Talk:Paula Deen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Additional info needed[edit]

I wrote this article. I need dates for the opening of her restaurant locations, as well as her birthdate. An exact date for her divorce and ages of her sons (to be put at the time of her divorce) would be appreciated as well. --Kitch 22:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Got the birthdate, but can't find anything on exact divorce date or restaurant openings as of yet. Cheers! 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SOMEBODY needs to write this:

"On February 28, 2011, Paula Deen was hit in the face by a house by her son."

In a less ambiguous way. It does not parse well in English and is borderline nonsensical. Did her son hit her in the face with a house? Was she hit in the face whilst standing by both her house and her son? Lots of permutations there and none of them are obvious. Also, NO CITATION, so it's gobbledygook hearsay, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this comment amusing: "The specialty is the buffet, which may include sweet potatoes, macaroni and cheese, deep-fried Twinkies, fried chicken, cheesy meatloaf, greens, beans, and creamed corn. Every meal comes with a garlic cheese biscuit..." I lived in South Caroline for 2.5 years and those options listed are the ONLY options in the majority of restuarants in SC save for the fried Twinkies....Mylittlezach (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the facade of the buffet at Harrah's being designed to look like her house. I am quite sure, from having visited on a few occasions, that the facade looked that way years before Paula Deen had any relationship with that casino. cousar 19 December 2011.


Why does Wikipedia not want to link Paula Deen to butter?

Perhaps because she has nothing to do with butter. The article already reads like a fawning fan's love letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
PAULA DEEN not having anything to do with BUTTER? My guess is that if she could make love to a stick of butter she probably would. Every single episode has her putting copious amount of the stuff into every dish. I'd say there should at least be a mention of her penchant for butter.—

Doesn't heavy cream rank right up there as well, on her list of obsessions? -- (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, perhaps a section on criticisms of her cooking shows? She does seem to use unhealthy levels of fats in her shows, but i suspect that's mostly for theater. -- (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

She can use all the butter she wants- it's not promoted as a healthy cooking show and with recipes like "Gooey Butter Cake" no one is likely to make the mistake. There is absolutely nothing wrong with rich food, it's up to the consumer to know when to stop.Saxophobia (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is criticizing cooking styles the new point of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dept Saftey Manager (talkcontribs) 08:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Larry King[edit]

I thought I would add a link to transcript of an interview Paul did with Larry King. Among other things, she admits to an affair with a married man and smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day! Ella Menopee 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only a pack and a half? That's nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Smithfield Controversy[edit]

If someone could add information about her Smithfield spokesperson position, and the ramifications of this contract, that'd be great. I'm afraid to make changes to biographical articles, though. A simple googling of deen smithfield controversy yields tons of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Paula Deen Magazine correction of Link & Text[edit]

Hey would like to see about a minor correction to the Cooking with Paula Section and correcting a minor item with the link to paula's magazine website. When I made the correction yesterday I was warned it was spam and a conflict of interest for my change. If you want details see mytalk page.

So following the posting guideline for wiki, I am posting to the talk page for review by independent Wikipedia editors. See Conflict of Interest posting guidelines (

I would like to see about posting a link to the following site as a correction to an external link that already exist on the Paula Deen definition page within Wikipedia. Currently the link references . While this does go to the correct site due to redirect that we have in place on our server it is not the correct URL. is the correct URL. This is not for promotion of the site. It is just a minor correction of an existing link.

In additon I would like to check on changing a line of text from:

Cooking with Paula Deen Deen launched a lifestyle magazine called Cooking with Paula Deen in November 2005


Cooking with Paula Deen Deen launched a bimonthly lifestyle magazine called Cooking with Paula Deen in November 2005 published by Hoffman Media LLC. (Leave the bolding out)

Again this is not self promoting our site or the company I work for. It is just stating a fact. There is not a link back to the company site. This follow the posting guidelines for wiki and simular "published by" statments are in the place in the Paula Deen wiki already and throughtout other wiki entries.

Due to the fact that I work for Hoffman Media the publishers of this title I am submitting this for an independent review of the content. I am the programmer for the web team not the web marketing group. This is intent for stating facts and correct links, only. It is not a site generator. Again the link meets the guidelines for an external link. The rerfence published by Hoffman Media also meets all publication guidelines and examples that I have seen in Wikipedia.

