Talk:Barefoot Contessa

Run Time
I'm not a Wikipedian by any means (although I do read it quite a bit), but wouldn't episode runtime be 21 - 23 minutes due to commerical breaks? Example, the Good Eats page refers to each episode lasting this long. If no, perhaps someone should edit the Good Eats page to show 30 minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, indeed, you're correct. It should be run-time without commercials.  I'll fix that ASAP. Air.dance 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Incredibly fast turn around. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.39.130 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Looks like the standard for 30 minute shows is 20-23 minutes, so that's what I went with. Thanks for the sharp eye and the compliment.  Cheers! Air.dance 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Reversion
Ina's husband did not retire from his position as professor. He retired from the dean position of the Yale SOM.

Her bibliography is listed on her eponymous article and does not need to be repeated here.

Please try to refrain from site pimping. If you'd like to add a link to that unofficial message board, please describe it as only a fan message board.

Please refrain from non-neutral POV statements.


 * Oh, next you're going to tell us that Iron Butterfly didn't write that song about her! --M.Neko (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Site pimping
Once more for those in the back -- can we please refrain from site pimping? And if you must link to that message board, it's a good idea to state that it is unofficial and not connected to Garten.
 * Answer - since I don't know how to post a message back to you. A) You are really not very nice in your choice of words. And B) in your original snarky comment, you yourself stated to use FAN message board. And just an FYI...it is obvious to all and sundry that FAN is unofficial.
 * Your method of answering is fine. I'll apologise for any implied snark,  but I had removed the original long description several times only for it to be immediately replaced.  If you look at my original notation on this page, I was perfectly polite in asking but my request went unheeded. Please see the Ina Garten talk page for more on this. -- Air.dance 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer -  I think it's a matter of how one reads your initial post. And after your initial post we added 'fan' to the description. You didn't say in your initial post that there was a problem with the secription, just with not alluding to it being anything but a fan site.
 * Please see the Ina Garten talk page for my response. -- Air.dance 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography Information
Do we really need her biblio here as well as on her bio article? It seems extraneous and the cookbooks are technically not a component of the show, since the original BC cookbook was published before the FN show and the cookbook series stands alone, i.e. unrelated to FN. Let's try to reach a consensus so we don't play the add-delete game. -- Air.dance 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
In my opinion, this article takes a decidedly negative view of the show. It reads more like someone's snarky blog entry than an encyclopedia.

that is becuase ina is a snarky *b%##h... no wonder she has enemy's.... I'm not changing the wiki b/c people have criticized me for that, but honestly she is nasty....

Several of the sentences here seem to implicitly object to the fact that the host has money, and seem to deride the fact that she drives nice cars and has a well kept garden. While certainly some viewers might be thinking the same things, the way it's currently worded sounds like editorial comments rather than an official source of unbiased information.

Finally, is the reference to "food porn" really necessary? Is there an actual published paper saying that this is an example of "food porn"? This summation sounds like what might loosely be called "original research", and thus would be against the Wikipedia guidelines.

Of course, I could be wrong...
 * Agreed. Some parts of the article sound to me like the writer had something against Ina for not being health conscious enough, listing her calories, or pretending she drove less expensive cars or something.  I'm not sure about the "food porn" part, either.  This is the first time I've sure ever heard the show called that. TheS0S 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agreed -- I haven't gotten around to giving this article a major overhaul (which was my goal after finishing the Ina Garten article), but there's definitely a lot of NPOV issues. As for the food porn reference, that's actually my work -- I've seen it referenced as such in several articles.  For now, I'm going to remove and reword some of the NPOV stuff, and I'll get around to adding references soon.  Cheers.  Air.dance 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See not everyone likes the barefoot contessa. So how does a wiki article include all opinion. Snarky? Have you watched the show? She is as snarky as it gets. I think the Wiki article need to include positive and negative opinions. 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)WikiRookie
 * An encylopedia article shouldn't include ANY opinions, negative or positive -- just factual statements ABOUT the criticism and/or praise if it's significant enough to warrant inclusion. Air.dance 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

