Talk:Rachael Ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticisms should be balanced by Third-Party comments

It's OK to post criticisms from third parties, but they should not only be paired with defences from Rachel Ray, but should rather be balanced by favorable third-party counterpoints. This would not be hard to do-- There are plently of people who don't think Rachel Ray is a bobblehead. If anything she is very New England / New York in her style and perhaps also a bit working-class in her manner as as well, which many equate to 'down-to-earth' and having a 'common touch' rather than being 'ditzy'. The 'bobblehead' criticism may therefore be British upper-class-snobbery rather than saying anything real about Ray. Ray managed a restaraunt prior to her media successes and is a tremendously successful personality. That might actually suggest a whole lot of smarts. Although being an American from New England and also New York State she lacks so-called British upper class 'refinement' which drew the attack on her from the British Chef; that however says absolutely nothing about her brains. 66.227.84.101 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New Photo

I think the current main photo should be replaced, possible with the official photograph of her provided on her Food Network mini-site. The current one is simply too grainy, pixelated, and distored to pass as encyclopedia quality material. Below is the link to the photograph I propose for use, under Fair Use terms: [1] --IndigoAK 09:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we can no longer use fair-use images of living people, I have updated the template. We need a free-use image. Can someone provide one? Daniel Case 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the negative fan reaction (see below.) Did she actually appear in a magazine (Maxim, I think?) dressed sexily in the kitchen? Or were those fakes? She did appear in FHM dressed as you describe. Mitchell k dwyer 08:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) She does not appear in the FHM sexiest women lists as contained at [2], [3], [4]; [5], and [6]. Unless a more accurate source such as the actual printing of the FHM lists can be found, the references to the Top Sexiest women lists should be removed. Another possibility: Could she have been in the European editions? Her appearance in FHM seems to be confirmed from this media kit [7] available from her site, [8]. Still no confirmation on her appearance on the top sexiest list. - 03/24/2003

Man, she's really hot. Watching her show for the food is only half of it. ;) Rudykog 04:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else suspect that either Rachael's grandfather's name or her brother's name is misspelled? They've got the same name, but the spellings are different. Can anyone verify? Mitchell k dwyer 08:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

—"Her mother is Sicilian; her father lives in Louisiana."— Nice use of the random-ass grab bag here. (Sixten8 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)) Definitely need to add something about how her substitutions and shortcuts drive more orthodox chefs/cooks completely insane. JD79 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC) ""E.V.O.O... extra-virgin olive oil" explained with each use, defeating the apparent purpose of the acronym" ... LOL! I've always wondered why she says that and then explains it. --Quasipalm 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

She only says it the first time she uses it in a show, for those that have never watched/don't know. Usually she just says E.V.O.O. afterwards. Jutm543 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

'Now Ray owns a pit bull named Isaboo Ray said in an interview, "I do 200 sit-ups every day, and I do 100 pushups too. Man pushups."' This sentence is a little confusing to me. Is that supposed to be one sentence, or has a period accidentally been left out? Am I missing something or should it read: 'Now Ray owns a pit bull named Isaboo. Ray said in an interview, "I do 200 sit-ups every day, and I do 100 pushups too. Man pushups."' Thanks. - Square pear 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'd love to see a section on the negative fan reaction that she's garnered. See http://community.livejournal.com/rachael_ray_sux/. 206.61.144.2 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I think the entry about her apartment and dog are irrelevant, invasive, and gossipy. Can we please remove this? Aaronproot

Cooking style

It says that her cooking style is "Italian;" I totally don't think that's right, but I don't know how you could really describe what she does. (Personally, I would say she makes stuff you can find on the back of jars of tomato sauce and calls them her own.)

How mature, personal attacks on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magyar14 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

You might describe it as home cooking or comfort food... Snoop0x7b 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Really 30 Minutes

This was deleted earlier, but I'm storing it here until I can find the article. "Ironically, a reporter for a newspaper went through one of her 30 minute meals books and was unable to complete any of her dishes in under an hour." --Unfortunately, this is original research - but I've had no problems getting her recipes done within 20-40 minutes, depending on how picky I am with the prep. And I hate the chick. -----MD

Beef Wellington I rest my case... Sentriclecub (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The time would also depend on the skills of the cook and familiarity with the recipe. Prometheus^-X303- 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Her 30 minutes concept works. You don't even need to be good with a knif. I should know, I'm a kid and I did perfectly good with her recepies. I did diferent recipies for every week for two months now and I finished them all in no more then 25 minutes; and I'm only 12! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.235.197 (talk • contribs).