Thanks You, (LeverettPowell (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

PS. This all started due to this wiki entry having the following three messages at the top: 1)"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." 2)"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." 3)"This article needs additional citations for verification."

I am trying to help out and meeting items 1 and 3 from the message on the top o this wiki entry.

Gooey Butter Cake[edit]

The article references Gooey Butter Cake as a "traditional Southern recipe". The Wikipedia article on Gooey Butter Cake states that this recipe originated with a German-American baker in St. Louis, MO. I have inserted a link to that article. If anyone has references to establish or refute the accuracy of either of the conflicting claims, they should correct one article or the other. (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

St Louis may not be in the Deep South but it's certainly Southern- being on the Mississippi helps. "Traditional Southern Recipe" is also a flexible term- Red Velvet Cake is an extremely popular southern dessert but it may have been developed in New York City. Saxophobia (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The vile conocctions she cooks on her show are about as Southern as Ulysses S. Grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Get Cookin' Website[edit]

Should something be added to this article about her webshow/website produced by EQAL called Get Cookin' With Paula Deen? The link is here and a third party source is here. I'm not sure if it should be its own section, or added somewhere in the existing article, or not added at all. Does anyone have any thoughts? --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ham incident?[edit]

This doesn't merit inclusion. It'll be forgotten in a week. — ceejayoz talk 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you, I removed it first because I thought it was vandalism, so then I added it back and corrected it without thinking about :P Thank you ς ح д r خ є 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This definitely merits inclusion, as it was a televised event that many who do not necessarily like or know her will remember. This was the first time that I ever heard of her, and the reason that brought me to her page. Taking it down would be selective censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - consider 20 years from now what kind of anecdotal stories would be interesting to read about a person. Recording these kinds of things paints a better picture of the effect a person had on society. (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a very notable occurrence in Mrs. Deen's career, although it is currently quite publicized, this is more of news story and not something to document in her article. Like Ceejayoz stated initially, "It'll be forgotten in a week". An article should never contain anything that could warrant eventual removal. This is not like the Beyoncé VMA controversy, this incident has not received enough notability... yet anyway. If there is still some mention of it in a week, then we'll discuss it. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the harm in keeping it though? Would it not result in a more comprehensive article on Ms. Deen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel the Ham incident is very important and it seems that only one person doesn't seem to be interested in it, thus I feel it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser user (talkcontribs) 07:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its silly stuff, but the fact that people keep asking about it tells me it does no harm to mention it in the article. Here are some cites that can be used:[1][2][3]--Milowent (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes... I'm sure the occasional n00b IP reflects the worlds hunger for news on ham-related facial injuries. If someone reads this and comes to Wikipedia, what are they going to do? "Yep... it's there... yep... it was a ham"? There is nothing informative about it. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How isn't it informative? It informs us that Paula Deen got hit in the face with a ham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth location[edit]

In the article is says, Albany, Georgia, but the infobox says Honolulu, Hawaii.  Guy M | Talk  17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

who is Ricky in Paula Deens pictures on her start up of her show[edit]

who is Ricky in Paula Deens pictures on her show Bprngle — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Smithfield Farms[edit]

I'm moving this from "Criticism" to her career section since the criticism referenced is for the company and not about her. --Javaweb (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Agreed - the cited source makes clear the criticism is about Smithfield Farms, not Paula Deen. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

NY Times Bruni puts Deen's Cooking in Perspective[edit]

Frank Bruni says that most cooking shows and restaurants have food that will make you fat and that it is unfair to single Deen out.

This belongs in the article's section on her announcing her diabetes. --Javaweb (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

n***ers v. niggers[edit]

Some good faith editors have been attempting to change "n***ers" to "niggers", only stating WP:CENSORED as their reason.

