Talk:Sandra Lee (chef)/Archive 1

The purpose of article talk pages

This page is here for the purpose of discussing the article. It's not The National Enquirer. If you need a place to expose the subject's "dirty little secrets", seek justice from them, criticize their work, or praise and admire them... feel free to do any or all on a personal/private/public blog, website, or slam book. But please respect the free privilege we all share at Wikipedia, and follow the guidelines. --Rcej (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and Fresh Restart

First, there were a huge number of sockpuppets editing this article and talk page. I think those have all been dealt with for the time being. However, I will continue to closely monitor the article. Second, I archived the entire talk page except for the above helpful reminder, this will ensure a fresh restart of discussion. Third, I went through the article cleaning it up and adding fact tags and the like. I then removed the BLP and neutrality tags from the top of the article. Before re-adding them, please discuss here first. I hope my actions will ensure renewed discussion and article improvement with editors here to contribute constructively. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Does anyone have a problem with me moving this article from Sandra Lee (cook) --> Sandra Lee (chef)? If she cooks food as a profession, even on TV, I think chef would be the better term. KnightLago (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The title Chef, is reserved for those who have completed some level of culinary training, usually from a licensed school of culinary arts or are in charge of a kitchen. Sandra Lee is in no way a chef. Such would move would be inappropriate and insulting to the professionals who have actually earned that title.71.80.139.112 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to chef, a chef is a person who cooks professionally. I did not see any of the requirements you mentioned above. Also, please avoid commenting directly on the subject of the article, this is not the place for such discussion. KnightLago (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in keeping with accuracy, such as in her Food Network Chefography, Lee more or less refers to herself as a "...cook with no professional training." I think the article should remain as Sandra Lee (cook). --Rcej (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "cooks professionally" applies better to those who work in kitchens, not tv sets. If anything you should consider changing the title to Sandra Lee(TV Personality)I also retract my comments, I assumed that because this section was called "discussion" that such discussion was appropriate.71.80.139.112 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the issue, such as changing the name of the article is welcome, but comments about how it would be insulting/inappropriate to others for whatever reason you believe is not appropriate. KnightLago (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what she cooks and how, I would tend to agree that 'chef' is not really an apt description of what she does, and that 'cook' or 'tv personality' would define her occupation better. Slp1 (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

while we're on the topic, it seems that Cook isn't very appropriate for this article as well. Check out the disambiguation page, she doesn't really fall into any the relevant sub-categories. We've pretty much established that she isn't a chef, and I think we can agree that she isn't a Cook (servant) either. I think Sandra Lee(TV Personality) would be a better fit. Anyone else agree?71.80.139.112 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::I disagree. She is NOT a "TV Personality". She is on the B or C list as far as tv cooking shows go. Many people don't know who she is, and she has not earned the right to hold the title of "TV Personality" like A list TV Personality Veterans. TV Personality suggests she is something bigger than she really is. Lee is a TV Cooking Show Host at best. Do not change titles to suit your taste; this title does not best describe Lee. Hahaho3 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

She's definitely a tv personality, cook, and chef. I think it best to leave as is. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me, I just thought of it while going through the article and trying to do some cleanup. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::This is only your opinion and you are but one person. Many others disagree. Hahaho3 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note, I have struck comments by sockpuppets. KnightLago (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a comment on your talk page Knightlago. 208.54.15.11 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After talking with the CU I have un-struck comments by an IP that got caught in the crossfire. Sorry for the confusion. KnightLago (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:Lee is neither a chef nor is she a tv personality. She is a television cooking show host. This is the general consensus if you read many articles on Lee and also allow others to participate in discussion. 24.103.42.231 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:Biff714 again, note the following diffs 1 and 2. Blocked for 48 hours. KnightLago (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the consensus here. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee is a TV Personality. She is not a "Chef" by the popularly acepted definition of the job title; i.e.- no professional training, never worked in a professional kitchen, etc. (See also: Rachel Ray, who often corrects people who refer to her as a "Chef" and not a "Cook"). She is also not really a Cook, because she does not cook professionally outsdie of a TV studio. She hosts a TV show, which makes her a TV personality or TV host. Just because she cooks on TV does not make her a Cook. She also makes drinks and decorations on her show, but she is neither a bartender nor an interior decorator. PVS3 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add to the Critical reaction section .. I believe this falls properly under that category, maybe the wording is a little harsh and needs to be toned down?