The American Nigella Lawson

I remember reading something years ago that Food Network developed her as an American Nigella Lawson when the latter was too expensive to bring to FTV. If anyone remembers anything about this, it might make an interesting addition. Aaronproot

• Are you sure that wasn't Giada de Laurentiis? Her show is clearly modeled on Nigella's [i.e. aristocratic glamourpuss, artsy photography, pornographic closeups of the ingredients]. Whereas the the only thing Rachael's show has in common with Nigella's is that they're both women standing in a kitchen. In either case, Nigella would be worth any price.Zaqwe 02:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Rachael Ray is compared more to a younger Martha Stewart (home deco queen isn't only a good cook), and after Ms. Stewart's legal issues, more people want to idolize Ms. Ray for her "good girl image" and "very friendly personality". You can say Ms. Ray reminds us of another culinary star, Julia Child, whom paved the way for cooking television programs over 50 years ago. + 63.3.14.2 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

what happend to the criticisms section?

I really connected with the criticisms section where people acknowledged how unbelievably ridiculous it is that this woman has a show. Not only does her show start off with her doing most of the prep work, but I also think her use of nicknames are completely asinine! Maybe I just really dislike how a person with little culinary education can have a show and most of FTV viewers buy into it. But seriously, what are with those spastic expressions and horrible nicknames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.157.176 (talk • contribs)

I don't even understand why there is a criticisms section. No other Food Network personality has one, yet this particular one is extremely long. Isn't that a little overboard? Wouldn't it be ok to have short mentions of her critics with links to an article or web page? It isn't an encyclopedia's place to weigh in heavily on one side or the other of someone's personal ability. Readers are presented with an overwhelming amount of criticism, but almost no praise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraffenetti (talk • contribs)

If other Food Network personalities receive the same amount of criticism, they should certainly have "Criticism" sections. We should include any important facts, positive or negative. If you feel her virtues have been neglected, you can add more facts. Just cutting things out is not the answer. DanielCristofani 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then some criticism should be cited. The only story cited that has anything to do with criticism is a story that is favorable towards her. Otherwise, it just looks like people who don't personally like her show are bad mouthing her on her entry. I'm considering removing the entire section and splicing some random quotes throughout the article. The Tiger Woods article had a similar problem when his controversy section was overpowering the rest of the article, as was this section. Let's not lose sight of the fact that she's a media personality, and that's what an encyclopedia should reflect. Critics have their say in their own forums.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraffenetti (talk • contribs)

If one of the other personalities on your network publicly calls you a "bobblehead", I think it's safe to say that criticism has become a meaningful fraction of your notability. So I've put in the Bourdain quote. On the other hand, the "Sux" site - whose amateurishness I found indistinguishable from any number of "Paris Hilton is so gross!" hate sites - doesn't seem to warrant anything more than an External Link mention, if that. Ribonucleic 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So I've got a question. Bourdain's article also notes that he routinely criticizes Emeril. Therefore criticism must be a meaningful part of his persona, yet there is no criticism section on his page. This is what I was getting at. Before the section was essentially what you would have seen on the "sux" page. It has been cleaned up quite a bit and I think the Bourdain link belongs just fine (even if he is a hypocrit). Kraffenetti 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point. A slam from Bourdain, in itself, would not warrant a Criticism section. Nor, in itself, would an amateurish hate site. But when you've got both, plus the Slate piece, plus what I perceive as the majority opinion of Wikipedians, I think the one here has earned its stripes. Now if anyone wants to start a Criticism section over in the Emeril article, I'll be first in line to share my thoughts on that sitcom of his. :-) Ribonucleic 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"what I perceive as the majority opinion of Wikipedians" -- Someone believes in Wikiality :) Kraffenetti 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still pretty new at this thing, so it's not clear to me where consensus stops and Wikiality begins. All I know for sure is: She bugs me. :-)