The problem is WP:CENSORED only applies to Wikipedia censoring content - which is not the case here. The line is in quotes because it is quoted directly from the listed ref at

That source uses "n***ers" - and as we are directly quoting the source, we need to use that same format. Changing it to instead say "niggers" is altering a direct quote, which is not appropriate. If you want to change the quote, then a new WP:RS is needed so that the direct quote can be spelled out to match the source. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. The complaint (original source of the allegation discussed here) contains the full unedited allegation. Here's a link to the complaint- See paragraph 56(d). 2601:9:3200:16:7CB5:AA9F:7064:80FB (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)MPT

Perhaps a reference could be made to the appropriate article, so that non-American readers know what the controversy is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:42, 21 June 2013‎
Is it just me, or do the two main sources for this section about the lawsuit seem somewhat less than WP:RS? The firing is sourced to the LA Times, without a doubt reliable, but the other two just don't seem like the quality of sourcing we usually demand for negative info. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Deen was sacked by Food Network this afternoon. Her contract will not be renewed at the end of this month. (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal life instead?[edit]

Shouldn't the section where it mentions her using racial slurs be placed in the personal life section rather than the criticism section? --Matt723star (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, as she made the statements in a professional capacity and they were revealed as part of an employee lawsuit. It is impacting her on a professional level. More generally, though, there are editors who feel criticism should be worked into the rest of the article rather than separate. Don't feel strongly either way on that, myself. (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree I do think it belongs in personal life - she may have made the comments while she was working, but they certainly weren't made in a "professional capacity" - professional capacity would mean that her expertise was at play in her commentary. She's a chef. If she talks about mashed potatoes, it's in a "professional capacity". She can't talk about politics or race in a professional capacity. Impacting her on a professional level also doesn't mean that the comments were made in a professional capacity.Shatnertrek (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, but I just looked at the controversy section and I think that's good enough. It is controversy and it does pertain to her professional life so I guess it can stay there. The way it was worded in the article before had me want it moved but now that it has its own designated place in the criticism section it's better. --Matt723star (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bubba quote[edit]

Is a quote neither from Deen nor alleged to have been said in her presence by another person really relevant to this BLP? I am sure it is relevant to Bubba's article, but quite unsure about it being here. Collect (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I came to say that the article seemed unbalanced not mentioning that, while Deen did say "of course" she used the word "nigger", she also said "but that was a very long time ago" (not verbatim). I had also thought that the Bubba quote was out of place, but when I saw your comment, I realized that she says something to the effect that her kids and her brother don't let her use words meanly, and if that bit of the quote was included in the "not in a very long time" it would actually make sense to include the allegation against Hier. So I'd say that either 1) the Hier quote should go and "a long time ago" should be added or 2) "a long time ago" + "my kids and brother don't let me" should be added and the Hier quote moved after that and put within that context (as suggesting a conflict). - BalthCat (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest "letting the dust settle" before changing things around, as there are conflicting quotes currently. However, she gives credence to the claims when she says "my kids and brother don't let me", which suggests a self-control issue. Her generation was a bit of a bridge generation, between the modern era and the civil rights era, hence a potential source for her poor choice of phrasing. Regardless, the stories change slightly daily and it does Wikipedia no service to change the article daily to reflect that, rather than simple established facts.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Paula Deen Syndrome redirects to Diabetes[edit]

Is this actually based om something relevant or just a poor joke? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a joke on an episode last week of The Daily Show. Redirect now deleted. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I had no idea. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It can be true and a joke at the same time. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


