not speak for me. I haven't conceded anything as I never stated that the sources were not verifiable. My point is, merely having sources is not always enough. It's the quality of sources. Several minor or trivial sources do not magically make something important. And we do not need to have a criticism section nor do we need to necessarily include criticism at all. WP:UNDUE is actually quite relevant as it concerns whether something is necessary in a neutral article. Neutral does not mean including every bit of information to create some sort of balance. Adding this one piece of very minor information that appears to have been blown out of proportion by the family concerned basically says "this is important". The only way to include it would be as one sentence in the most carefully crafted neutral language. Anything more would be editorializing although I believe that adding it at all is editorializing. And did you actually read WP:VALID? It actually warns against being overly balanced for its own sake: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." One overblown incident is not worth mentioning as it would make it appear to be disproportionately important. freshacconci talktalk 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for gossip, the key line is again "Ask yourself whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Is it true? Well, the family's version of events is their interpretation and the sources that covered it reported that interpretation. So, it's sort of true. Is it relevant to a disinterested article? No, it's not. Our inclusion of it makes it more important than it actually is. As for WP:BRD vs. WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I never claimed the former was policy but WP:CIVIL is. WP:BRD is an essay to aid in civility. I don't see anyone above arguing against inclusion violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT: there's a discussion, there's citing policy. Again, you throwing that around is deceptive as it makes it appear that a number of editors are ignoring policy (i.e. building consensus) when this is quite false. Consensus had been reached and it is up to the inclusionist editors to change that consensus, citing policy. But the consensus hasn't changed yet. But saying that certain editors are violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT is dishonest as the continued addition of the contentious material, excluded by previous consensus, was disruptive and uncivil and there had been no attempt to change consensus citing policy during the time prior to the last time the article was protected. freshacconci talktalk 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, please assume good faith. There is no "smarminess" on my end; I consider that to be a very uncivil personal attack. I've done nothing but cite policy and focus on content -- informing you that WP:BRD does not override WP:TALKDONTREVERT is not a personal attack; it's a policy clarification (also, WP:BRD supplements WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:CIVIL). Accusing me of "smarminess," and claiming that I've been "dishonest," "uncivil," "disruptive," and "deceptive" are all, unquestionably, personal attacks.

And the "we" I am speaking of are the editors who believe that the Make-A-Wish incident merits mentioning in the Ina Garten article -- I apologize for my ambiguity. I will cease referring to "me" as "we," as I do not mean to speak for anyone other than myself. If you can trust me to construct a single-sentence mention for the article (recommended as a possible compromise by yourself and User:Demiurge1000), I can do so. If that is unacceptable, I will post to the BLP Noticeboard for further feedback from uninvolved editors. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed adding this gossipy stuff back in June, both here and on the BLP Noticeboard. Consider me part of consensus firmly against adding this material. I believe that this is a faux, whipped up controversy built on the thin reed of the fact Ina Garten (a person famous enough to receive far more requests from charities than she can possibly honor) didn't respond to a specific charitable request. Some editors continue to claim that we should report what she didn't do, thereby somehow implying that she is heartless. This is framed as reporting valid criticism. I thought consensus was clear against this in June, but a few tenacious folks have made it their personal campaign to add this "information". I've put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so as well. On a personal note, I am the father of a young man with developmental disabilities. I honor celebrities who help out but would never think of criticizing a celebrity who doesn't have the time to help out a specific project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). . One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:

The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.

Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.

We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.

— Make-A-Wish

Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.

A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report

• how Make-A-Wish works nor
• find out that “The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.”
• report how many requests a celebrity normally gets
• that an employee filters charity and correspondence for her as well as most celebrities
• the impossibility of fulfilling all worthy requests or
• give a reasonable report of her other charity efforts

All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.

At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.

You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.

Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578

SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”

The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.

Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?

In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said

Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.

I guess they agree with me.

Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0

http://ifrymineinbutter.com/2011/03/26/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-the-people-vs-barefoot-contessa/

Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that. --Javaweb (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Well said, Javaweb. I agree entirely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your approach is thoughtful, Javaweb, and that honors you. Nevertheless it still boils down to the same problem: an information well sourced and which can be objectively presented, is being censured for reasons that WP:BLP cannot justify. My issue is not with the person concerned in this article, or what she did or did not do, which is not my place to judge, but with the censorship aspect. On the contrary, I think that a short paragraph that presents the facts and explains why it isn't (shouldn't be) as much drama as people make it to be, would be most helpful for everyone. (And you could even add the cyber-lynching perspective, that it might do people some good to think about it.) 87.64.169.61 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there multiple reliable sources that discuss the cyber-lynching perspective?