Ya know, I dont even come to Wikipedia to get "straight" news off anyone; I only come because Wiki has a knack for putting people's dirty laundry out for the world to see. Really, this site is great if you want to dig up dirt on someone, because every person has at least 1 paragraph full of criticism. I love it!! who needs facts and that BS when you can just bash on a person, ANY person, and claim you are fair and independent. And before you go, "well, we like to list the good and the bad to be fair" let me just say that if you look up any famous person, you'll find a criticism section. Im surprised we havent found a criticism on Rachael Ray (who I am indifferent towards) that reads, "A sign in South Jersey off the Turnpike reads R.R. Sucks!" I mean, that's as vague as some of the criticisms get! Take the whole Metalopolis thing...who cares if they dont like food network? It's a comedy show, they make fun of a ton of things. It is in jest, not serious! Yet sadly, the only good thing Wikipedia is used for, and I've said it many a times to my friends, is to look up dirty little no-so-secret tid bits on ANYONE listed! Totally reminds me of that song "Dirty Laundry" by the lead singer of the Eagles.

I don't understand why their's a criticism. If Rachel Ray has one, why doesn't Giada di Laurentiis. I mean, Rachel Ray did won the Iron Chef battle againts her!

What the original author of this section was really exhibting was anti-Northeastern-Blue-Collar prejudice. Ray is a working-class girl from the Northeast. Many people think she makes up for her lack of 'education' with plenty of character, a family cooking heritage and good old fashioned American ingenuity. Deal with it-- or change the channel.

66.227.84.101 (talk)

66.227.84.101 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncalled for Attack on Food

The line "Ray relies heavily on hamburgers, cheese, bacon, ice cream and other obviously unhealthy 'go-to' items." is a personal opinion on these foods. Hamburgers, cheese, bacon, and ice cream are not inherently unhealthy items. All of these items contain nutrients necessary for a healthy life. People cannot live without some fat and protein in a diet, and there is nothing wrong with using these ingredients if they fit into a balanced diet. For people on the so-called healthy low carb diets hamburgers, cheese, and bacon are some of the only foods you can eat. The top 2 components of ice cream are water and air. I doubt someone could call either of these items "obviously unhealthy." Please don't put things like this in an article just to try to further a criticism against someone.

You're right. All we can say objectively is that these items are high in saturated fat. I'll fix the article. DanielCristofani 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Sites

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I have removed all fansites save the one with the highest Alexa ranking, as the policy here is one fan site link. If a good neutral argument can be made for a different site, that's fine, but there should be no more than one fan site- that's Google's job. --TheTruthiness 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Loaded Words

The article tells us of things that Rachael Ray relies "heavily" on, and that her format of 30 minute meals is under "strong attack." I wouldn't think these types of things belong. Kraffenetti 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Slate article is misrepresented. It says that the author was unable to prepare *any* recipes in under an hour, while the article clearly states that she was able to make the Super Sloppy Joe recipe in 49 minutes. Kraffenetti 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Restore sourced criticism that was deleted in last edit. If you don't think it belongs, explain why instead of saying it's "unsourced and inaccurate"." I thought I explained myself when I said I was removing inaccurate and unsourced material. If you feel you can edit it to be accurate, by all means, but I think it's better to remove it than leave up questionable content. Kraffenetti 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. It's fair to note that some people dislike her, and some of their complaints. But the previous criticism section read as if it was written by one of those critics with the purpose of persuading readers that there was something wrong with Ray. Lucky Adrastus 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits that hopefully improve this section. Anyone should of course feel free to improve on what I've written. On this topic, does anyone have any source for the criticism regarding the anchovies in the Caesar salad? Is there any evidence Ray actually claimed it was vegetarian? (It's not like I have the episodes on tape!). Lucky Adrastus 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the recipe that was linked. The anchovy paste is labeled as optional. The recipe itself is vegetarian friendly, but like you said, it's not like I have a copy of the episode to go on. Overall, the section is worlds better than it was a week ago. It no long has the almost mean-spirited tone that some wanted to keep. Kraffenetti 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a comment on the Food Network site complaining about the meal not being vegetarian.[9] I did a Google search and this is all I found. Maybe not necessary to include this part (i.e. is this really a big scandal?) but I'll let someone else make that decision. It's a pretty small point, and the this page seems basically fixed for now. Lucky Adrastus 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while, and I think it's probably best to just remove the vegetarian criticism thing. There seems to be no source for it beyond the one comment on the foodnetwork page. I think it comes off as petty and/or silly, since the anchovies are listed as optional in the recipe. I'll remove it, but anyone can feel free to put it back if there's a different consensus. Lucky Adrastus 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain as Food Network "colleague"