I made a couple of edits to the Controversy section regarding the use of the phrase, "N-word". I would argue that using such a euhpemism is just the same as using the actual word, nigger. In fact, the euphemism conjures up the same meaning and is used with much less discretion than the actual word. I would suggest that this article use the actual word unless it is a quotation in which the person being quoted says "N-word". I know this is a controversial topic. But we are writing on encyclopedic subjects. Wikipedia demands that we write in direct and clear language and not resort to code words for expletives. Of course, an explitive such as nigger should only be used when germane and absolutely necessary to get across a meaning. I hope this explains my edit. ask123 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the source attached to that paragraph (not a great source, but it's all that's attached), and it only uses the term "N-word". That source itself links to a court document which also only uses the term "N-word". Unless we can find a source that spells it out differently, we should stick to the term used in the sources - although we can easily pipe the links to point to the actual word. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a tricky problem. Yes, we need to adhere to sources, but at the same time we should probably say explicitly what was actually said at least once, without relying on a piped link. Federales (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If the term "n-word" is used in court, and we are describing the questions and comments made in court, then we also need to use "n-word". On the other hand, if we can find a source that uses the term "nigger", then that would also support the use of that term in the article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if we have no source that uses the word "nigger", then we can't very well have a piped link to that article, can we? Federales (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That may well be in the court records. Courts of law are meticulous in clarifying even such common euphemisms as N-word for the slur, ensuring for the record the precise wording or as close as can be recalled as a matter of course. That is common in a court of law, but highly uncommon in the media, who receive all manner of hate mail, complaint calls, e-mails, threats, etc if they directly quote the slur. That said, unless and until the court transcripts become available, we're stuck with what the media reports as our source.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've searched around - and I located one or two sources that state she is accused of having used the term "nigger"; but all sources I can find seem to indicate that in the depositions, testimony and questioning, everyone in the court seems to be using the term "n-word". Since all of the mentions in the article discuss what was said in court, this could explain why the sources are also using "n-word". --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - I know my reply is very late. These are good points you are all making. We should be consistent with the source. However, it would be good to make clear that that is what we are doing. In other words, we don't want the article even to appear like we're using euphemisms to skirt around the word. It should be clear to the reader (without having to dive into the source or follow a piped link) that this is how it has been used in the source. In fact, a link may even reinforce the notion that we are censoring ourselves, or, rather, that we are providing a "safety mechanism" to separate the reader from the word unless s/he opts in by clicking through the link. Perhaps we can clear up any ambiguity by putting the phrase in quotes (as in "N-word" -- which has already been done in some instances here, even when the quotes do not refer to an specific and individual quotation) or by using prose (for example, to say "Jackson's attorney responded by asking Deen to explain how what she termed the N-word might be used in a "non-mean way".") Just some thoughts. These are surely not perfect fixes. Just ideas off of the top of my head. I welcome your suggestions. In the end, I just think it looks awful when we censor perfectly reasonable content, or, in this case, appear like we are censoring it. ask123 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
According to the transcript, on p130, they do use the word "nigger."
That was only one deposition. If you read the rest of the trial transcripts, you'll find other uses. Court testimony isn't a guessing game. You can't testify before court and use euphemisms. Courts have to know exactly what was said. You could prosecute a witness for perjury a year later, and the witness could say, "Oh, when I said 'the N-word,' I didn't mean she said 'nigger,' I meant she said 'negro.'"
It's also used in many WP:RS.
Using "the N-word" is WP:CENSOR.
We've had discussion. The people who favor the use of the word "Nigger" have made a good argument based on WP guidelines, particularly WP:CENSOR. The word "Nigger" is used in WP:RSs.
The people who favor the use of the word "N-word" have made arguments based on their own subjective personal feelings, and on inaccurate claims that it's not used in WP:RS and in trial transcripts.
When we weigh the good arguments, and set aside the irrelevant arguments, we have a consensus for using "Nigger." We should put it in. --Nbauman (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Jackson (suing Deen for racial discrimination) happens to be white[edit]

Source: [4]

This detail comes originally from court documents. [5] One editor doesn't like the inclusion of this fact on the basis that anybody can sue for racial discrimination (although it's hard to see how such a fact would be helpful to their case), but given the nature of Deen's P.R. difficulties, it seems like something that needs to be spelled out for our readers. Federales (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious![edit]

The specialty is a buffet, which typically includes sweet potatoes, macaroni and cheese, deep-fried Twinkies, fried chicken, cheesy meatloaf, greens, beans, and creamed corn. Every meal is served with a garlic cheese biscuit and a hoecake.

