Talk:Ina Garten

Archives created

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

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

Political opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successful Political boycott needs substantiation

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

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

Reference for Science fair

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

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

Translation

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

Make a Wish's Ina Garten Statement

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

— The Make-a-Wish Foundation

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

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

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

--Javaweb (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

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

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

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

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

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

put controversy back. you communists need to unlock the page. pussies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.138.103 (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors, please keep this comment. I think this comment by anonymous contributor 108.77.138.103 is illustrative. --Javaweb (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

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

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

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

— Enzo's Mom

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

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

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

The morals of this story:

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

--Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

Probably not worth including but...

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

make a wish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:76.205.119.116's comments

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

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

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

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

end of comments

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

>
> I have contacted wikipedia once to address this
>

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

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

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

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

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

Make A Wish Foundation

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

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

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

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