In what many considered to be an "edible hate crime", Lee has been blasted for two horrific creations. The first was a Star of Hannukah cake topped off with an unfortunate star of David containing not 6, but 7 awkwardly misshapen points. Perhaps the saddest revelation is that together, the ingredients render the cake inedible to those adhering to Kosher guidelines. The second and most infamous creation is the Kwanzaa cake constructed from store bought angel food cake, frosting, canned apple pie filling and of course, corn nuts. To add insult to injury, Sandra Lee repeatedly violates her own creation with full sized tapered candles Frycook3 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is original research and violates WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am completely new to the drama on this page, so forgive me. This may not be terribly useful information, but how is it original research exactly? - AgentSeven 02:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Birth place

Sandra Lee was born in Sumner, WA, not Los Angeles. This can be confirmed through the Semi-Homemade website and through the Puget Sound Business Journal. I've been trying to change this fact on the web entry here, but it continues to revert back to LA. The source for that incorrect information is imdb.com. I find it a bit disturbing that facts are accepted blindly from sites like imbd.com and that thoughtful attempts to correct the error using multiple sources would be rebuffed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.86 (talk • contribs)

The article currently has her birth place as WA, not Los Angeles. KnightLago (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. For some reason the article reverts the birthplace back to Los Angeles after a few hours each time. Do you have it set that way to combat vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.86 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing. KnightLago (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for her place of birth besides imdb.com? The article says Los Angeles, CA, but the above comment says she was born in Sumner, WA. I cannot find her in the California birth index. Kman543210 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Year of Cordon Bleu

Did she attend Le Cordon Bleu in 1998? Badagnani (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

She did attend a two-week course in Ottawa, but she only attended for three days. Bourdainiac (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant that she continues to say that she "went to Le Cordon Bleu," (see Newsweek article in august 2009). So I have tried to be fair and noted both that her bio states she "attended" LCB, and that she signed up for a two-week recreational course which she acknowledges in Gourmet in August 2003 that she did not complete. MaxPhd 14:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxPhd (talk • contribs)

Question regarding the Date of her Mother's Death

You are absolutely right about approaching this subject. As requested: Will someone with knowledge please set the record straight as to whether Lee's mother died while Lee was 10 years old, or did her mother liver longer and unfortunately abuse and beat Lee during her senior high school year when she was older? There are conflicting stories. An explanation will set the record straight and in return settle opposing viewpoints. 2121Topotoe (talk 07:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the information mentioned above is not in the article, and that we're not here to "set the record straight", I think this comment should once again be removed per WP:BLP, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAP, and WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article which is referenced to Lee's magazine interview in 2005 on the first page states Lee's mother died when Lee was 10 years old. While Lee's autobiographical memoir states Lee's mother abused and beat her up when Lee was a senior in high school. This is very relevant Ronz, because it is both stated in this wikipedia article and it is written the memoir. So what is the truth? This is a question meeting Wikipedia standards and also to uncover untruths. You keep deleting it, but this is already written about on blogs I've read so it's not hidden. Did Lee's mother die when Lee was 10 or did she abuse Lee her senior year of high school? Being fair works both ways and this question has been posed with the utmost consideration. 2121Topotoe (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than adding in the disputed information, can we list sources and what they say? From what I've found, "Lee's mother died while Lee was 10 years old" is probably inaccurate. I think we should consider removing it if no other source can be found for it. Could it be caused by confusion between her grandmother vs her mother? --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful reading of the source [1] suggests it's something the newspaper has written, it's not a direct quote. We should say something like - "A May 2007 article in The Herald reported that her mother had died when Lee was ten years old and she helped raise her four younger siblings. However this is contradicted by a passage in her autobiography Made From Scratch: A Memoir containing allegations that her mother assaulted her during her senior high school year which would've been several years later (cite book here)" - There are no BLP violations here as the assertions are about a dead person (her mother) - BLP only applies to living persons. Exxolon (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• [2] I thought perhaps it was her grandmother that died when Lee was 10, but this article indicates otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a topic worthy of the discussion page because it is a part of the wikipedia article. Like the others I want to know too if Lee's mom died when she was 10 years old as sited on the article page OR did Lee's mother live longer and beat and abuse Lee when she was a high school senior like she writes in her memoir? Did Lee's mom die at age 10 or beat Lee when she was a senior in high school? It's part of this article and Lee's interview and I keep asking until mit's answered. Yes this article posts Lee's mom died at 10 while Lee's memoir say she beat her up in high school SS18 Tam (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the question is: Did Lee's mother die when Sandy was 10 years old or did she live to beat her when she was 17 or 18? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.201.250 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 August 2008

Early life

I've copied the current version of Early life below in italics, with comments after each paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee's Food Network Chefography aired March 20, 2007.[citation needed] The program states that Lee was born in 1966, to teenage parents, who divorced in 1972. Her biological mother Vicky later remarried, only to divorce again, which caused her to become depressed, ill, and bedridden for years until her death.