Information about a living person needs not only to be well sourced and objectively presented, but also to be due weight. I still don't think this incident satisfies all three requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Demiurge1000 that including this material in the article would place undue weight on a trivial though well-documented incident, and would therefore be a BLP violation. I did a quick check for discussion of "cyber-lynching" in connection with this, and found none in reliable sources. When a Wikipedia user talk page is the top Google hit, you can be pretty sure that it isn't discussed in reliable sources. I support the earlier consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an Observation

Drifted on to Ina's page looking for a concise review of the Make-A-Wish issue as a counterpoint to the current Paula Deen uproar. It's lack, and the subsequent review of the bickering on the talk page, is disappointing, as it casts doubt on Wikipedia's neutrality. The issue does not have to be presented in an actionable and negative way - in fact, given the circumstances, and MAW's subsequent endorsement of Garten, mentioning it can defuse the negative connotations and highlight her successful management of a PR crisis. As it stands, right now the missing information and battle royale amonst the editors just makes her Wikipedia entry appear to be a carefully orchestrated publicity handout. Just my observation and opinion, for the little it's worth. Cheers, Parker Parkebench (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Actionable? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Carefully orchestrated publicity handout"? Please give me a break. I spent a lot of time looking into this whipped up, faux tabloid controversy, and there is no substance to it worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. It is vile gossip and a tempest in a teacup. If you think that it deserves coverage here, then propose draft language here, citing rock solid reliable sources, not celebrity gossip sites, and then we can discuss it. Meanwhile, please assume good faith of editors defending WP:BLP, which is policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In the history of this page, we didn't mention her granting a Make-a-wish. It wasn't important.

Why should we add this? As another editor with a disabled child and experience with MAW noted,

Celebrities are not able to accommodate most of the requests. Why single out Garten?

I am not seeing reliable media connecting Deen and Garten. Deen is off the Food Channel. Garten is

On-the-air. If she gets fired for whatever shortcoming you think this illustrates, I would support its inclusion.

I have no connection to Garten. Javaweb (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Archives created

I've created the first archive for the discussion page of this article, which can be accessed with the archive box on the right-hand side of this page.

All new discussion should be placed here. Thanks. Air.dance (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Political opinions

It's offensive to link Ina's gay friends to a discussion of her politics (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Etiquette_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Cultural_Distinctions_and_Identity if you disagree). Consider: how appropriate would it be to say that Ina invites African Americans into her home, and then to commment on her politics?--Dneyder (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hun, every single male guest on her show is like super gay. come on. I'm gay and it's obvious. no offense taken. Tdinatale (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection is that her friendship with gay men is being characterized as a political statement on gay rights. Although I am reasonably certain Ina is pro-equal rights for gay people, I believe it is unfair and unnecessary to discuss her politics on the basis of her friendships. Are her gay friends pro-Israel, because they socialize with a Jewish woman?--Dneyder (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Her having gay friends and business associates is not a political opinion. It is not offensive as much an attempt to use that as a proxy for her beliefs on extending civil rights to gays so I don't think it belongs under political opinions.

Sort of related to the gay-friendly theme, I know I read that Stonewall Kitchen was named after the 1969 Stonewall riots but I can't find a reference so I can add it to its article. Does anyone have a good source? Javaweb (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb UPDATE: It wasn't named after that Javaweb (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

I agree it's irrelevant. It even directly says that she has not even expressed opinions on gay rights. People need to realize a) having gay friends is not a form of activism and b) saying on record that one supports LGBT rights doesn't make one an activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

marriage

According to both her and her husband's page, they were married in 1968, divorced shortly after and remarried. I have monitored both these pages for years and have read a number of well-documented sources about the Gartens. The unsourced mention on these pages is the only "source" for this dubious piece of information. I request verification by reputable sources for this assertion and protection for both pages. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this problem. I have removed the contested information from both articles; it was added a couple of days ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Make a Wish's Ina Garten Statement

The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.

