Talk:Julia Child

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Dione Lucas

Julia Child may well have been influenced by DIONE LUCAS-an English woman who was the first female graduate of Le Cordon Bleu. Lucas was fundimental in establishing an unprecidented extension of the famous Paris culinary school in London. She later tried to duplicate the feat in New York, but was denied licensing. Dione Lucas was the FIRST woman featured in a cooking show on television. In one of her New York restaurants, The Gingerman, Lucas helped to introduce 'The Omelette' to the American palate. Dione Lucas authored several cookbooks on French cuisine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.237.25 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 August 2003

Well then, let's just give her her own article here -> Dione Lucas. Edit, add, do as you will to it...book titles, what not! --- Someone else 05:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes: questionable facts, non-pertinent unencyclopedic info, ambiguity

as she says, "because I was too tall to get into the WACs or WAVEs"

Is there any place where there is a source for this? There is not a single non-Wikipedia results on Google of a search for: "because I was too tall to get into". In light of this and the fact that the quote or the fact are not essential to the article, this should be removed if there is no source provided here in the discussion page.

During her time in the OSS she first became interested in the culinary arts, "Army food was terrible. We were hungry, so we were interested in eating," she admitted during a 1997 interview.

Is there evidence that she was interested in the culinary arts in the OSS? What I've read indicates that, though she had a voracious appetite, she did not really become interested in cooking, at least to the level that someone could be said to be interested in the culinary arts, until after her marriage in 1946 and their move to France shortly thereafter. A quote that says the food was bad and she was hungry all the time is not evidence of this, and the quote itself is questionable, for I have also not found any non-Wikipedia results on Google of a search for: "Army food was terrible" "interested in eating". So, these should be removed if there are no sources provided here in the discussion page for the quote and the fact. In any case, the quote might should be removed nevertheless for it is not quite pertinent.

Her de-mystification of French cuisine fit in well with the French-fascinated America of the early 1960s; her insistence on using the finest ingredients available, learned at the Cordon Bleu (and in her California childhood), would become the mantra of the California Cuisine cooking style starting in the 1970s and slowly spread throughout the country in subsequent years.

The first clause of this is already elsewhere in the article, in the first paragraph of the section "Fame, books, and television series". The rest is alternatively false, misleading, or poorly worded. She did not learn the use of fine ingredients in her California childhood and that childhood being in California has nothing to do with "California cuisine". Where is the evidence that the reason she uses fine ingredients is because of what she learned at Le Cordon Bleu and not due to learning elsewhere or her own taste, for using fine ingredients is not unique, is not a hallmark of Julia Child as opposed to other gourmet chefs (indeed, the opposite might be said for she used ingredients that were available in common American households), and the origin of it does not necessitate explanation. Le Cordon Bleu also has nothing to do with California cuisine. Also, according to the California cuisine article, she did not originate the style and I don't see how her use of fine ingredients would have any more influence than the use of fine ingredients in every other cuisine. It also does not seem that style would necessitate fine ingredients, nor does the use of fine ingredients in that style seem pertinent even to an article about "California cuisine", let alone this article on Julia Child. I have removed this part and it would require being rewritten for it to be appropriate for this article.

So recognizable was her personage that Dan Aykroyd parodied her in a famous Saturday Night Live sketch.

This is not relevant to the article, at least in its current form. Also, being parodied in a Saturday Night Live does not indicate recognizability beyond what has already been indicated in the article. If there needs to be some further illustration of her personage, then it should be added straightforwardly as such without resorting to Saturday Night Live references. I have removed this part. - Centrx 21:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The International Association of Culinary Professionals presented the Julia Child Cookbook Awards from 1996-1999.