I don't think we need to introduce her show here, but simply cite it as a source --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

After the death of her mother, at age 10[2] Lee became a surrogate mother to her four younger siblings; her responsibilities included buying groceries, preparing the meals, and handling the family finances.

Given that it's likely that the Puyallup Herald article is probably inaccurate, I suggest we remove, "After the death of her mother, at age 10." The rest is about her living with her mother and step-father, after she lived with her grandmother, so needs to be incorporated properly into the paragraph below. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

After her mother's first divorce, Lee lived with her grandmother Lorraine. Lee took care of her family until she was 16, when her remarried stepfather came back to take back his children (Lee's half-siblings) leaving her alone.

There's a great deal missing here. She only lived with her grandmother for some four years, until her mother and new stepfather took her and her sister back. I've not found a source that verifies her stepfather leaving, or returning to take his children. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

After completing high school, she attended the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse for three years, after which she moved back to Los Angeles. Lee studied cooking at Le Cordon Bleu in Ottawa, Canada. Lee says in an interview that she felt "...the lessons were a waste of time" and that she could prepare better dishes on her own.

The article states "When Lee was 11, her mother divorced for a second time. Lee then took on the role of mother for her four younger siblings. Her responsibilities included buying groceries, preparing the meals, and handling the family finances." Citation needed for taking on the role of mother and her responsibilities. The responsibilities of shopping and handling the family finances seem improbable for an 11 year old child. Yet this says when she was eleven her mother divorced followed immediately by Lee then took on the role of mother and lists her responsibilities which would be extraordinary without financial and/or transportation support from an adult. Also if she indeed handled the family finances at age 11 it might seem improbable Thus this requires explanation such as her autobiographical statement of opening a savings account at age four when when living with her grandmother. Tomandzeke (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

" savings account at age four" What are you referring to?

"seem improbable for an 11 year old child" That would be WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Refs

It would be nice to find some independent sources, but all I've found are sources from her book, her tv show, and similar p.r. info. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excerpt: 'Made From Scratch' 31 Oct 2007. ABC News
• Sandra Lee. Made From Scratch: A Memoir. 2007. ISBN 0696239191

Opinion

It would probably be best for all if Sandra Lee Christensian were removed from Wikipedia; this wouls stop all the confusion and bickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.42.231 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 August 2008

I agree with the above opinion. Remove Lee from Wikipedia and take everybody out of their misery. Sundree (talk) 15:04, 21 Aug 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.42.231 (talk)

"Confusion and bickering" is no reason to delete and article.

Note that attempting to present yourself as two different editors is considered Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I...really, really don't get the hate and venom for this woman and why people feel the need to engage in internet character assassination for her multitude of...food sins.(I'm sorry I can't say that without laughing). She had by any measure a very difficult home life and just willed herself up by her bootstraps. She then adopted a style of cooking congruent with her upbringing of having to raise her siblings, which is, "I don't have time to slice the garlic razor thin with a razor blade for five hours". She put the product out there and HOLY COW other people didn't either! I don't mean they don't feel like getting up from the pool chair I mean they had to ride the bus to the grocery store and by the time they got back they didn't HAVE time before they had to go to bed.

Believe it or not there are people that don't have swimming pools, jacuzzi's and servants. I know its difficult for the people here to understand but it's true. There are also people who can't be stay at home moms because they don't have a breadwinner of any kind. I know shocking isn't it?

You guys need to get up off your deck chairs, get into therapy of why you are transferring your hate to her and stop dumping your hate onto the internet where others have to clean it up.131.247.83.135 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of visceral hate spread around the Internet about this woman. While her recipes look godawful to me, I come to Wikipedia to get away from hateful posts. There are plenty of sites to spew your venom on, so keep it off this site. Ms. Lee has a following, and therefore there are those of us who need to find out reliable information about such people for professional reasons.70.176.210.55 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Flogging Dead Subjects? I Hope Not!

Hello,

I saw the comments above about the "Early Life" portion of the artcie. But I note that no-one mentioned the following, which I think is a valid point.