— The Make-a-Wish Foundation

"Make-A-Wish Foundation® of America Ina Garten Statement". Make-a-Wish-Foundation. March 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 35 (help) --Javaweb (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I appreciate your comment, however, the deletion of the "controversies" tab is not justified simply because MWF "forgave" her. The incident generated negative press, therefore the statement is neutral and factual. Please consider adding to the "controversies" tab with the information you included in your comment on the talk page. Thesocialearth (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is Make-a-wish's comment, not mine. Wikipedia is not the place to repeat manufactured "controversies" that web sites publish to get page views. I bet if Make-a-wish had a life boat with 1 available seat on it, Garten would get the seat and the guy writing the scandal sheet would be swimming with the sharks. Not eaten. Professional courtesy and all :)--Javaweb (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

It wasn't a manufactured controversy. It was justified criticism that has a place on her Wikipedia article. Whether or not you'd win that "bet" is unimportant. It has a place there and it deserves to be there. --121.222.173.215 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Javaweb. Is it really a controversy? One staffer at a charity said something truly not noteworthy (the majority of celebrity Make-A-Wish requests are not fulfilled) to a gossip blog, which then posted a defamatory article (and the tone of the article was defamatory, it wasn't just reporting the fact that Garten said that she couldn't fulfill this child's wish at this time) and other gossip blogs picked up the story and repeated its claims. Then the typical internet cranks made comments on said gossip blogs with all sorts of vile insults. If that's a controversy, then every celebrity/public figure needs a controversy sectionhttp://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ina_Garten&action=edit&section=7 in their entry, because that cycle is repeated for everything from minor kerfuffles with airline personnel to business disputes that are being handled through proper channels but got "leaked" to a tabloid or TMZ. Is it legitimately encyclopedic to give air to every one of these piddly eruptions of the seamy side of the internet?Aecamadi (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Speaking for myself, my concern is for Wikipedia, not Garten. There are too many sites on the internet that need to fill webpages with controversy to get the page-views that make them money. Collateral damage: their agenda end up driving ours.

Full Disclosure:I have no connection to Ina Garten. I don't watch her show or the Food Network. I don't follow her life. I haven't ever read one of her cookbooks. When the Google homepage linked to her recipes on Thanksgiving, I read a few.

Wikipedia is the shining jewel of the internet and I want to keep it that way.

--Javaweb (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Definite4ly put controversies back! I just found out about this via "http://www.cracked.com/article_19389_the-8-most-badass-make-a-wish-foundation-wishes.html" and I was stunned! I was even more surprised to see that there was NO MENTION of it on wikipedia's page. This is legitimate news, and it totally affects how I personally view this fraud. I think it is absolutely relevant, and anyone who calls it "gossip" needs to get over themselves and make the information available to people regardless. You don't get to play god. Sorry. -- 67.241.36.2 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a question of whether the controversy is right or wrong - IT EXISTS. It is something quite notable that should be in the article simply because it's something that people talk about and people would like to know about. By removing it from the page simply because you believe the controversy was unwarranted is putting your own personal bias into the article, and is not really what wikipedia is about is it? The controversy over stem-cell research is mostly wrong, but we have entire pages on that don't we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.53.52 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many opinions about whether the controversy over the Make-a-Wish is overblown, but the question of whether a section should be included should remain an objective issue. If it is factual, noteworthy(the presence of news articles and Ina's own need to address this issue mean it is), and complies with BLP policy, I think it should exist just like any other controversy. Letting pages be subject to an editor's opinion or administrator's stubbornness defeats the purpose of WP. Whomever can find the required sources should be bold and add the section.98.148.21.119 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, totally don't understand why this section was removed. GeneralChan (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FAR

There is a lot of uncited text in this Featured article, and other issues (like external jumps). The article needs a tune-up and citation; is someone able to do this to avoid the need for a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Concur. It's written like a sponsored article or one written by a Garten staffer. One tipoff is all the offline newspaper citations from all over the country, which the average Wikipedia editor would have physical access to but someone with access to a professional clipping service would. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

I oppose "Controversy" sections in BLPs most of the time, and especially this particular biased section which in my judgment does not properly represent the sources. I removed the section and was reverted by Tenebrae, who asked me to bring my concerns to the talk page.

One source is from a New York magazine food website called Grub Street and is called The War Against Ina Garten. This story reports on a critical review of a Garten cookbook by an animal rights group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is strongly opposed to eating meat or any animal products, hardly a neutral source regarding Garten's style of cooking. They oppose all cookbooks with meat recipes and support all vegan cookbooks. That predictably negative book review is balanced by an article written by Eric Felten in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the animal right's group's criticism of Garten, and the general tone of the Grub Street article is friendly to Garten, rather than negative. But none of that gets into our article.