This is why we can't have nice things. This is very hard to believe and the source does not seem to support it. Non-Americans reading this will think this is a joke of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the buffet menu.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There's still no source in the article. I have no doubt the information is true (the obesity rate is highest in the Southern United States) but there is still no valid source in the article and the source at the end of the paragraph is 404. I'm curious though, what does Deen consider "healthy"? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
In the context of this article, what Deen considers "healthy" would require citing a reliable source where Deen discusses healthy eating. My own "original research" in this area leads me to believe that many restrauteurs say that their meals are for "special occasions" rather than every day consumption. Feel free to search for reliable sources on this matter. But this is the least of Deen's worries at this time, and I suggest that the attention of experienced editors be devoted to the immediate controversy for the moment. This is only my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I'm just concerned about the sources at the moment, specifically for the passage cited above. If someone would add them, that would be great. As for her buffet, a single meal there would entail 4-5000 calories at one sitting. For the body, that's a weapon of mass destruction. I'm surprised that the American media and culture is spending time on glorifying this kind of health disaster. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
What would the masses say in Georgia where Paula is from, or in Hawaii, where fried spam is considered a great state treasure? What would Anna Frodesiak say? In China, restaurants serve things Westerners consider disgusting. A buffet is a form of food service where customers take as little or as much of the various dishes as they want. Customers can take relatively larger portions of the fruits and vegetables, and relatively smaller portions of the fried meats, if they so choose. Or the opposite. When I patronize a buffet, I take none of the fried meats whatsoever. But I am me and you are you. Accordingly, your speculations about calorie counts are nothing but unreferenced speculations. As for sourcing, I would consider the restaurant's own website to be an acceptable source for the foods it serves at its buffet, and would feel no need for commentary on Wikipedia. I will scoff if I so choose on my Facebook page, thank you very much.
Personally, I don't like the style of food that Deen serves at her restaurants, but my personal thoughts on the matter are irrelevant to this article, as are your personal observations that you are "surprised that the American media and culture is spending time on glorifying this kind of health disaster." Some "glorify" and many criticize. Don't lump American media and culture into one clump, please. The French love Foie gras which American animal rights activists consider repellant and repugnant torture of geese, and the French smoke tobacco in their restaurants with gleeful contempt for non-smokers like me. The Filipinos eat a wide variety of animals in ways that might make some Americans vomit. And anyone who has watched very much of Anthony Bourdain on television knows that many cultures eat what many other cultures consider disgusting. Or enlightening. So what else is new? And how does this apply to improving this specific article about Paula Deen at this specific point of time in her career? Do you think that because she has been knocked to the ground, we should turn the article into a diatribe against her style of cooking and eating? I certainly hope not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
None of which addresses my point: the section is still unsourced. Is anyone going to do any work on this article, or do I need to reduce it to a stub? The South ain't gonna rise again with Deen in the kitchen. Hell, they won't be able to move without a fork lift... Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Add a source yourself, such as the perfectly acceptable restaurant website, or stub the section neutrally as you see fit. Just don't inject your own dietary POV into the article, please. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never said anything about injecting my own dietary POV into this article. I've said that the paragraph in question needs a source. Do you think a restaurant menu is a good source for Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a good source to back up a sentence about a restaurant menu. Federales (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but when one resorts to a primary source, we first use a secondary to guide our editorial choice. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to "stub" -- the "Twinkies" part is useless (unsourced, and likely untrue as well), and the buffet has a number of standard buffet items - one can not find a buffet in the US which lacks mac/cheese and fried chicken, so most of that is pretty useless here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the restaurant's own online menu is the best possible source for general factual information about what dishes a restaurant operated by a notable chef serves, as long as no interpretation or commentary is derived from that menu. That would require an independent source, such as detailed commentary by a credible restaurant critic. Accordingly, I have added the link to the restaurant's website and corrected the description of the buffet items. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to trim[edit]

We've reached the point where the list of companies severing their relationship with Deen has become over-long and laborious. It's time to summarize. I propose that we mention Food Network by name and follow that with a statement that "many other companies terminated their business relationships with Deen," or something to that effect. Otherwise, we risk inviting (nay, we would then require) a list of companies that have elected to retain their relationship with Deen. I don't find that especially desirable, and I suspect I am not alone in that. Federales (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no to some degree. We shouldnt censor information on wikipedia. However, do you think that the entire section should be summarized into 4 sentences and this controversy should have its own wikipedia stub? It is important to document the sponsors pulling out, but you can make the case for stubbing it. Thereandnot (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no need at this time to create a separate article about the controversy. This is a major event in Deen's life, but little more than that. So I believe that it should be discussed in her biography. As for the listing of companies that severed their endorsement deals with Deen: Would we consider a well-referenced list of endorsements encyclopedic last month? If so, listing the lost endorsements is OK, if referenced. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the right question to ask is, "Will we consider a full list of lost endorsements appropriate two years from now?" What we have here is a textbook case of WP:RECENTISM, which is not an unusual occurrence when Wikipedia endorses digests a fast-moving current event. Federales (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be better able to visualize "two years from now" about two weeks from now. Feel free to be bold. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not in any hurry. I thought it would be good to get some input from other editors first. What I'm currently thinking will improve the article would be to get rid of the litany of dates and consolidate the lost endorsements into a couple of sentences, without shedding any of them. E.g., instead of "On June 25 Deen lost this endorsement. On June 26 Deen lost that endorsement. On June 27 Deen lost another endorsement," we should have "After Food Network dumped her, Deen also lost this, that, and the other company." Thoughts? Federales (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While the controversy is important, I don't think it should take up a larger and larger portion of the main article. Wikipedia should not be censored, but the case can be made that the information should not take up such a large portion of the main page because it is recentism. Thereandnot (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We don't need separate sentences and dates for each loss of an endorsement. And we don't need to allow this one incident to dominate the biography. On the other hand, this incident seems to have ended her national celebrity career. So, it is important to this article and the story of her life. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect demonyms[edit]