I have been an avid fan of The Food Network for nigh on 10 years and have become very familiar with Sandra Lee as an individual. In all this time, I have only seen *two* sources for the information currently mentioned in the paragraph about Sandra's early years. The sources are -

1. Sandra herself, and..... 2. The show "Chefography" which was created by her employer (The Food Network) and thus cannot (in my opinion) be said to be a particularly objective source.

My point is that there has never, to my knowledge, bee any independent verification of **any** of the data currently in the Early Life section. In the absence of this, am I mistaken in my feelings that this is against Wikipedia guidelines? From what I've read it sounds like this paragraph should either be footnoted with a source that is not Ms. Lee (or someone connected to her) or else removed entirely.

I also want to note that I did in fact try to put a disclaimer about the validity of this information within the article itself and got my hand roundly slapped by a user accusing me of libel. Trying to obtain a fair and balanced perspective for the article is *not* libel. If there is no backup, it should not be in the article, and that was my whole point all along.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this up. Am I just totally hallucinating here?? Thank you!

Ushi5 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The NYPost link provides sourcing for some of the information. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean NY Times? I have looked in the References section again and cannot find a Post article there. If by some chance you *do* mean a Post article that I'm not seeing, isn't that kind of like saying, "Well, I saw it in the Enquirer/Star, so it's obviously a valid citation"?

Ushi5 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean the NYPost link included in the External links section. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Post article explicity says it took the details from her autobiography, Made From Scratch. Again, how is this an objective source? I'm not trying to be difficult but it really seems like we want to have our cake and eat it too as far as the rules go. The original source needs to be something she didn't herself write, even if it is repeated in an actual newspaper.Ushi5 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. They quoted her from the book, but the rest of the info is not presented as coming directly from the book. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, an autobiography published by an established publishing house is perfectly fine as a source for information about someone's early life. Is the any reason to question her account? Or rather, has it been questioned by any reliable source, not just the random people in the blogosphere who seem to be out to get this woman? --Slp1 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was simply that Wikipedia rules (as I understood them all these years) state that there must be backup for something and that that backup should not come from the person themselves, as that is subjective. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

As for your other question - as I stated, I have followed Sandra's program for quite a while and, yes, if you watch the programs there is in fact a lot of incongruity between episodes. She has expressed several different versions of her childhood at different times just on the show alone, never mind the other sources. This is the reason for my concern - I want this site to be objective and factual, and I honestly just don't think it is in this case.

But apparently I am indeed just flogging a dead subject, so I will shut up now. Ushi5 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If it helps, I think you may be confusing how we establish notability with the concept of verifiability. When we are trying to show that a person is notable enough to have an article on WP, we seek the kind of independent, third-party sources you are talking about. Lee clearly makes the grade for this.

Once we've decided to have an article, secondary sources are preferred, but in fact material from her own website would generally be considered fine, as long as it meets the constraints listed on WP:SELFPUB. However, in this case, we can do better, since information about her early life is by our rules verifiable from reliable sources from books, newspapers and magazines. We assume that if a book publisher or a newspaper or a magazine with a reputation for fact-checking has published information about Lee's early life, we are safe to use these sources.

While you may have noticed incongruities etc in her story, we cannot include this information per our policy on original research. I'm sure that you understand that if we allowed the suspicions of editors to be reflected in WP articles, we'd have sections in the Earth article saying that it is flat, and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article would be totally out of control! When and if the observations you have made are reflected in reliable sources with a reputation of fact-checking, we can consider using them on WP.--Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, at least I know the policy for sure now - and yes, that's understandable. Thank you. Ushi5 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reaction Section

Does anyone know if there are any other reviews of her books or show that can be added to this section? The section is called "Critical Reaction", yet it only includes one single sentence from one single review from one single person. It would be good to be able to add additional information to this section, positive or negative. As it stands right now, it just looks like there's one reviewer who just doesn't like her. Kman543210 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain has (famously) called her "the hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson". But that's so over the top that I'm not sure we should include it. Here's an excerpt from a NYT profile of her:

• Ms. Lee has her detractors. Her suggestion that homemade food is an overrated luxury, to be circumvented with can-openers and boxes of Duncan Hines, has predictably appalled some purists. In one episode of her show, she complained about having to chop mushrooms herself because the grocery store did not have them presliced. "The woman makes Rachael Ray look artisanal," one blogger quipped. But her fans are legion, and Ms. Finch, the former network executive, said that Ms. Lee "was sending a message to people that great things could be done with packaged food, and that was kind of a revolution in the culinary world."