A Cook's Tour is listed on the Food Network web site: http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_tb/0,1976,FOOD_9996,00.html . That seems collegial enough for me. Ribonucleic 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Coneslayer's objection to ass addition

Well, I found comments at http://www.toomanychefs.net/archives/001143.php and http://www.plattitudes.com/plattitudes/2005/12/rachael_ray_why.html that would back up 70.23.66.139's claim that fans have spoken approvingly of the ass. However, in the course of finding them, I came across a greater number of comments that referred to the ass in disparaging terms. So I think we have to judge the claim unsupported. Ribonucleic 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The claims are real, but not fit for an encyclopediac web page. I don't know Ms. Ray would approve any of her fans speak to her like that, about her buttocks or breasts or any body part. Rachael Ray is beautiful and to many men, she's attractive and has the quality to be their pin-up girl...it's OK for FHM refer her as "Sexy" or got enough sex appeal. She's celebrated by women everywhere too for her ability for success as a culinary businesswoman in her way to build a media empire, even Oprah Winfrey is her big fan. + 63.3.14.2 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image needed

We're thinking of a Rachael Ray image, but should be a free use image. Please find one as soon as you can. Thanks! Bigtop 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hubby's reference

has anyone else seen the statement on Rachael Ray's husband's, John Cusimano, band page? From her "Personal Life" paragraph, we know that he is the singer of the band, The Cringe. if you go to that reference, it mentions the following statement:

"They are confirmed satanist[sic], along with lead singer's wife, Rachael Ray"

now i don't have a particular preference to the girl, but how 'bout someone confirms this "fact" and if it IS true, why wasn't it mentioned in her actual bio?!?!?

--HatchetFaceBuick 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone typed it in for a joke. Unverifiable and to make such a statement is libellious/slandeorus. I've heard some of the Cringe's songs and lyrics, and they don't sing about devil worship. I wonder this came from a religious right web site under some evangelist (Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?) known to spout bogus claims on rock or metal music bands in the past. I don't believe Rachael Ray bothers to mention or discuss her religious beliefs, but I betcha she's not a Satanist or devil worshiper (a detail most people keep secret to avoid social distrust, destroy their stardom or ruin their reputation). + 63.3.14.2 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

actually, the citation came from the Wiki's entry about The Cringe [10], which since i last looked at it, has been edited.

Why is there no mention of her first husband, the guy she did the TV show with? Can anyone add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.23.76 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth

I am very skeptical about the revised date of birth. Originally this article had Cape Cod, Mass. as Ray's place of birth, but now it has been changed to Glens Falls, NY, citing a magazine article. However, her official Food Network biography still has Cape Cod as her birthplace. Information that Ray cites on her shows, such as revealing her working at a Lake Placid, NY Howard Johnson (restaurant) on Rachael Ray's Tasty Travels as a youth supports Ray growing up in upstate New York. I am still convinced that the author of the linked article confused Ray's place of birth and where Ray grew up.THE evil fluffyface 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article which actually names the hospital (Glens Falls Hospital) where she was born. If she happened to be born in Glens Falls, but spent her infancy in Cape Cod, it might be natural for the Food Network and others to put Cape Cod as her birthplace, even though it's not technically correct. --Cam 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's verified over and over is Ray's cooking influences came from her family heritage: Italian (Sicilian or Sardinian), French (Corsican?), Spanish (some say a grandfather of hers is from Valencia or Murcia, but doubtful without any sources) and your typical New York American girl. Ms. Ray is a pretty lady, but unfortunately she's called "fat" by Hollywood standards, and you know what (to the media moguls)...you're talking to the wrong woman! + 63.3.14.2 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally know Rachel and her family, she is from Cape Cod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.95.38 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Request deletion of link to article about nude pictures

I feel this link should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The pictures were fake hence the deletion of the pictures.
• The quote cited in the article is obviously fake. A food network spokesperson would not refer to Ray as a "bodacious babe".
• Finally, National Nitwit @ Blogspot is not a reputable website, and should not be cited within an encyclopedia.