She or anybody else in the United States must be called "US-American" or "U.S. Citizen" or even "Stater" according to the latest English grammarians recommendations. using merely "American" is now considered incorrect and somewhat disrespectful towards the rest of real "Americans" e.g. Colombians, Argentineans, Ecuadoreans; etc and so on. Therefore all the incorrectly used "American" terms must be replaced and amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "American" is still the standard and most common demonym for someone from the U.S. (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the use of bizarre formulations like "Stater" which no one uses in real life. Grammarians can discuss whatever they want, but their musings are of no importance in this context until a broad sampling of reliable sources start calling citizens of the USA something other than "Americans". Which they haven't, and won't any time soon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What I've observed in diplomatic circles is the use of US citizen or US resident, rather than American, which is more of a global vernacular for a US citizen and occasionally, US resident. In short, typically one sees "American" used in common speech, but in official speech in diplomatic circles, US citizen or US resident is used, as "American" is generally understood to be North American, usually US citizen/resident and the nation used for Canadian, Mexican, etc. On a personal, OR note, it's been my experience that many foreigners don't understand US as well as American when referring to a person from the US. But then, United States isn't always abbreviated in other languages as US due to the words translation, such as "estados unidos". Hopefully, that doesn't confuse matters further.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For which the proper Spanish abbreviation is "EE. UU." IIRC. Collect (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Really? How would the abbreviation turn from EU (which would be confusing today) to EE? I always love learning something new in the morning, today may well be off to an excellent start, as my travels in Spanish speaking nations is essentially non-extant.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not EE, EE. UU.. It has to do with how plurals and abbreviations work in Spanish. Firstly, in Spanish (and French as well) the adjective takes on a plural form when applied to a plural noun. So it's Estados Unidos (États-Unis in French). Secondly (unlike French), the initials of the abbreviation are doubled because the word is plural, so you have EE. UU. (É.-U. in French). French included primarily for... curiosity? -BalthCat (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Either the article is vague or the lawsuit was vague[edit]

"Alleging that Deen made derogatory remarks regarding African-Americans which were personally offensive because her nieces are bi-racial with an African-American father."

Some states require detailed facts in the filing of the lawsuit, perhaps others do not. I am saying the article has no detail on what exactly happened with this particular employee, as opposed to Dean's general and historical conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report specific details of unproven allegations while a legal action is pending. It is best for editors to refrain from spelling out these details, at least until a judgment is rendered. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but it would be strange if no specific facts were available about what happened to this worker. Did someone call her a nigger?


Jackson's attorney responded by asking Deen to explain how the N-word might be used in a “non-mean way.”

This sentence needs to be changed to say: how the word nigger might be used...