There are offhand criticisms, like this:

• "Dinner at Your Door" ... provides co-op-friendly recipes and practical guidelines for starting and maintaining a co-op. To avoid experiences with Sandra Lee-style swappers, whose semi-homemade dishes might not be their style, swappers are encouraged to seek out like-minded cooks before establishing a group, Mrs. Remeis said.

But there's also praise. Maybe instead of trying to find more criticisms we should simply remove the heading and fold the existing material into the section on her career. 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now the section has only one entry. Either more should be added or that one should be taken off, by the concept of undue weight. Wolfview (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not undue weight if the majority of reviews in reliable sources are critical. If there are offsetting positive reviews that are notable and reliable, by all means add them... But removing a properly sourced statement like this could run afoul of WP:WELLKNOWN. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A better solution would probably be to delete the whole article. Even better would be if WP editors would grow up (or seek professional help) and stop spending their time writing articles on such minor people. Failing that maybe the fact that most press coverage has been critical could be mentioned. It seems a bit much for a section to consist only of one person's quoted opinion. Wolfview (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete this article; Lee would easily clear any of the applicable notability criteria. If you're feeling quixotic, feel free to open an AfD. But otherwise, there's plenty of information about Lee out there. Why not fix it if you don't like it? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the article with a number of additional critical reactions of note; the sources are reliable and appear well-balanced. The media consensus is that Lee is controversial, and that her detractors appear to slightly outnumber her supporters, but both are vocal. I think I've got the section capturing that for the reader now. While I was in there, I did a general copy-edit, addressed some WP:MOS items, and brought the article's references up to snuff vis-à-vis WP:CITE. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is much better now. Sorry for some of my remarks. I guess I kind of over reacted. Wolfview (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Huh?

The article says she invented "a home decorating tool using a wire rack and sheets or other fabric samples to create the appearance of decorative drapery." I guess I'm missing something. If you do this is it not decorative drapery, not just the appearance of decorative drapery? Wolfview (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording to avoid a logic circuit blowout. :-) Wolfview (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Had Sandra Lee Emmy Nomination Been Removed?

You would think that an Emmy Nomination would be something to remain on her wiki page. Why woudl someone remove it? Can someone put it back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.94.58 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kwanzaa cake

An IP editor had added a paragraph about Lee's "Kwanzaa cake" video, closely paraphrasing a Zagat web article. I've removed it, for the following reasons:

• The video is over two years old, and in that time, there hasn't been a substantial amount of press coverage of this particular dish.
• The article in question quotes a self-published source, namely, a blog post on the Huffington Post written by someone who claims to have been the recipe's original author. This violates the BLP policy, namely, WP:GRAPEVINE.
• The post in question has been deleted by the Huffington Post as violating the site's terms of service.

Now, if the Kwanzaa cake really is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in a BLP, there should be multiple critics expressing their opinion about the cake, with more than a mere passing mention. Likewise, to say the cake created controversy, there should be sources showing the controversy, rather than just one feature writer claiming it "caused a stir". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that addition and watched the video. The original sources weren't up to standards, as Macwhiz correctly points out. I also looked to see if it was discussed in print media. It turns out that it has received a small amount of attention. Here's a paragraph from a 1000-word article about Lee written by a food critic for the L.A. Times:

• And then there's my nomination for the most ghastly-sounding dish in Lee's culinary repertoire: Kwanzaa cake (ingredients include store-bought angel food cake, canned frosting, cocoa powder and corn nuts for strewing on top). That one made me want to tip off the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
  • Sandra Lee's red-state recipes; Andrew Cuomo's live-in girlfriend has the foodies in high dudgeon. Charlotte Allen. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 28, 2010. pg. A.36 [3]

Here's a review of a book by Anthony Bourdain:

• If you love food, cooking, restaurants, Medium Raw will make you laugh and make you mad, make you hungry and, in a few places, make you a little sick. All of it, bitter or sweet, is born of Bourdain's passion for food: "The eye-searing 'Kwanzaa Cake' clip on YouTube, of Sandra Lee doing things with store-bought angel food cake, canned frosting and corn nuts, instead of being simply the unintentionally hilarious viral video it should be, makes me mad for all humanity. I. Just. Can't. Help it."
  • RIPPING RANT ON FOOD AND RESTAURANT BUSINESS; Surly celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain spouts off about his likes, and mostly passionate dislikes, in the eminently entertaining Medium Raw. COLETTE BANCROFT. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Jul 7, 2010. pg. E.2 [4]

