Talk:Ina Garten/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)