This is censorship, in this sentence that is not being used as part of a quote, the only quote is a partial quote "non-mean way" with the previous rest of the sentence as a paraphrasing of the conversation. Since it is not a direct quote, we should not be censoring the word. (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, it's self-censorship, to avoid unnecessary pain and also to avoid unnecessary pain to oneself when taken either out of context or by those unacquainted with the speaker. As an example, I'm white. I also served for nearly three decades in the military. I've dropped the N-bomb in a joke amongst close friends who were all black. One man overheard the joke and took offense. An entire room of men explained that "He's not THAT way, it's cool." In that situation, she'd live my life, a room full of people speaking out in favor of her. That isn't readily apparent, however, Wikipedia rules must prevail, that of unproven allegations, lest McCarthy live on. And the Salem witch hunts resume or some other idiocy. Unproven may or may not be noteworthy, it's really based upon outcome and noteworthiness of the event after its conclusion. An example for that is a neighbor's grandson, who is close to my age. He was accused of premeditated murder. He went on trial. Strangely enough, the actual murderer approached the police and DA and was literally chased away. The murderer approached the defense and the murderer provided evidence only available to the police, interestingly enough, evidence not provided in the court. We'll suffice it to say that provided an interesting shakeup of the incumbent prosecution system. The accused walked free, the murderer experienced a lesser sentence and amazingly has failed to commit another crime. Your mileage may vary, however, accusations are not proved facts. Something that the House Un-American Activities Committee failed to consider, hence living up to the name of their committee. For me, I've actually used, as the only white man in a room full of black soldiers upon request on proper medical terminology to define a particular injury, "Nigga jumped off the truck with the masks on his shoulder and fucked his shit UP!" The injured was present, took a glance at my subordinate, then at me, then really hurt himself laughing. I then explained the proper injury pattern, but suggested he simply describe the incident, the location as best he could in medical and common terms, then move on, as he'd always end up evacuated. But, it did make for an interesting command and staff meeting.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The transcript of the deposition shows that the "N word" euphemism was used during that deposition, and that is how reliable sources have described it. Accordingly, it would be original research and unacceptable synthesis to change the euphemism to the full racial slur in Wikipedia's voice. We summarize only what the reliable sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


2013 Outrageous Firing Paula Deen, famous cook and author, has been fired from all of her jobs, and it is hard for her to get rehired or find a new job. She can't support her family. Paula Deen was recently fired from Food Network for using N****** a long time ago and was thought of as racist. She got fired from the show,although she was not and it wasn't a swear when she used it at the time. Other companies fired her such as Walmart and QVC, because of the whole swear situation. Paula has seemed to be very upset about the whole thing. She has children and a family and needs to help support them. She seems to be hated by many. The people, such as you and me seem to be very forgiving. They felt bad that she lost her job and started purchasing her books on Amazon. Although the book reached number 1 on the Amazon Bestseller List, the book was banned from purchase. Paula Deen is continuing to be fired and her apology isn't helping her get rehired.

Why is Paula getting fired for saying N-word such a long time ago? Shouldn't we be living in the present and not the past nor future? Right now, they are living in the past over a word she said Who Knows When! The point is, it wasn't a swear then, so why should she get fired NOW?

Paula Deen was taking in a lawsuit for the use of the word. She said she even used it in a non-mean way! But she still is fired. If you want, you can read more about it here:

We hope she gets her job back because this is life and jobs we are talking about. She has a family who needs the income.

What do you think about this all?

14:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)NO NAME PLEASE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog. It also is not a fundraising site. As for why she was fired, it's really simple actually. She was terminated because she brought controversy and bad PR to the programs she participated in, regardless of when she allegedly said anything.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed category: Hate speech[edit]