Here's another review of the same book:

• And then there is "Semi-Homemade" queen Sandra Lee, who Bourdain once described as the "hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson." In "Medium Raw," he recalls encountering Lee and her gubernatorial-hopeful boyfriend Andrew Cuomo at a party - her "icy, predatory claws working their way up my spine and around my hips - like some terrifying alien mandibles." What will he do if she becomes the first lady of New York and they start serving "Kwanzaa Cake" sprinkled with corn nuts at Albany functions? "It's worrying, let me tell you," he laughs. "Plus, I'll probably vote for the bastard! In fact, I inevitably will."
  • FOOD FIGHTER - TONY BOURDAIN, AUTHOR OF YET ANOTHER CULINARY DIATRIBE, NEVER SAW A RUMBLE HE DIDN'T LIKE CARLA SPARTOS. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Jun 6, 2010. pg. 34 [5]

Here's a overview of TV cooking show hosts

• Sandra Lee Semi-Homemade Cooking With Sandra Lee: This show is devoted to homemakers with no time to cook a meal from scratch. Lee's mantra: 70 percent store-bought/ready-made products plus 30 percent fresh/creative touches let you take 100 percent of the credit for something that looks, feels or tastes homemade. Still, some of Lee's recipes are scary. Chocolate-frosted Kwanzaa cake with apple filling and CornNuts? Scallops marinated in frozen pia colada mix and rum?
  • CELEBRITY CHEFS / Foodies with groupies / These cooking-show hosts have all the right ingredients to attract viewers to their programs; [2 STAR , 0 Edition] MARY VUONG. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: May 17, 2006. pg. 1 [6]

So I think it may be safe to say that this recipe has received attention from multiple sources over the last four years. However, we probably shouldn't make too much of it. Maybe something like, "Specific recipes that have attracted negative attention include a Kwanzaa cake".   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it has passing mentions; none of those mentions truly establish that the cake "caused a stir" or was notable in and of itself. It's a rather small sort of infamy: the recipe is no more egregious than many other Lee creations; it's more notable for being saddled to a holiday in a way that invites racial tensions than for its intrinsic lack of merit. Even so, we have only these drive-by comments about it; if this cake were truly so outrageous, where are the polemics accusing Lee of bigotry, the civil-rights activists calling for apologies and resignations, the lasting cultural impact of a pastry too far? I'm sure that we could find other Lee recipes that have attracted similar comments in similar quantities, given that Lee seems the culinary-TV equivalent of a shock jock. Can we really find a way to mention this cake that doesn't run up against WP:UNDUE? I'm doubtful. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a recipe that's received more attention then we could mention that instead, or in addition.

Looking at the article, I'd say the criticism section is longer and more detailed than it needs to be considering the length of the whole article. It would appear that one of her harshest and most notable critics is Anthony Bourdain, but we don't mention him at all. I think we could improve the criticism section by including a summary of his views, including on the Kwanzaa cake, while reducing the total length. How does that sound?   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If Bourdain has repeatedly criticized her work, I'd say it probably deserves a mention, and that could call out the cake. However, I don't think the criticism section is too long at all. Lee is the subject of a great deal of criticism; shortening the section would therefore imbalance the article. I don't think it can be cut down without turning the article into a hagiography. When I copy-edited the article, I invested considerable effort into making sure it reflects Lee's controversial status—and the fact that she is happy to be controversial—while still providing balance and compliance with WP:BLP. I fear that cutting it would inevitably lose that balance. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to do the revision? I can give you the citations for the excerpts above. The relevant portions of Bourdain's book aren't available on Google Books or Amazon, but many libraries carry it. And, as you can see, it's been quoted in newspapers too.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? I do think we should mention the Kwanzaa cake, and if no one else is interested I'll try again.   Will Beback  talk  12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As an indication of the popularity of Bourdain's book, I see that my library system has 43 copies and I'm 73rd on the waiting list.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Given all the anti-Lee problems we have with this article, if we're going to include any further criticism at all, it needs to be from quality sources that meet WP:BLP. We could start with the sources for the quotes above. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