This is not relevant to the article. From the IACP it looks like they simply asked to use her name and she agreed without any more input into the awards. - Centrx 21:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Centrx. First, let me thank you for contributing so much to what had been a fairly weak article. It is much improved. However, I have several issues to bring up. First, if you are going to delete everything without a cite on the talk page, you'd better get cracking. I'd say about 99.5% of the Wikipedia is completely without cites. Is that a big flaw that will probably result in the whole architecture and content of Wikipedia having to be redone? Absolutely. I regard the lack of cites as the biggest flaw of Wikipedia. If something's wrong, by all means fix it, but the mere lack of a cite doesn't mean something should be removed. Wnissen 22:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Simply, these two things are quotes and are somewhat questionable, especially the conclusions associated with the Army quote. Everything else in the article is multiply verifiable from biographies of Julia Child. For instance, a Google search of another quote in the article "an opening up of the soul and spirit for me" yields 3 distinct non-Wikipedia results, and this was a Web index from before the quote was used in numerous obituaries. The questionableness of these quotes, which are not essential to the article, means they are up for removal. I am going to incorporate the appropriate information of these in the article, but I am removing the quotes. - Centrx 03:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Second, the Dan Aykroyd reference shows, rather than tells, the recognition of Mrs. Child in the U.S. society as a whole. In order to be funny, everyone has to recognize the character. I think it's illustrative, far more than the "straightforward" "She was well-known outside the world of food." If the NYT is willing to include it, so am I. Wnissen 22:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this should be done in a different way that is much more concrete. Also consider that mentioning her appearance on Saturday Night Live actually underestimates her presence in American culture. Justin Timberlake and Kelly Ripa (?) also appear on Saturday Night Live and numerous minor celebrities are parodied on the show, like temporary no-names in pop culture. Note also that the New York Times mentions another cultural instance of her, a musical, which really changes the meaning of the statement. - Centrx 03:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Third, in what sense is this article a stub. It's actually fairly full, as they go. Maybe I'm missing something here. Wnissen 22:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It touches on the major points, but those major points need to be fleshed out and some medium-level points are left out. Its length compared to other, non-stub articles does not mean it is not a stub, for that is dependent on the size of the subject, and pertinent, encyclopedic points about her life are missing and they must be added not for style or mere illustration, but for completeness. - Centrx 03:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fourth, I would remove even more about "California cooking" and the bad food in the Army. I think Child was quoted as saying that before her thirties she only ate. California cuisine in its current form doesn't seem to me to have a lot to do with Child's very traditional recipes. Furthermore, the article leaves out the central aim of her work, which was to enable the "servantless American cook" with access to only American supermarkets to use French techniques to produce food in the French style. She never became and never tried to become a "chef." Wnissen 22:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I restored again the Awards and the SNL bits. Clearly being parodied on SNL shows a much wider popularity than your average PBS cooking show chef. And if having an award named after you is insignificant, you have a whole raft of articles to go through deleting - like List of places named for George Washington, all of the references to asteroids named after people, the Newbery Medal, maybe the Nobel prizes, etc. And I just heard the "too tall for the WAVES or WACS" on TV in the Person of the Week segment of the news. Her words were slightly different but I am sure she said it more than once. Silly Google for not indexing every words she every spoke or wrote. Rmhermen 23:22, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
It is not necessary that I scrub every article on the Wikipedia in order for the point to be valid about this article. If it does not belong here, it does not belong here, regardless of whether it crops up in other articles. Nevertheless, it seems that these other articles to which you are referring are lists which are specifically purposed for listing these exact trite factoids. It is right that these items go in List of places named for George Washington and not George Washington. It is right that the article on the Newbery Medal or the Nobel prizes explores the history of these awards and their namesakes. But, when applied to this case, it would mean that such information would go in the article Julia Child Cookbook Awards or at least putting it in the article International Association of Culinary Professionals is more appropriate than putting it in this article. It is not relevant to this person and you will likely find, for instance, that it is not in any of the multitude of obituaries that are currently being published. I am going to remove the quote and replacing it with a more solid fact, from the American Forces Press Service, that she wanted to join the Navy but was turned down due to her height. - Centrx 03:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've never watched SNL in my life, and probably never will, but I recognize that it is a widely known show, with a certain influence in American culture even. Today's New York Times editorial page has a nice appreciation of Julia. In it they write: "She was a celebrity despite herself, one worthy of an affectionate parody on 'Saturday Night Live.'" That's good enough for me -- I think it ought to be mentioned in the article and I'm gonna put it there. Hayford Peirce 04:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought the characteristic of California cuisine was using the freshest, not the finest, ingredients (and then using them in some illogical way.) Rmhermen 23:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Did she die on 13th August, or 12th August? Current Events says 12th, Recent deaths and Julia Child say 13th.