Jean15paul 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted, per WP:BLP. You had removed it once, and I'm not entirely sure the person who put it back meant to (reverting anon edit after your edit). --Spiffy sperry 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Food Network quote on Rachael Ray is a "bodacious babe" was in TV Guide article back in 2005 is an advertising gimmick (Ms. Ray may approved of this in tongue-of-cheek humor), not a personal comment since it won't be polite or professional out of his/her mouth in a formal interview. + 63.3.14.2 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EVOO in the dictonary

The dictionary that EVOO will be featured in this year (2007) will be the Oxford American College Dictionary, not the American Heritage Dictionary as someone wrote.[11]--THE evil fluffyface 14:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Education

Where was she educated? Isn't true she dropped out of school?--Margrave1206 22:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

pic?

what's an person article without a pic? useless, that's what it is 85.227.226.168 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Her Critics Shouldn't Have The Last Word in This Article

It is fair to quote some of Ray's critics but it would also be fair not to let them have the last word in the article.

71.208.229.216 09:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

There seems to be a contradiction in the intro. In the first paragraph, there is a list of shows she currently hosts, including 30 Minute Meals. In the second paragraph, it says that she hosted three shows, including 30 Minute Meals, prior to the release of her talk show. While I understand that the show in question must be older than her talk show, the wording does not make it clear. We should remove the title from the first paragraph if the show isn't current or if she doesn't host it anymore, or remove it from the second paragraph if it's still current. ­Puceron (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad Removal

Added a blurb about the Dunkin' Donuts removal of her ad due to "right-wing" criticism. Calebrw (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunkin Donuts controversy

Original: In March 2007, Dunkin' Donuts announced Ray as its new pitchwoman.[20] Ray describes Dunkin' Donuts' coffee as "fantabulous." In late May 2008, after conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin complained,[21] Dunkin' Donuts announced that it had removed a television ad from circulation because Malkin thought a scarf Ray wears in the ad looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.[22] The issue has sparked outcries from other commentators about cultural insensivity and censorship.[citation needed]

Revised:

In March 2007, Dunkin' Donuts announced Ray as its new pitchwoman.[20] Ray describes Dunkin' Donuts' coffee as "fantabulous." In late May 2008, after conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin noted that Rachel Ray's scarf resembled a keffiyeh, Dunkin' Donuts announced that it had removed the television ad from circulation. Some believe that the keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men, has become an activist symbol of Palestinian solidarity.[21]

The above paragraph was insufficient for a few reasons: 1) Claimed Michelle Malkin "complained" then went on to say that Dunkin Donuts pulled the ad "because Malkin thought a scarf Ray wears in the ad looks like a keffiyeh." It is not up for wikipedia to determine why a company does something unless it is sourced. The article seems to make it sound as if Dunkin Donuts fell under the pressure of Michelle Malkin, and Michelle Malkin alone. I just put it in more NPOV, general terms. 2) The paragraph failed to describe what could be deemed offensive about wearing a keffiyeh. Compare wearing a keffiyeh to flying a confederate flag if you need help. 3) I removed the last sentence because it wasn't cited. I welcome other points of view but only when they are cited by verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in summary of CNN article. The scarf was not accused of racist overtones, Malkin's comments were. Since Malkin is not the focus of the article, the line has been deleted. May 31st --Archgoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.38.26 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, how significant, really, is the whole scarf thing? It's mentioned in this article, the Dunkin Donuts article, Malkin's article, and the keffiyah article. Maybe elsewhere as well? Is it really a significant moment in Ray's life (when she didn't even choose it AFAIK), DD's history, or keffiyahs themselves? This is one of those instances where WP is overly internet- and "news" cycle- and trivially-oriented. If it must remain here, it ought to be more NPOV. "Malkin noted" suggests a factual notation rather than merely her own perception. "Some believe" is vague. And is this incident the only moment in the yearlong-plus DD spokesperson campaign that has gotten media coverage?

