Talk:Sandra Lee (cook)/Archive 1

Way too biased
Look at the "critism" section...It says that her time spent at Le Cordon Blue ws "minimal, at best." Who's to say how long she spent there? Personal attacks should be reserved for letters, not Wikipedia.--Magyar14 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is terribly written and biased beyond belief. Honestly, adding to the Criticism section a quote from "Miss Alli of Television Without Pity" is ridiculous. It's unprofessional, and frankly, the opinion of someone from TWoP is unimportant. 70.179.140.34 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is to say whose opinion is important and whose opinion is not important? Venting, as above, is very biased and opinionated, and does not fit guidelines. Television Without Pity has a huge fan base, is viable and considered a source on other wiki sites. Biff714 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see Television Without Pity as meeting WP:BLP or WP:RS. I've repeatedly suggested taking the concern to WP:RSN.  --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Related Links
I'm thinking we should leave related links as they are now - her Web site and her Food Network bio. The Proboards and TWoP links are more inflammatory than neutral. (We could leave them in if there are "supportive" Sandra links out there, but I have yet to find any.) Amnewsboy 22:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

alcohol criticism
I hate to defend the lady (really, I do), but it may be a bit unfair to single her out for her excessive alcohol-related show content. Bobby Flay does just as much boozin' on his show, if not more Lambertman 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard of this woman before, and I don't defend her use of pre-packaged food as it does often contain high amounts of fat, sugar, salt, and preservatives. However, regarding the use of liquor in a recipe, unless the dish remains uncooked, alcohol will evaporate under cooking temperatures, leaving behind only the flavor. PNW Raven 16:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most, but not 100% of it, will evaporate, so if you have alcohol-sensitive guests you should find an alternative. (Or alternative guests!)  I believe that the Sanda Lee criticism stems from the fact that often times she makes some pretty simple "vodka punches" on the show, recipes more at home in a college campus than a gourmet kitchen.  However, Michael Chiarello almost always makes cocktails for his "parties" and, as mentioned above, Bobby Flay has testified to being quite imbibed on occasion. --JD79 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, most does not evaporate. A study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Data Laboratory calculated the percentage of alcohol remaining in a dish based on various cooking methods. The results are as follows:

Preparation Method                                       Percent of Alcohol Retained alcohol added to boiling liquid & removed from heat                85% alcohol flamed                                                     75% no heat, stored overnight                                          70% baked, 25 minutes, alcohol not stirred into mixture                45% baked/simmered, alcohol stirred into mixture:

* 15 minutes                                                   40%

* 30 minutes                                                   35%

* 1 hour                                                       25%

The link for this is here: http://www.ochef.com/165.htm �"The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.216.99 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

DOB?
Anybody know how old she is?

Sandra Lee was born in July of '66, according to her chefography on Food Network. --Rcej (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do consider that information for Chefography was given to the Food Network by Lee heself, so she is the source for materials gathered for this show. �"Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.255.132 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Christensen
I reverted edits from 12/19 tying Sandra to a curtain patent... in order to make that connection work, we have to establish that the person who has the patent is the same person with the show. Based on the way the links were written and worded, it's conceivable (although unlikely) that this is a different person. I have no doubt that it's correct, but it needs to be verifiable as per WP:V. Amnewsboy 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative bias in Cordon Bleu paragraph
In the paragraph discussing Ms. Lee course at Le Cordon Bleu the text currently states, ". . . she has said in interviews that she felt that the lessons were a waste of time, and that she could prepare better dishes on her own."

The corresponding link takes you to a surprisingly snarky Gourmet magazine article in the press section of the official Semi-Homemade website. Regarding the Cordon Bleu escapade it states, "Back in 1998, she took a two-week course at the Cordon Bleu in Ottawa, Canada. And that was when she had her Semi-Homemade brainstorm. "I was scraping beef tendons and I thought, 'I'm outta here!"' she says. "When you look at a recipe you want to know that at least four of the ingredients are available at your grocery store. It's more cost-effective and less time-consuming."