MacWhiz hasn't been back since his last comments, but I interpret his remarks as saying that we shouldn't reduce or enlarge the criticism section. That would mean reducing the other critical comments to include the Bourdain views on the cake or whatever else. The excerpts above are all from reliable, mainstream newspapers. I have the Bourdain book on order, but it might be a while before I have it in hand.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable, mainstream newspapers can and do publish material not suitable for Wikipedia, especially when it comes to BLPs...--Ronz (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We certainly wouldn't include real estate listings from a newspaper. I've added the cites to the excerpts above.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a busier few weeks than I had anticipated... I don't believe that we necessarily need to remove any existing criticism to include new views; however, the article must maintain a balance of criticism to praise that approximates the balance in the reliable sources. That is, if the only thing reliable sources ever wrote about Lee was criticism, we'd expect the article to lack any praise—reflecting the sources, as per WP:BLP. Right now, the article has a reasonable balance, and conveys the idea that Lee's foods are liked by some and reviled by others. If we add more criticism or praise, we have to make sure we don't accidentally slant the article past what the sources support, and the stuff we add should be notable in and of itself. We don't want to just pile stuff on because it exists; we want to add it because it is notable and would help an uninformed reader understand the topic. While Bourdain is a notable food critic, my only qualm is that he's critical about almost everything, so having Bourdain say unkind things about your food isn't necessarily unusual. So, why is it especially interesting and informative that Bourdain doesn't like Lee? Whatever's added should answer that question. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, this isn't a rush job.

Bourdain's criticms is more notable than the others because it's been noted repeatedly by seocndary sources. By comparison, have any secondary sources noted the views of the non-notable writers at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or Charlotte Observer? Note that the two Bourdain-related excerpts above are only about the Kwanzaa cake. If we search for all instances in which Bourdain has been quoted on Lee I suspect we'd find several more. So this thread may have two issues: is the Kwanzaa cake notable, and is Bourdain's POV notable. I believe the answer to both is "yes". But that doesn't mean that either should receive undue attention. A sentence on each would be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I added urls to the refs mentioned above.

I don't believe Bourdain's comments have any business here, because they're sensationalist: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to quote him. We can say he has been "harshly critical" or something like that.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bourdain

I finally got the Anthony Bourdain book, Medium Raw. It includes the oft-repeated epithet for Lee: “hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson", and the description of the Kwanzaa Cake video as "eye-searing". Since no one else has suggest other text, I'll go ahead and add those phrase. Something like, Food writer Anthony Bourdain has called Lee the "hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson" and described a video of Lee preparing a Kwanzaa cake as "eye searing".   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've posted it.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the comment.

Why does this hyperbole belong in an encyclopedia article about Lee? It says nothing about her.

The introduction to BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist"

WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

If we can find a source that indicates that indicates Bourdain's hyperbole is worth mentioning, it will give us some context as well. Otherwise, we're just being sensationalist.

In what context does Bourdain present the information? Is he criticizing her, her cooking, something else?

You've added sources, but no context. What context do the two article use? --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments are fairly well-known. I've restored the material with two additional cites. It isn't "gossip", by any stretch. Bourdain is a famous food writer. Note that we currently quote a reader's comment to a newspaper column. Bourdain is a much more notable commentator than Mimi Sheridan.[7]   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What kind of contest do you want? These are critical responses to her cooking in general and to one particular recipe which has received widespread scorn.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You've added sources, but no context from those sources. What context do the two articles use? If the context is similar enough to one of the other criticisms, hopefull it would be possible to combine them so the section would actually have a bit of prose rather than just another disjointed commentary. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles are quoting Bourdain, which indicates that his views of Lee are noteworthy. I can post excerpts here if you like.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please. Let's see what context they're using. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jun. 17--A lot has changed in the decade since Anthony Bourdain penned "Kitchen Confidential." But with one critical exception -- fatherhood -- little has changed, at least outwardly, about Mr. Bourdain himself, who still is unapologetically crass and views himself as a sort of Don Quixote fighting for what's right in the food world. This was more than apparent at a talk he gave Monday night to a nearly packed house of Bourdain groupies at Heinz Hall. They got their fill of the cantankerous chef-turned-TV personality, who liberally sprinkled his talk with F-bombs. It was not so different from his talk two years ago. He started, like last time, railing on Food Network icons Rachael Ray and Sandra Lee, whom he referred to as "the hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson."
• 'Medium Raw' is full of things everybody in the food world thinks but nobody will say, at least in print.... Sandra Lee is the 'hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson.' I don't think The Denver Post would even print the title of his polemic about the man they call the Dean of Food Writers, Alan Richman.
• His wrath is often aimed at the Food Network and its stars -- he dubs the cable network the "Empire of Mediocrity" and its semi-homemade star Sandra Lee "the hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson."
• And then there is "Semi-Homemade" queen Sandra Lee, who Bourdain once described as the "hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson." In "Medium Raw," he recalls encountering Lee and her gubernatorial-hopeful boyfriend Andrew Cuomo at a party - her "icy, predatory claws working their way up my spine and around my hips - like some terrifying alien mandibles." What will he do if she becomes the fi rst lady of New York and they start serving "Kwanzaa Cake" sprinkled with corn nuts at Albany functions? "It's worrying, let me tell you," he laughs. "Plus, I'll probably vote for the bastard! In fact, I inevitably will."
• If you love food, cooking, restaurants, Medium Raw will make you laugh and make you mad, make you hungry and, in a few places, make you a little sick. All of it, bitter or sweet, is born of Bourdain's passion for food: "The eye-searing 'Kwanzaa Cake' clip on YouTube, of Sandra Lee doing things with store-bought angel food cake, canned frosting and corn nuts, instead of being simply the unintentionally hilarious viral video it should be, makes me mad for all humanity. I. Just. Can't. Help it."
• The press loves Bourdain because he's so quotable: He speaks in perfect hyperbole. He has compared California's Slow Food guru, Alice Waters, to Pol Pot in a muumuu. Food Network star Sandra Lee is the "hellspawn of Betty Crocker and Charles Manson."