Also, is it correct to day "Ray describes Dunkin' Donuts' coffee as 'fantabulous.'"? Wouldn't it be more precise to say that DD's Ray advertising campaign describes it that way? That is to say, the word may not be her own, but marketing people's idea of what she should say. Шизомби (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The scarf story is trivia and should be removed if not properly sourced per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that Malkin's conspiracy theories are really relevant to her biography. To Malkin's, perhaps, but not Ray's. What's more, even if it's included, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. She was wearing a black and white paisley scarf. Unless Arafat had a secret membership in the 'paisley jihad', I don't think there's any necessity to actually agree that there's any similarity whatsoever; only that Malkin believed there was. But, seriously, not that significant for her biography. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section as insignificant trivia. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

lj community mention

how is this encyclopedic? over 1900 anonymous internet users don't like her. rename the section to "people have opinions" with text of "detractors include some people that use the internet" --67.167.106.155 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've looked at the article (the reference) itself, I'm starting to see your point. Even the article itself has a quote greatly downplaying the significance of having an 'anti-fan' site. I honestly can't see any point in including this in her bio. (This is aside from the fact that we're currently claiming that she has an anti-fan site and a livejournal community against her, when the referenced article seems to only discuss one community; not both as separate entities.)

Since it's currently inaccurate anyways, I'm just going to remove that section. If someone wants to correct it and put it back in, go ahead, but make sure to include a note here explaining why it's relevant to her biography. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I've already had to re-remove it, since it's already been added back in (with no explanation). Users really shouldn't have their personal talk pages protected if they aren't going to explain their edits. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was notable enough for the New York Times. Gimmetrow 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While although I appreciate your at least correcting the text before putting it back in (something Hu12 didn't bother to do), could you please explain why it's notable for her biography?

You did read this section, right?

Lane has wondered why her particular community has received so much attention. “Most celebrities have anti-sites on the Internet,” she points out, and so do plenty of prominent brands, like Starbucks and Dell.

Somehow, I think that when the sole reference argues that the criticism isn't important, that tends to do a poor job of establishing its importance. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced criticisms?

There is a claim that the few negative criticisms on her page are hootingly unfair and that their authors should be compelled to balance them with positive points. Yet the many absolutely bootlickingly glowing positive paragraphs on the page attract no controversy. There are no accusations of bias in the favorable comments, though nowhere do they make mention of possibly iffy or hinky or otherwise unflattering comportment--for balance. No howls of protest are being made about that. Educate me then, please, for I am clearly missing something of extreme importance. Tell me: Where does the bias lay? Pennyaline (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see your point. Nobody's life is without missteps and its fair to mention them on purportedly biographical pages. The complaint is that mentioning a few boo boos at the end of an article crammed with sunshine and lollipops, allows it to end on an unfairly negative note. How ridiculous!Pennyaline (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this is an encyclopedia and that we have very specific, important policies when dealing with biographies of living persons. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again, but I'm still not getting your meaning. I've been over this site. I've read the instructions. What am I doing incorrectly, and why is what I'm saying arousing objection? Is it wrong to say something possibly unflattering about a living person?Pennyaline (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is it wrong to say something possibly unflattering about a living person?" Besides what is covered in WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Give some examples of the criticisms you're talking about, please. With reliable references. It's helpful if we have something specific to talk about. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Product endorsements

I have done extensive research in both English and German on the claim that sales of Wüsthof knives rose as a result of Ray's use of them and there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Consequently I have removed it. I found and inserted the requested citation for her endorsement of Burger King. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RRSUX details