- The Make-a-Wish Foundation

--Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

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


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

--Javaweb (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I concur with Javaweb. Is it really a controversy? One staffer at a charity said something truly not noteworthy (the majority of celebrity Make-A-Wish requests are not fulfilled) to a gossip blog, which then posted a defamatory article (and the tone of the article was defamatory, it wasn't just reporting the fact that Garten said that she couldn't fulfill this child's wish at this time) and other gossip blogs picked up the story and repeated its claims. Then the typical internet cranks made comments on said gossip blogs with all sorts of vile insults. If that's a controversy, then every celebrity/public figure needs a controversy section in their entry, because that cycle is repeated for everything from minor kerfuffles with airline personnel to business disputes that are being handled through proper channels but got "leaked" to a tabloid or TMZ. Is it legitimately encyclopedic to give air to every one of these piddly eruptions of the seamy side of the internet?Aecamadi (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Speaking for myself, my concern is for Wikipedia, not Garten. There are too many sites on the internet that need to fill webpages with controversy to get the page-views that make them money. Collateral damage: their agenda end up driving ours.
 * Full Disclosure:I have no connection to Ina Garten. I don't watch her show or the Food Network. I don't follow her life. I haven't ever read one of her cookbooks. When the Google homepage linked to her recipes on Thanksgiving, I read a few.
 * Wikipedia is the shining jewel of the internet and I want to keep it that way.

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

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

- Enzo's Mom

The link was mentioned on

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

I would like to ask anyone misled by scandal sites to communicate how you feel about them exploiting your instincts to stand up for sick children and what your new understanding of this event with anyone you communicated with in the same forum you used before. Please ask them to do the same. Do not mention the scandal sheet where you got misled because you will just be giving them more page views. The morals of this story: --Javaweb (talk)Javaweb
 * wait for the facts to settle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
 * More lies are told through omission than commission. Lack of context, framing the issue to distort things, etc.
 * Only depend on reliable sources that don't use these tricks.

(end of copied talk) --Javaweb

Ommiting content - sounds like censorship to me
I've just learned about the story from Cracked. Wanted to verify are the joking and who's that person who decline wish of kid with cancer.

Bravo, wikipedia - not a word. Are you behind a wall in China, in North Korea or is that preventive censorship?

I think, that one of the reasons why Jimbo never wanted wikipedia to be commercial is to not face pressure to alter some content.

Btt. This... Woman. She doesn't want to come back to this story, nor her sponsors (ABC?). It looks like the boy and her mum moved as well. But we know what happened and I don't see reason to hide this fact (To Javaweb: it happened, you know?).

It's important because:
 * PR suicide - great example, why it should be omitted?
 * Let the people know not only her 'official', cotton candy image. If somebody can read wikipedia by him/herself, s/he can make one's mind is that... Lady? a good or bad person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.120 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no "this story". It's a non-story. The kid decided he wanted to swim with dolphins instead. But this article isn't about dolphins, or about the make a wish foundation, or about Cracked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously though. At a mere first search there are several dozen reputable sources about this "non-story", from several countries, as well as several thousand mentions on websites around the world, and people will argue that it's irrelevant and a "non-story"?  I have no problem about her behavior, but I do care about this blatant censorship on Wikipedia due to PR crap - anything non-negative with so much coverage would be most definitely mentioned on the page.  To censure that information under such ridiculous excuses when it made international headlines is just plain wrong and unethical. 87.64.169.61 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * International headlines? In which quality newspapers, exactly?


 * Incidentally, WP:BLP has nothing to do with "PR crap". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:BLP has nothing to do with "PR crap", and that's exactly why I am so annoyed that PR crap is censuring information when WP:BLP supports its presence. But my mistake, it shouldn't be present on this page, it should instead be present on the Ina Garten page itself.  87.64.169.61 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong on either page - it is trivial garbage and a BLP violation.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For the IP - I don't understand what you mean by "PR crap is censuring information" (I assume you mean "censoring"). Until you explain what you mean by it, it will be very difficult for us to have a constructive discussion about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My favortie episode of the show is...
The one where she makes this roast. I would wanna watch it whenever I see it on Food Network On Demand. 50.15.207.11 (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Making chicken stock
I read your article on bone broth, I also read a article in the past and it was to roast the chicken before making the stock, it was so rich in flavor and had a amber color, not cloudy, so my question is, is this as nutritional as your method? Have you tried this 2601:8C:4B7E:E770:D944:C4CA:7F8:5D2E (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)