Those are all from mainstream newspapers in the Proquest archive.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work!

The context is all about Bourdain though. I don't see anything that we could really work with to present it better beyond what you've already done.

I don't think it belongs in an article about Lee, but I'm not going to fight it alone when we've multiple sources. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike Royko once described then Governor of California Jerry Brown as "Governor Moonbeam". A short time later he wrote that he regretted the epithet, and that it was inaccurate, but it had already stuck. Decades later, it's still used. But I do agree that Bourdain's quote isn't informative. Like Royko's description, it's inaccurate even if memorable. I propose leaving the Kwanzaa cake material as it is, which goes beyond Bourdain, and replace the "hellspawn" quote with "harshly critical". The omitted material could go in an obscure Wikiquote page. How's that?   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there's no support for "harshly critical" in place of "hellspawn". Nonetheless, I'll make the edit.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of siblings

Here she states, that she's got 4 siblings and not 5. They were 5 in total. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGTIxoD9XOE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.6.47 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually gave Sandra Dee my heartfelt attention by watching her program for quite sometime, but found myself turning the channel to something else while she was on. She seems so self centered and horribly selfish by referring to everything from a spatula to a grain of cinnamon as "mime", it drives me crazy to hear that so many times in such a short segment. Am I the only one that notices that? Someone really needs to bring it to her attention. I actually worked for her show on three different segments and she didn't as much as dice an onion or arrange a flower. A wonderful, faithful group of people did it all for her while she takes all the credit for "my tablescape" and "my perfect meal". The overly abundance of sweetness she exudes during her show is not how she is in the real world! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.133.81 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also and Affirmative statements

"Also in 2012, Sandra Lee is also starting a new monthly lifestyle magazine in partnership with TV Guide. She is also starring in two new shows: Sandra’s Restaurant Remakes and Sandra Lee’s Taverns, Lounges & Clubs." Not acceptable because it is improper English. Furthermore it states something is going to happen without verifying if it did or did not happen. "Also" is not needed in any of this. Certainly not twice in the first sentence with an echo in the second sentence. 'Also in in 2012, Sandra Lee is also…' is not only one too many alsos but it is 2014 so to say she is starting something in 2012 sound like presupposing. Either she started it in that year or she did not start it. If it didn't commence publication in 2012 obviously this should be removed or modified. If she did in fact start is the publication in 2012, say so and give the name of the magazine. Did she in fact star in two new shows: Sandra’s Restaurant Remakes and Sandra Lee’s Taverns, Lounges & Clubs? If so say in 2012 she starred in two new shows…" If you do indeed feel the need to use "also" if also is needed again, try synonyms such as additionally, plus, in addition, along with, furthermore, moreover or as well as. But this is two years past 2012 so don't be indefinite; either she published and starred in or not.Tomandzeke (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The source seems reliable, but it definitely needs to be rewritten with current information and grammar. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandra Lee (chef). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716002837/http://sandraleepictures.com/press/FC_1107.htm to http://sandraleepictures.com/press/FC_1107.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)