I do not believe the paragraph in this diff [12] belongs here. While it may be appropriate to include notable anti-fan sites like RRSUX, I don't think the article needs to cover minor details about those sites, such as what the posters call themselves, or who the current moderator is. The focus of that paragraph seems to be on the anti-fan site itself, not on Rachael Ray or specific criticisms of her. --Megaboz (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The content appears to be original research, is unreferenced, and is not directly related to the subject of the article - but instead related to internal politics on the anti-fan site community. It's not encyclopedic content about the article subject, so should not be posted here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really 30 mins con't

The statement at the top of one section,

"Ray teaches simple recipes that she claims can be prepared in 30 minutes or less, although critics claim that her thirty minute concept does not fully account for preparation times and many featured meals cannot be completed within half an hour.[7]"

is not supported by the reference, reference 7. In fact, the article linked to by ref 7 says that while the author couldn't prepare the meals she tried in 30 minutes and speculated that Rachael was cheating or getting help, she later found out that RR used to prepare the 30 minute meals in front of audiences at the store where she did demos, so she couldn't cheat or have help. If this statement is going to stand as-is, it must be supported by correct and relevant references. --24.80.186.190 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just wandering through but as the above person mention the cited article indicates that the author of the article was not able to do the 30 minute thing. The article also indicates that RR herself was ables to do so, as demonstrated on film. Basically making the Wiki entrie horsheshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.21.82 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit needed

Under the "Awards and recognition" headline we read, "April 2007, Ray launched a charity, "The Yum-O! Organization", with help from Bill Clinton, to help children eat healthier.[28]." Under the "Charity work" headline we read, "The Yum-O organization was launched in 2006."

did she get a false start at first with Bill Clinton? did she have a blue dress on?

sorry. too much crap with this and nobody actually READS the context. Scott Anafas (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the referenced story in the North County Times, Yum-o was launched in 2007. But the Yum-o website says it was started in 2006. Since the sources disagree, we have contradicting information in the article. My guess is that Yum-o may have been officially started in 2006, but maybe it wasn't announced or didn't really begin its work until 2007? Maybe someone will do some more investigation and figure out the correct date. –Megaboz (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad cooking, bad instruction

Having had her DVD recommended at the store, I was unprepared for the amateur presentation Ray gave the first video watched: "Thai Salad with Peanut Dressing". This is a cook who doesn't wash vegetables, doesn't measure ingredients, says "all you gotta know about rice is 2-to-1" (water to rice), apparently turns the heat full up on cooking pots, makes flip, unencyclopedic comments how "your cooking" will be like a Thai restaurant (regardless of what restaurant that is). Could someone perhaps provide a reliable citation criticizing her technique? Piano non troppo (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Smoker?

I thought the article might mention if Rachael was a heavy smoker. Since it does not would I be correct to assume her voice is naturally that way? -- Horkana (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems as if she did smoke but "according to her publicist" she doesn't smoke (anymore). Is this notable enough to add to the article? If it is notable I think better sources are probably available, I just grabbed the first ones that I could. -- Horkana (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be too much a WP:NOTSCANDAL concern without better sources, and would need to focus on her voice rather than her smoking. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about focusing on the fact that a cooking instructor has deadened taste buds? It may explain things such as (as I commented just above) that she can imagine that unwashed, unmeasured ingredients produce results as good as "your local Thai restaurant". I'm not trying to be catty, but if her audience also smokes heavily...maybe it makes sense. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"How about focusing on the fact" Because we have no sources indicating this is true, nor even speculating that it might be true. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in the field and much of the available smoking information focuses on the health problems of cigarettes. However, as an occasional smoker, I would never drink an expensive bottle of wine, or eat any delicately prepared food after smoking. See my comment above: I confess that I only looked at one class from the DVD set that I bought, but anyone who is ignorant enough to think that all rice can be cooked the same way...has no taste for some reason or another. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the few articles I read about Ray and my understanding of Wikipedia I suppose it would be best to comment on her change of voice, her need for surgery and her official statement about not *being* a smoker (present tense, and misleading) but to also include enough information to show that she was a smoker (even if she isn't anymore, because the other phrase is misleading) without going so for as to say she was a heavy smoker even though it is a supportable statement. -- Horkana (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad tipping?