See my further comments on the general issue of conflicts with dates at Talk:Current events. Cheers JackofOz 05:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does no one have a picture of Julia Child?? Rhymeless 03:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Evidently it's "fair usage" to photocopy a cover of a book that one owns and then use that picture (or one from inside the book) for an article such as this? Is that correct? If so, I ought to be able to come up with a picture of Julia -- I have several of her books with photos. There ought to be a good photo somewhere. But I won't do it until I've got a little feedback on the legality of it. Hayford Peirce 19:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless you took the picture, it is not fair use, sorry. Hopefully someone has an original picture to display. Wnissen 00:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Nuts. My mother knew her vaguely for many years and when my mother died in '94 I'm pretty sure I came across a photo of her and Julia taken in San Diego at a cooking demonstation. I think my sister may have the photo, I know that I don't. If I can locate it I'll stick it in the article -- unless someone comes up with a better one first. Hayford Peirce 03:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] obit in External links

Rather than a link in the External links section, information in this obituary that is not currently present in the article should be added:

Obituary for Julia Child in The Economist

- Centrx 00:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is that wp policy, or just your personal opinion? I think even if all the same facts were present, the obituary may be of interest to people reading about her, and being commemorated there says something in itself.

Some paragraphs of this article already come uncomfortably close to copying the obituary.

By all means add more information but please leave the link.

Mbp 07:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which should not have frivolous links that are redundant with the article text. External links are for relevant information that cannot or ought not be included in an encyclopedia; they are not for repetition. If her being commemorated in The Economist is important to an encyclopedia article about her, then it should be mentioned in the text of the article or should be mentioned more generally that she was remembered in numerous obituarious throughout the world in eminent publications. As for copying, as I recall I did not use the Economist article much or at all in gathering information, but I may be incorrect.
Anyhow, I cannot access the link to The Economist now, so it may have been removed permanently from their website. - Centrx 23:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

A date on this picture is needed, and information on the show it was on would be good too. - Centrx 18:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accent

Someone has to say something about her accent. Like, until I saw a Biography on her, I didn't know she was from America originally. Mike H 16:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

And her ...um, unsual phrases. "The best way to execute french cooking is to get good and loaded and whack the hell out of a chicken. Bon apetite"; "I... go to McDonald's and Burger King on occasion. I don't know why anyone would think I always dine on hummingbirds' tongues or something."; "How can a nation be great if its bread tastes like Kleenex?" A sound file would be great (Whack, Whack, Whack) Rmhermen 17:53, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Query

I think that the kitchen in the Smithsonian is a faithful replica, not her actual kitchen, which she continued to use, until, I guess, today. Does someone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epugh (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

They didn't move the actual walls, but everything else is the real thing. See [1] --Wnissen 20:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ceylon Date

Just wanted to say that I confirmed the anon edit changing the Ceylon date. [2] has it as March 1944. Wnissen 13:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing data

What was her B.A. in? When did she retire (the article only says when she moved to a retirement home)? It's suprising that there is no French version (the lack of a German version is less surprising). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.225.34.170 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. and Mrs.

Where is there a styleguide or policy specifying that Mr. and Mrs. in subsequent mentions of names is not to be used, and if there is not such a page, what is the reason for not using it here? - Centrx 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You might check out the article on another female American icon, Billie Jean King. It says that she was born Billie Jean Moffitt. A few paragraphs later it says that she "married Lawrence King." Throughout the entire article she is referred to as "King", never "Mrs. King." What's good enough for a King ought to be good enough for a Child. Hayford Peirce 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question, but here is a more specific case with the marriage to Mr. Child. The "solution" of repeating his full name (or even without the middle name) again is surely worse than using "Mr."? - Centrx 06:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving this page alone

1.) Wikipedia is an organic, on-going process. Contributors make edits, revise them, argue about them, resolve the issues, and go on to something else. Then, six months later, someone new to Wiki comes in and, let's say, carefully goes through the Julia Child article and puts "Mrs." in front in her name in 50 cases and the same old issue crops up again. It's possible that if all the Discussion articles are still there, that before he wastes his time (and ours) he will see that this is an issue that has been resolved earlier.

2.) Personally I find it interesting to go back and read the discussions about an article that interests me. Others must agree with me, since your wholesale deletion of most of the previous discussion area was the first time I've seen this happen in any of the articles that I've followed.

3.) You may have noted that in the Discussion area of other articles there has sometimes been so much comment that Archives have been established to move some of the previous material to. This material has not been deleted, as you did, but saved for future reference. Obviously you don't agree with this approach, but it is one that many other Wikians have apparently adopted....

