Talk:Elizabeth David

Bad food
" bad food served in the UK and the simple, excellent food" Doesn't seem NPOV to me. I suggest either removing the adjectives (" food served in the UK and the food") or rephrasing it to attribute the opinion to her. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As it's in the lead, it is an accurate reflection of what is in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonfree image removal
A nonfree image has been removed from this article, as it violates several of the nonfree content criteria: Under no circumstances may a disputed nonfree image which fails even one NFCC be reinserted. Should one look at, say, Stephen King, Orson Scott Card, David Eddings, or any other author biography, one will see that nonfree covers are used only in the articles about the books themselves, not in the author biography. This article contains many free images, and those are more than sufficient for the illustration of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article contains eighteen free images which quite comprehensively illustrate it. The image is therefore not necessary to illustrate the article subject, failing NFCC #1.
 * The free text already quite clearly states the reactions to the images. That renders the image unneeded, failing NFCC #8.
 * The image is used outside the article about the book itself, where it is properly used. This fails NFCC #3a.
 * You were kind enough to review the images at the FAC, but another editor disputes your findings. I should be most grateful for your expert views on this, if you have time and inclination.  Tim riley  talk   20:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assessment above on several points. NFCC #1 regards a free equivalent to the non-free image; the fact that there are free images illustrating other aspects of the article does not mean that NFCC #1 is failed. NFCC #8 is by its nature a subjective assessment, but simply knowing how others have reacted to an image is not in my view a sufficient replacement for being able to see the image for oneself. The image provides values for readers of this article by contextualizing content here. Similarly, with regards to #3a, the cover art is used here in the context of critical commentary about its design, rather than simply for identification purposes. The image does not at the moment have a non-free rationale for this article, but that looks to be because the OP removed it. I'd also note that per WP:3RRNO, re-removal of content based on an NFCC dispute is not so cut-and-dried. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If that were correct about NFCC #1, there wouldn't be an NFCC #1, since there would always be no free equivalent to the nonfree image. It will always differ in some way. It regards the article subject, not a facet of it. Otherwise, there would never be a case where #1 applies, and that is clearly absurd. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what NFCC #1 says: the requirement is "the same encyclopedic purpose", not "the article subject". It doesn't follow that NFCC #1 never appliesNikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we allow repeated drilling down based on that, it will never apply. If, for example, we have a free image of singer Joe Example after a concert, one can always say "But we don't have a photo of him during a concert." And then if one presents a free photo of that, one can say "But we don't have a photo of him on the 2011 Foobar Tour." And if one presents a free image of that, one can say "But that's of him performing in Buffalo. We don't have one of him in Denver...". So one could, by that metric, always drill down enough to say "Well, the nonfree image isn't exactly the same as any free ones", and that is trivially true. That would render #1 completely meaningless, and that is, again, absurd. The question is whether we have any free images to illustrate the article about the subject. Illustrating the article about the subject is the "encyclopedic purpose". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not what the criterion actually is. The image in this particular case serves to support critical commentary about it - that is its encyclopedic purpose. An image of the article subject is clearly not equivalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In another FA (which for obvious reasons I don't propose to name here) I sought advice in advance from image experts at the appropriate talk page and was told by two or possibly three of them that I could use three non-free images to explain three very different aspects of the subject's work. I did so, and again it passed the FA image review without a hitch. It seems that Seraphimblade's personal interpretation of the rules does not coincide with that of our experts.  Tim riley  talk   14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you think is an "expert". I was involved in both NFCC and in its revision in the face of the WMF's revision of nonfree image policy and the Exemption Doctrine Policy. In a very real sense, I substantially wrote them. And for biographical articles, it has always been true that if either the subject of the biography is not deceased (meaning taking a free image is possible), or the subject is deceased but a photo of them is available, nonfree may not be used. So I don't know what "experts" you have been talking to, but illustrating a facet has never been permitted. I'll take a look for that other one and we'll pull those as well, but you cannot do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see! Everybody is out of step except you. (Sigh!)  Tim riley  talk   20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Nikkimaria above and disagree on all points with the image deleter. One of the truisms of Wikipedia is that when someone (who usually has not contributed substantially to an article) believes in a misinterpretation of the rules, they then insist that everyone else MUST do what they want because "Under no circumstances may a disputed [such and such] which fails even one [micro-rule as they uniquely interpret it] be reinserted". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that must be right. The deleter claims to have written the WP rules himself, but if so he seems to have written them very poorly as he thinks they mean one thing and everyone else thinks they mean something else. As any parliamentary draughtsman will confirm, what matters is not what the draughter meant, but what the law actually says – well summed up in this case, as one would of course anticipate, by Nikkimaria. As there is a clear consensus that the deleter has got the rules wrong, can I take it that we have a consensus to restore the improperly deleted image?  Tim riley  talk   21:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Images which fail NFCC may not be restored, and are not subject to local consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A very gentle reminder that nobody here but you imagines that the image fails NFCC.  Tim riley  talk   23:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not "imagine" it. The article has eighteen free images. It is, therefore, clearly replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You haven't understood at all, it seems, and I think you might profitably re-read the explanations, above. I propose, unless any editor (other than Seraphimblade obviously) disagrees, to apply the rules as everyone except him understands them. As to his proposal to troll my previous FACs, I think it is disgusting, and I hope others will agree with me. An admin, even one appointed in the early days, before we reached our current standards, should be ashamed of him/herself for such a plan.  Tim riley  talk   00:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the images do not fail NFCC, as Nikkimaria has explained above. I also agree that the threat by an admin to research User:Tim riley's FAs for the purpose of deleting images that have been accepted at prior FACs is chilling, to say the least, and would seem improper if meant seriously.  I am always boggled that there is no presumption, under the WP guidelines, to help protect the efforts of extremely productive FA researcher/writers like User:Tim riley from degradation by users who have not researched the subject or contributed anything useful to the article in the past. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to maintain AGF here. Clearly User:Seraphimblade has a firm view. Others hold to a different position. But rather than a collegiate discussion, we get a barrage of assertions; “under no circumstances”, “clearly absurd”, “you cannot do that”; and what can only be interpreted as a rather ugly threat; “I’ll take a look for that other one and we’ll pull those as well”. This approach would be unbecoming from any editor, it is particularly so from an experienced admin. It should be possible to disagree civilly, and ultimately to accept that there can be differing, but valid, interpretations of the policy/criteria under discussion. KJP1 (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Having left the thread open for a couple of days to allow other views to be added, I think we have a consensus (with one dissention) that the use of the image complies with the WP rules, and I suggest I put it back again.  Tim riley  talk   17:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be restored to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to do that, go ahead. It seems we have a deeper issue here, that being FA reviewers somehow "approving" inappropriate nonfree images, so that probably needs to be addressed as a whole if these types of ownership issues will play out when enforcement is attempted. Please do keep in mind, though, that use of a nonfree image is a fundamental failure of our mission to create a free content encyclopedia, and we should only do it where absolutely necessary. In this case, an interested reader can always click through to the article on the book to see the image in question. There is no need to use it anywhere outside that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Post war aftermath
Rationing affected much of Europe not just a tiny area. Plus the exaggerations Of the distance travelled. Granted Going to Egypt is a bit far. But from Britain to France is literally a stone throws away they're bleeping neighbours for christ's sakes! Even going from London to southern France is a very short flight. It's like a Japanese Chef saying I travelked a great length of distance to go from Tokyo to Beijing. And I Doubt this book was published back then cuz nobody used the term "Mediterranean cooking way back then. but we're going to label everything "Mediterranean" now? What does baba ganoush & hummus have to do with the South of France? This is how the term "Mediterranean" came from: it was Persians,  Palestinians, Iraqis Lebanese and syrians who were afraid to call it Middle Eastern food because of prejudice by westerners so they labeled their particular Cuisine like Falafel as  "Mediterranean" to make it sound palatable to western ears. It never involved  Southern French or even Sicilian food or Calabrian food. So stop reinventing. I tell you what, next time I'm going to do a cookbook based on Mexican food & instead of calling it "Mexican food" I'm going to call it "Flavours of the Caribbean" since technically Mexico has a Caribbean Coastline after all. "I love tacos and tostadas and burritos, they're the best Caribbean food I've ever had". Because that's what this stupid book is doing. Hell a small portion of the United States borders the Caribbean Sea and Miami's weather is just like Cuba's weather much more than Marseille is to "Egypt or Morocco' . So let's call American food 'Caribbean food too"! might as well. 76.167.193.57 (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you care to read the article − just the lead will suffice: no need for you to read the whole piece − you will see that the first of ED's books, published in 1950, is called "A Book of Mediterranean Food". I doubt if she will posthumously oblige you by retitling it.  Tim riley  talk   09:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Further to Tim Riley's apposite remark, I'll add that reasoning, with an uncollegiate tone and at great length, and on a large number of talk pages in similar style, from any principles other than Wikipedia policy - that articles use Reliable Sources - is inappropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)