Shouldn't there be some mention of the criticisms widely levied at her regarding her $40 / day plan requiring a 10% tip to waitstaff? Elecmahm (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the controversy. Do you have a reliable source? Piano non troppo (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Everybody would love to imagine they've coined a word

Before we start, let me relate a conversation I had. My cousin often used a word I'd never heard before. Finally, one day, I asked her "Where did you get that?" A look of astonishment. She said "You made it up." A light dawned. But I'm not really sure she's right. Moral of the story. There are exceptional circumstances where an individual coins a word or phrase. But it may not be intentional or conscious. It may be a word adopted from somewhere else. What one person can invent or adopt by accident, another person can.

You have to wonder why a cook thinks it's important she created a word. Is she trying to beat out Shakespeare or Lewis Carroll? No, she (and her marketing agents) are trying to promote her in any way possible. This reference was given is an example [13]. This uncited publicity makes several claims. Too bad they aren't right. (My father used to say "Delish" regularly. That was long, long before Ray's publicity agents were born, oh sorry, I meant long before Ray was born. (It's hard to distinguish sometimes.)

Yet another reference is to a blatant WP:SPAM site [14]. I can't find a thing about what she's coined, but I sure enough can see the advertisements and the schedule of her TV appearances.

Finally, we have the reference describing the appearance of Erin McKean on Ray's show, giving her a framed certificate. The reference itself clearly states that the claim to her coining words is highly controversial, "Then there are those who gripe that EVOO was used long before anyone tuned in to that infernal "30 Minute Meals" show, and from now on they're sticking to Webster's dictionary!"

Ray's claims are ignorant, controversial and promotional. And highly unencyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So you remove the entire section, even though you have provided not one reliable source to dispute the info? Notice carefully that the third reference you mention, "describing the appearance of Erin McKean on Ray's show, giving her a framed certificate" says, very clearly, that McKean was on the show to present "a framed certificate of recognition for having coined a word that is being included in the latest edition of the Oxford American College Dictionary." (my emphasis). The wiki article here said "The Oxford American College Dictionary announced the addition of the term EVOO (short for extra virgin olive oil), which Ray has helped to popularize, and credited her with coining the phrase." Does that not accurately reflect the source? Why did you delete it from the wiki article? Yes, the article does note that "some lexicography buffs" are upset because EVOO is an acronym, and others who "gripe that EVOO was used long before" Ray. So a reliable source states that some some people object (without stating who, so they are apparently not notable in themselves), but this is immediately dismissed by the article. We can certainly report what the reliable source reports - that some object to saying she coined the word - but the reliable source also says she was credited with the coining by the OAD rep (and so, it would appear, by the OAD). Gimmetrow 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The question you might be interested in, but apparently aren't, is whether Ray actually coined these words. She did not, to the best of my knowledge. I heard my father use "delish", which is claimed by Ray's publicity team on this page [15] before Ray was born. Do you honestly believe she coined "good to go"?

Erin McKean made a mistake. The other stated position has nothing to do with someone being a "buff". That doesn't mean "fan" in the Wiki sense, it means -- as the article intended -- people who know what they are talking about. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In the wiki world, the opinions of editors affect articles only indirectly. The wiki article should reflect sources, and the source here says that the OAD editor came on the show to credit Ray with the coining. I've suggested a path you could go if you want to add something about "those who gripe". Gimmetrow 14:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here, the source is open to interpretation. Yours is that the naysayers are just whiners. Mine based on knowledge of the situation is that the source mentions three different groups who think Ray is not responsible: 1) Lexicography buffs (i.e., experts), 2) Those those claim acronyms shouldn't be in the dictionary (not lexicography buffs, who would know this is already commonly done), 3) Those with personal experience who know the word was not invented by her. I.e., experts and people with practical experience know it is not true.

Another article doesn't say that Ray coined the word, just that half the database references they used mentioned Ray -- and that was the reason for the "certificate".

The third of the references I discussed, is from Ray's own site -- which can be assumed unreliable in this situation. That article does not say she invented the words, only that they are "Rachael-isms".

In sum, there's no concrete evidence she invented any word. The sources are questionable or ambiguous. I.e., not encyclopedic. Like the claim. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)