4.) Since you're the one who (perhaps without fully thinking about it) removed all the material in the first place, you shouldn't complain about the method by which it's put back in. I know that Wiki advice is: Be Bold! But if you're bold enough to do major edits such as this one without first running it by the other editors, be prepared for others to be equally bold in reverting it.... Hayford Peirce 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote this article as it stands now, on August 13, 2004, and in that total rewrite I used Mr. and Mrs. where appropriate, throughout. As is evident from looking at the discussion history, few as the changes on it are, I find no prior discussion of the use of Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms.
Other discussion pages do indeed have archives, the usefulness of which diminishes with the size of the archives. This was the reason for deleting past discussions that I did not think would be useful in future editing of the page. This was hasty and excessive.
Please justify omitting the proper titles that denote a proper name, rather than deleting them while contorting sensible descriptions. - Centrx 01:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned with calling this particular woman "Mrs."? I myself am rather formal in dealing with real-life people; I am certainly more apt to call them Mrs. than Mary or Ellen or whatever. But here in Wiki, in an encycl. where OTHER WOMEN ARE NOT CALLED MRS., I don't see why you want to do so. I cited the Billy Jean King article as an example. I now cite a longer, more serious one: that of Margaret Thatcher. As in the King article, it says that a Margaret Roberts married a Denis Thatcher. Denis Thatcher is referred to once as "Denis" and thereafter vanishes. Thatcher herself is thereupon always called Thatcher. Isn't this enough? I can understand an article about Eleanor Roosevelt in which in parts of the article FDR is still alive -- call her Mrs. Roosevelt to clearly distinguish her from him. But once he's dead, and it's clear that the article is referring to her, she becomes Roosevelt.... Hayford Peirce 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Simply because others do not use titles does not mean that it is wrong to have titles. What is the reason that persons should not referred to by their titles? Is it to save space? Is it to appeal to a vulgarity? At the very least, using titles may be a matter of having two acceptable styles, like British and American spelling?
In this particular case, there are two distinct reasons for two classes of the use of titles, other than the general reasons for using titles in all cases. First class: the surname of this person is a common noun; distinguishing the proper name from a common noun is in this particular case especially important. Second class: in order to distinguish between the male Mr. Child and the not-yet- or newly-married Miss McWilliams or Mrs. Child rather than referring to both Paul Child and Julia Child as "Child". Sidestepping around this leaves the problem of not stating his name in the first place he is mentioned, which is appropriate for descriptive text. - Centrx 04:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The rule about Honorifics is set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) under the "Subsequent uses of names." No Mr. or Mrs. There is also Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing which shows that, with some notable exceptions, they aren't used in professional writing. Hayford Peirce 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has anybody else seen this show?

I once saw Julia Childs, in a morning show, cook a live lobster. The reaction of the show host and the audience when Ms. Childs pulled the tail off the live lobster was totally hilarious. Ms. Childs reaction was a cool "grow up." I have tried to find the video in the internet, with no success so far. Anyone else seen that show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.35.124 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- HornandsoccerTalk 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mayflower

I have been browsing around and it seems that she is a descendant of a remarkable number of original Mayflower pilgrims. Here they are: William Bradford (1590-1657),William Brewster (Pilgrim), John Alden, Francis Cooke, George Soule and Richard Warren. Surelly she can't have six ancestors from the ship? Is it vandalism from a fan? If this is true, is it a record for a person to be related to six Mayflower passengers? Mascal4 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They look to be fairly well-sourced. It could be a hoax, but I do not think it is impossible, just somewhat unlikely. —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject France

This article should not be a part of WikiProject France. The only way this article could qualify for inclusion in said Wikiproject would be if Julia Child was French. Furthermore, being a biographical article about an American, it only mentions France in passing, and does not describe French cooking. I have read the entire page and found no (explicitly stated) information about France or French cooking.

I'm putting this here because my reasons were too long to fit in the edit summary box. Join us, comrade!RA talk stalk 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:American Masters DVD Cover.jpg

Image:American Masters DVD Cover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Child

Julia Child was a cook and had her own T.V. show but was also known as a spy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.158.78 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A clerk in the OSS does not equal spy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.140.29 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galloping Gourmet Cite

I've removed the Fact tag on the statement "Her primary 'competitor' for viewers was the British 'Galloping Gourmet', another successful cooking show of the time," as there really is nothing here that needs a citation. The two shows were on at the same time, and quite successful, which can easily be seen by comparing this article with that of the Galloping Gourmet -- in other words, the reference is right there in the text and easily clickable by anyone wanting to check it out. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)