|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Dione Lucas
- 2 Recent changes: questionable facts, non-pertinent unencyclopedic info, ambiguity
- 3 obit in External links
- 4 Picture
- 5 Accent
- 6 Query
- 7 Ceylon Date
- 8 Missing data
- 9 Mr. and Mrs.
- 10 Leaving this page alone
- 11 Has anybody else seen this show?
- 12 Biography assessment rating comment
- 13 The Mayflower
- 14 Wikiproject France
- 15 Fair use rationale for Image:American Masters DVD Cover.jpg
- 16 Julia Child The Spy
- 17 Galloping Gourmet Cite
- 18 Spy?
- 19 Commonwealth Day School Petition Controversy
- 20 Too tall for the WACs?
- 21 Julia Child in Vegetarian Times
- 22 A B.A. in English or a B.A. in History
- 23 Julia Child SNL parody
- 24 Google Doodle
- 25 She is not of Romanian Descent
- 26 A Clever Way to Fix the "Name the Lady" Problem
- 27 Typo to fix
- 28 Grammar
- 29 Another parody
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 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 August 2003
Recent changes: questionable facts, non-pertinent unencyclopedic info, ambiguity
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.
- In her correspondence with Avis DeVoto (book forthcoming from Houghton), it's clear that (and she says explicity that) she had been an avocational cook since early adulthood. "But I should have started when I was 14." What was new was her ephiphanal discovery of French cuisine. --Michael K SmithTalk 18:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Rather than a link in the External links section, information in this obituary that is not currently present in the article should be added:
- 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)
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)
The description on the first kitchen picture is great, but the second kitchen picture is a better shot. Do we need 2 pictures of the same thing? We should delete the first picture, and use that description on the second. Suredegree (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that the two pictures give different senses of the kitchen and are worth keeping given that the space featured greatly in her TV work. Ideally we'd want more of Child herself but there are no more good shots licensed on the Commons at the moment. Span (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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  --Wnissen 20:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Her B.A. was in English according to this interview with her YouTube Interview with Julia Child. It has been wrongly stated that it was in history. Also, she moved to her retirement community in Santa Barbara in November 2001. I'm not sure she ever technically retired. See American Masters: Julia Child PBS--Crunch (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Biography assessment rating comment
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)
Considering how many generations have come and gone since the mayflower, there isn't anything surprising about someone having 6 ancestors that came over on it. John Elson (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking as a semi-pro genealogist for the past 30+ years, . . . if you have even one Mayflower ancestor, it's odds-on that you have a number of them. Most of the early generations in Plymouth and the MBC intermarried heavily, partly for lack of choice. --Michael K SmithTalk 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
Julia Child The Spy
- I think there should be a distinction made between being a spy and working for the OSS/CIA. We already knew she worked as a clerk for the OSS. The reason for the news story now is that OSS personnel records have now been made available. Note that the only place in the NYT (actually AP) article where it is claimed that she worked as a spy (as opposed to just working as a clerk for "the spy agency") is in the first paragraph: "she admitted at least one failing when applying for a job as a spy" - I would maintain, however, that this is due to sensationalism by the AP reporter. Without further collaborating evidence, it is more probable to assume that the application was for a job as a clerk. I was able to search the website given in the NYT article (http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/) for "Julia McWilliams", which gave a result, but the files are not available online.
- I'd maintain that the AP article as listed in the NYT is not a valid reference for the claim that she worked as a spy (as opposed to just as a clerk), and urge anyone who wants to claim otherwise to obtain and read the actual personnel records, as opposed to relying on a potentially sensationalized second-hand AP story. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. I changed the heading to better reflect the topic of conversation
- More info at http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/08/not_top_secret.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7 including an article from the CIA. --Bobbozzo (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This article from ABC news states her as a spy. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5574964. This article states her as a top secret researcher for the OSS and reduced threats of U-boats (meaning much more than a clerk). http://i.abcnews.com/TheLaw/story?id=5579095--22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think the tone we use now () is good. We state she worked for the OSS, and that she helped with their spying efforts, but we don't actually claim she was a "spy", so we don't give the reader the (unverifiable) impression that she was actively involved with the acquisition portion of espionage. As specifics come out on what her duties actually were, we should include those. (Specifics are always better than vague generalities.) -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Julia Child was not a "spy," in the sense of being an undercover operative behind enemy lines. However, she was also more than "just a clerk." Because of her education (and contacts) and her own obvious competence, she worked her way up rather quickly to the level of "Registrar," which meant she handled and was responsible for a great deal of confidential and highly classified information regarding "spies." She was essentially an expert in the OSS's support services. As noted, the majority of OSS employees were bureaucrats of one sort or another working in support functions -- not spies. That's simply the nature of things. --Michael K SmithTalk 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Except that one was in Britain and the other in America, so viewers may not have had the choice between them and there may have been no competition at all. Need a source that says this, or better reasoning, not original research. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the Galloping Gourmet was on in the U.S. I used to watch it as a TA in grad school, while grading freshman papers. However, saying Graham Kerr was a "primary competitor" to Julia Child is like saying a Morris Minor is a "competitor" to a Mercedes Benz. They have nothing in common except that both are cars. Kerr had nothing like Julia's expertise in classical French cooking, he didn't make a career of translating traditional French methods into a system American avocational cooks could understand, he didn't have her effect on American culture. How many honorary degrees has Graham Kerr received? Is he up for the Medal Freedom? Get real, people. --Michael K SmithTalk 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to find actual evidence that she was a "spy"? The articles which cover the August 13 release of information seem to be making a sensationalist deal of her employ in the OSS, but her work in the OSS appears to be in the same circumstances that we already knew about and the National Archive site merely mentions her as someone who "served" in the OSS, not as a spy. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have deleted references to "spy" and such far-fetched misinformation common to the mainstream media today and unscrupulous Wikipedia editors apparently too. —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily care enough about this article to write it myself, but since the "Spy" story is so common, it might be a good idea to add a section to this article dealing with the subject and clarifying the issue. I came here wondering about the Spy story, and had to read through this to see what was up. Nairebis (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The six-part interview with her from 1995 posted on YouTube might shed some light on the file clerk vs. spy debate. Here is a link to Part One. You can navigate from there to the other five parts. --Crunch (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Commonwealth Day School Petition Controversy
I don't see the sense in including the section Julia Child#Commonwealth Day School Petition Controversy. This is not an activity that had any bearing on her notability as a chef, television celebrity, or author. It was done as a citizen of Cambridge, just as her non-famous neighbors signed the petition. Unless it can be proven that the school was not built solely or mostly because of Child's influence, I don't think there is a place for this here. In addition, the citation is far from a non-biased, neutral source. It's a commentary, which is fine, but not for Wikipedia. It also contains some obvious wrong facts. For example, stating that Cambridge "one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most liberal communities in Massachussets (and therefore the country)." In addition to spelling Massachusetts wrong, the facts don't bear out this claim. Cambridge does not come close to being one of wealthiest communities in Massachusetts. See This list from 1999 -- Ten years after the article as written but things haven't changed much. In fact, as the data shows, Cambridge is surrounded by cities and towns of greater wealth. I don't believe there are objective measures of power and liberalness. If others can make a cogent case for why this belongs in the Julia Child article, please do so or I will remove the section. --Crunch (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Section has been removed -- Child was not a political figure, in light of the focus of this article, the information provided is irrelevant and without context. 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
Too tall for the WACs?
This paragraph shows at the top of the "WWII" section:
- After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Child joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). (She initially attempted to enlist in the United States Navy but was turned down because of her height.)
Don't know if that would qualify as a reference for the statement that she was "too tall for the US Navy", since the WAVES were a branch of the US Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009
- The section has been rewritten to say "After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Child joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) after finding that she was too tall to enlist in the Women's Army Corps (WACs) or in the U.S. Navy through the WAVES." I think this clarifies the point. --Crunch (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Julia Child in Vegetarian Times
A B.A. in English or a B.A. in History
- She majored in History. The reference in the text is solid. I've changed the box. --Crunch (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Julia Child SNL parody
from the citation needed comment: video of Dan Ackroyd's performance can be seen at http://www.hulu.com/watch/3523/saturday-night-live-the-french-chef I have not changed the link, new to WikiPedia... I will leave to someone more familiar with WikiPedia practice. Deritchie (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Julia Child was celebrated with a Google Doodle the 15th of Aug 2012 on her 100th birthday. The doodle featured Julia along with a table full of food items like cake, fish and turkey, arranged in a way to form the letters of the Google logo. IMHO: it should be added to the article, but it's currently protected. --Jojjelito (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
She is not of Romanian Descent
I removed the quote about her mother's mother being of Romanian descent and the category indicating that Child is of Romanian descent. The edit was based on a misreading of an obituary of Child and referred to the author's life, not to Julia Child's life. --Crunch (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A Clever Way to Fix the "Name the Lady" Problem
The usage of naming Julia Child as "Child" before she was married assaults my brain as I read the article. From glancing at other discussion sections ("Mr. and Mrs.", "Leaving this page alone" ), I see that this must have gone thru many thrashings to yield the state it's now in. So rather than restart the thrashing, I wish to try something different. First I list the principles involved that I know about:
- People's names are a little complex, with a personal name, family name, middle name(s); the last name of a woman usually changes when she gets married; some cultures give the family name first; some cultures give two family names (father's and mother's)...
- There should be no problem using "Julia" as the default in an article about Julia Carolyn McWilliams -> Child. Using Child has problems, switching from McWilliams -> Child somewhere in the article results in confusion.
- Everyone is a child then an adult, which adds to the fun. English-as-2nd-language people might just have trouble with this, make it clear if idiot-proof is beyond reach. ==
Now, having listed these principles, I invite others to further discuss, then fix. See if this clever method works better than verting and reverting. Friendly Person (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I too had some confusion reading the article due to this, especially since it talks about her before marriage. Referring to her as Julia would be much clearer. My $0.02 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's article protocol, though I can understand it can get some getting used to. We refer to the subject usually by the surname, using the name they are most commonly known by. WP:SURNAME and WP:FULLNAME have more details. There are a mass of agreed guidelines by which we write and edit articles so that we can all sing (somewhat) from the same hymn sheet without getting into bust ups every two seconds. These are some of them. I hope that helps explain the situation. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Typo to fix
In the World War II section, the second sentence should be changed to read "She began her OSS career as a typist at its headquarters in Washington, but because of her education and experience soon was given more responsibility as a top secret researcher working directly for the head of OSS, General William J. Donovan."
Although Child has been parodied many times, one parody stands out in my mind- a comedian posing as Child enters the kitchen and her head brushes against all the hanging pots and pans, and starts them swinging and clanging so loudly that no one can her her voice. Can anybody place this parody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)