The second is an unsigned "Top 10" clickbait posting on HuffPo called Ina Garten Birthday: 10 Reasons To Celebrate The Barefoot Contessa's 64th, which addresses Garten directly and parenthetically: "Though consider yourself warned, Ina: if you're diagnosed with diabetes, don't keep it a secret for three years! Your food may not be as manifestly unhealthy as Paula's, but it's not exactly dietetic." That single weak passing mention, which does not even mention Paula Deen's last name, is used to state that she has been "compared extensively" to Deen. One mention is not exactly "extensive". And when, precisely, is it controversial to compare one chef to another? This seems to be an attempt to tar Garten with Deen's use of racial epithets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank your initiating discussion and for taking the time to write a thoughtful presentation of your points. I agree with you to a point, and I think we've room for a middle ground.

First, you might or might not realize that this article until recently had been a hagiographic puff piece completely out of encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view. I'm not sure removing a controversy section that's RS cited is a good idea since these criticisms are real and attacking or trying to discredit a source of such criticism isn't really proper since you're in effect mounting a counterargument, and that's not what we do. All we can do is note that there is criticism and attribute that criticism — in other words, rather than say passively "there has been criticism", we say actively, "The group Such-and-Such has criticized her cooking as whatever". Then if you want to balance it with the Wall Street Journal cite, that would be balanced.

I think you're right about the HuffPo cite, and it seems fair to take the sentence out that's cited to it. Does this analysis seem fair to you? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I might be away for a couple of hours. Be back later. --Tenebrae (talk)

Thank you for conceding the point regarding the HuffPo piece. As for the hagiography claim, I would have to see specific diffs of material removed on that basis to agree. My general thought is that sometimes Wikipedia editors have a tendency to see articles about successful, popular people as "hagiographies" because relatively few reliable sources have substantive criticisms of those particular successful, popular people. But maybe there is lots of substantive criticism of Garten (as opposed to snark) that I am not aware of. That could be. I have been watching the article for a number of years because of the repeated and dogged attempts to add content about the "Make-A-Wish" faux controversy. I have reverted that garbage whenever I have seen it rear its ugly head, as I have explained in Archive 1 of this talk page, going back to June of 2011. I am not opposed to discussing criticisms of her style of cooking which happens to be very different from mine. For example, I have eaten no bacon for nearly 20 years and eat far less meat and cream than many people. But I oppose a ham-handed "Controversy" section relying on a book review by a vegan activist group. If criticism of her style of cooking is so widespread that WP:DUE requires we include it, there should be plenty of better sources available, sources which actually have broad credibility as food critics. Compare this content to the much more nuanced way that criticism is handled at Julia Child, where both sides of the story are presented. Let me know what you think. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Without going into your comments specifically, I do have to say that you're right about the subhead: "Criticism" is a much more accurate and descriptive word than "Controversy". That hadn't occurred to before, but in retrospect that seems like it should have been the word all along.

What do you think of changing the passive-voice "has been criticized" with the attributed and active-voice: "The group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has criticized...." That way we're not implying broad-range criticism, and we're giving the source of the criticism so readers can judge the source for themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've been making edits this evening mostly to the citations — formatting those that needed it, archiving several, and updating at least one misdirecting link. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Although my position is not set in stone, I simply do not see that particular group as a reliable source specifically for critical commentary regarding any chef or cookbook author who cooks with meat. If meat is involved, they will criticize 100% of the time, without fail. In my opinion, they have no credibility as criticics of individual chefs, as they exercise no critical judgment other than whether or not a given chef is vegan. As I said earlier, if criticism of Garten's cooking is widespread enough that our policy regarding due weight requires us to include it, then there must certainly exist better sources that have a reputation for fair critical commentary as opposed to advocacy axe-grinding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to say that my opinion of the group differs from yours. And in the end, neither of our opinions has any bearing on including their criticm.. The group is notable, as per among other things its having a Wikipedia page; as well, a highly reputable third-party source, New York, has referenced the report. Aside from personal opinion, there's really no basis for excluding it. You've been an editor a while; I'm sure that, emotions aside, you can see what I'm saying.

In any case, you'd mentioned there's a Wall Street Journal article on her supportive of ... well, I'm not sure supportive of high fat and high cholesterol, but supportive of something, which is equally fair to mention and add. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I have rewritten the section, taking your comments into account. Please either edit it, or express an opinion if you choose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328: Done. I trimmed it as best I could to the most basic facts and as few words as possible for neutrality. I think the two sentences are now as bland as possible, which is the goal in criticism sections. As well, there's no need for a descriptor with a blue-linked entity. All in all, a pretty solid collaborative effort, I think!--Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)