It is within the realm of possibility that the above example is an honest case of inaccurate reporting by a well-meaning Wiki editor. However, it seems obvious from the completely irrelevant discussions regarding Ms. Lee's physical endowments, as well as the various references that the shrikes discuss on the Sandra Lee bashing sites (the size and position of her breasts, her penchant for pajamas and the nicknames of her niece and nephew, to name just a few) that there are editors purposely inserting unnecessary negative bias in this article. The various Sandra Lee shrike sites were created expressly for that purpose while Wikipedia was not. --Pywacket 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I freely admit to adding that sentence in there, and I must say, I was surprised that it was seen as being "Sandra-bashing". At the time, I had thought that was an accurate summary of her time there, based on the Gourmet article and statements she made in her "Chefography" special.  I can see your point, but don't believe it was written that way on purpose. Amnewsboy 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone continues to change Lee's story regarding her time in Canada at the Cordon Bleu. This site more than any wikipedia states more untruths and made up stories with names and explanations changing all the time. It is the most inconsistent and incongruent site ever done. Those who embellish her stories are worse than the ones who criticize it. The site represents the woman. �"Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.234.226 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR
I noticed that there was a WP:NOR tag added into the article (regarding her criticism)... from what I can tell online, the majority of her critics that can be referenced are blogsites of Food Network devotees... and I'm not sure what WP's rules are regarding blogs as reliable sources. Are those able to be attributed? Amnewsboy 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not considered reliable sources, per WP:RS, so unless that criticism is coming from a newspaper, or another reliable source, it should be removed. I've moved it here, until it can be properly sourced. Ckessler 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The major form of criticism against Lee refers to her cooking show, Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. Criticism is not necessarily against the philosophy behind the show, but rather the delivery of the philosophy and the message conveyed through the show. Since her show uses many prepackaged goods, it delivers the message that "real" cooking is too difficult, and encourages those with busy lifestyles to take the easy way out and not cook healthy meals using fresh ingredients. This is in contrast to other Food Network personalities, such as Rachel Ray or Giada De Laurentiis, who emphasize that real cooking doesn't have to difficult, but can be fun, everyday, and healthy all at the same time. Peculiarly, many of the recipes shown in Semi-Homemade are of questionable nutritional value.

Some of her critics take issue with the nutritional value of her meals (since many ingredients are pre-packaged or contain high amounts of sugar, fat, sodium, preservatives, or alcohol) (the last is most often seen in a segment of her program entitled Sandra's Cocktail Time).

Others oppose her perceived over-reliance on specific brands and products, which may be either unavailable to consumers for various reasons or more expensive than their generic equivalents. .

For a time, Lee referred to herself as a lifestylist, but has since stopped doing so due to a trademark issue. Texas-based home living expert Suzanne Felber trademarked the word in 2000.

Was there a lawsuit regarding this trademark issue. I thought I read about it somewhere? Magten 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some online critics refer to themselves as "shrikes", after comments by a Lee supporter on the recipe review boards on the Food Network website. . .


 * I've added attributable reaction/criticism... it's not much, but I figure it's a start. Please let me know if this works out, or if it's still in the WP:NOR area. Amnewsboy 07:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Sandra's latest book about herself even though its not written very well and some stories contradict each other. Even if its fiction, its still pretty good. �"Preceding unsigned 01:07, 27 January 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:SandraleeBook.jpg
Image:SandraleeBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Innovator vs inventor
Let the majority rule. All of us 'here' understand Sandra Lee's "semi-homemade" concept, which by definition is an innovation. However, Amnewsboy considers Sandra Lee to be an inventor, based solely on "Kurtain Kraft". I respectfully disagree with using the term inventor... I think innovator describes Ms. Lee more accurately. So which term, if either, should be used in the article? Opinions please, thank you.-- Rcej 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither. The only thing innovative about her "semi-homemade" concept is that she decided to write a book about it. Home cooks have been incorporating pre-packaged food into their meals for decades; the classic example of this is the old-fashioned American green bean casserole, which traditionally uses condensed cream of mushroom soup and canned fried onions as major ingredients. (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