Given how well substantiated Deen's derogatory remarks are, should we consider including her in [Category:Hate speech] along with select other individuals? I'm not sure if her actions are quite as notable as, say, those of Westboro Baptist Church, but I doubt the category is necessarily reserved for the most extreme groups and individuals. (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious on that one, though I'll admit I'm unacquainted with the Hate speech category and how one earns such an "honor". Had she made remarks such as "ill used farm equipment" (something that my youngest didn't hear my voice over for three months) or some other remark beyond using the word nigger, I'd think that would be worthy of adding her into the category on a general concept basis of such a category, for remarks of the singular word, my own father used that word repeatedly in referring to friends who he worked with, it was a generational issue of the time that is now long past. Thankfully. Indeed, my 83 year old father refers to the POTUS as "Some black guy", his moderate dementia preventing him usually from remembering the president's name. Well, save for after having extremely low blood pressure for close to five hours, then he got the president's name down right, the year right for a change (usually a dyslexic error on the year) and several other startling sharpness of memory in one that is most usually foggy in short term memory recall. But, hypoxic events are a bit weird anyway. In this case, I'd call it for what my own personal experience is, a generational flaw of language and consideration, coupled with age, diabetes and heaven knows whatinhell else is failing in her due to her eating her own cooking.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Further input, I asked on the category talk page, just to be certain. I abhor making a decision in a vacuum when said vacuum could be trivially filled.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's my answer: No, no, no, no and no. Take a look at the category. There are only three people in the category. One was prosecuted for hate speech in Sweden, but acquitted. That person really should be removed from the category. One is a publisher of conservative biblical tracts. Personally, I think that guy is a crackpot, but should be removed from this category. The third is a radio preacher who opposes gays, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and Buddhists. A jerk in my opinion, but one of the three most prominent hate speech advoctaes in the world? I don't think so. Take him out of the category. There are legions of bitter racists such as Klansmen who really know how to hate, and are not in the category. And you want to add Paula Deen to this ill-conceived category? Uhhhh, no. Sorry, no. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my opinion, though poorly informed. I imagine that Hitler may well belong in that category, save that he is deceased, but to add individuals, they'd have to be quite notable. As in more notable than the Grand Lizard of the Klan notable for speech that spurred deeds. I'd leave the list of living people for the SPLC to list, not an encyclopedia.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have a link to Nigger?[edit]

I appreciate that as Americans, a lot of you are going to argue back and forth about whether to actually use the word "nigger" (or "n**ger" or "the N-word") in the article. That seems like a bit of a silly debate to me, as an encyclopaedia should be about statements of fact shorn of moral overtones and on that basis it seems obvious to just use the word "nigger" and be done with it. Whatever word you all end up settling on, may I suggest that you at least provide a link over to Nigger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:10, 20 July 2013‎

At least one instance of "N-word" is already piped to link to nigger. The sources utilized in the article all use the term "N-word" themselves, not "Nigger" - as Wikipedia needs to be based on what is said in the reliable sources used, this article uses that term as well. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


I have included in the article that no court awards were part of the settlement. An LA Times gossip columnist found a lawyer that says the settlement statement does not say Deen did not give money to Jackson. See [6] I noticed the NY Times left off that part of the statement, perhaps not seeing it as meaning no money was exchanged. Do we need to be clearer about what is unknown about the settlement terms. How to clarify? --Javaweb (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Use of alleged was fine[edit]

Using alleged in this context is fine, according to the Style Guide. I was trying to be as neutral as possible but "alleged" can be used in the context of a trial. Thanks for catching that. --Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

Disproportionate detail about racial insults - possible BLP violation[edit]

This article is meant to be an overview of the person, not an overview of the press coverage of the person.

She does not publicly campaign for the word "nigger" to be used, and the word isn't the basis of her cooking philosophy, and using that word is not her main pass time. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) There is absolutely nothing to justify dedicating a whole quarter of the "Paula Deen" article to this topic.

(Check my edit history, I'm not interested in anything related to this topic. I'm just reviewing it from a reader's perspective. I came here because I saw a joke I don't get. Maybe the joke is just that the blogger thinks Paula Deen's name should never be mentioned anywhere. I don't know.)

UPDATE: I decided to fix the article myself (diff, section links before and after). I've removed the blow-by-blow stuff (the lawyer asked X, Deen replied Y, the lawyer retorted Z...), I've removed the family tree details, I've removed details about changing law firms (this sort of info does nothing to document who Paula Deen is), I've merged together all the sentences about companies dropping her as a spokesperson, and I've moved the court's ruling up to the start, beside the bit about the suit being filed (it's not really fair to say at the start that she was accused, then then only six paragraphs later mention the suit was dismissed with prejudice by the judge).

Remember WP:BLP. We can't give undue weight to something that we know harms the person's reputation. (Please read that sentence carefully, I didn't say we can't document stuff that harms people's reputations, I said we can't give undue weight to it.)

The section was based on 33 references before I edited it. My edit keeps 30 of those, which is one indication that I didn't remove much substance. I think my new version is still too long, but it's a start. Gronky (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Gronky's edit is a horrendous POV hackjob, and has nothing to do with any actual BLP concerns. He only wanted to tone down the criticism implicit in the facts about Deen's racist remarks. -- (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paula Deen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paula Deen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)