True, though this concept as a style of cuisine has not been, if rarely, the focus of a mainstream cooking program. Majority overrule has not yet been reached. --Rcej (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, then, describing her then as an innovator is misleading and should be removed. Even if we stipulate that preparing food from pre-made ingredients can be considered a cusine, the only thing new here is that she has put herself on television. Moreover, the show itself is hardly innovative, in that it is a formulaic cooking show that does not break any new ground in the field. Even if we accept that a pre-packaged cooking show is by some stretch of the mind "innovative" simply by the focus of the cusine, the real innovator would arguably the network executive who put it on the air in the first place. Simply put, Lee has failed to add anything new to either the field of gastronomy or the field of television. (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In school we are taught taking someone elses idea (or recipe) and adding a few ideas (or ingredients) of your own, and then taking full credit for yourself is called plagiarism.

Removal consensus has not yet been reached, as you alone do not make the majority. Also, making edits which possibly reflect your personal resentment and/or jealousy of Lee's success could be interpreted as POV. --Rcej (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Using "innovator" - a term only used on a handful of other wikibios and certainly none involving cooks OR TV personalities, whichever may best apply here - to describe Ms. Lee is a peacock term, and arguing that someone who doesn't agree is "jealous" is a straw man. Lambertman (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely apologize, and did not mean to imply the user was jealous; but rather, that he/she examine any possible resentment/jealosy reflected in their edit to the article, as they could be interpreted - by anyone - as POV. The user had removed 'innovator' several previous times with no explanation, and no consensus, to do so. With removal consensus, of course removal of the word 'innovator' is to be done. --Rcej (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You did imply the user is jealous, and you are now changing your statement. Again, we'll watch to see if you use deletions of what's already written as in the past. Just like Lee has been in her writing and speaking, you are being inconsistent with your statements. Maybe you are Lee; maybe not. As was noted at the top, you are the same person by signature above who continued to edit users comments in discussion to your liking, up until others posting began to object to your changing everything to your slant and opinion. Please stick with your own contributions regarding Lee and stop judging other participants discussion postings. Again we'll watch to see if you change or arrange these comments to suit your perspective. Let what's written stay. Especially what is now current.


 * I have in no way changed my statement, thus my apology for making the statement. Also, please sign your statements with your username. It would be helpful, because we can keep track of who is posting what... and more important, who is agreeing with whom. --Rcej (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you looking for in "consensus"? So far, no one has agreed with you. Lambertman (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By consensus, the majority should plainly post 'remove the word innovator'. Simple. --Rcej (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is this majority to which you keep referring? Read back over all the included comments and you will observe what the majority thinks. It's very plain to most. 22.416.823AD (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The person posting the comments regarding 'making an apology' about calling others jealous very much sounds like the voice of Lee herself. Magten (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret that statement, but I just don't want baggage, speculation, or opinion reflected in any article. --Rcej (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Allow me to be one of the first to say "REMOVE THE WORD INNOVATOR". As was stated above, No One, I repeat No One, has agreed with you. Simple! 22.416.823AD (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be a term which is more precise, characteristic or specific to describe Lee. So many believe innovator is not the correct term to use in describing her. It must be because everything is prepackaged and just re-arranged as opposed to actually bringing anything new to an already created dish.

Forget the word innovator. The term to really be questioned is "American author". Does Lee really consider herself an "American author?" Does writing a couple food assembly manuals and a story about herself constitute being considered an "American author?" This is exaggerated as much as, if not more than, the word innovator. Magten (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008

Of course, this is Wikipedia, and there's no real reason we have to do this other than as a courtesy, but here goes: "Remove the word 'innovator.' " Lambertman (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lifestylist trademark
There's no doubt that Suzanne Felber (not Felbe) claims a trademark; at her site (http://lifestylistdesign.com/) she most often refers to herself as "Lifestylist® Suzanne Felber." I don't know if Lee stop using the term because of this claim, however. Bustter (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there ever a law suit brought up? Biff714 (talk) 19:38 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cook vs Author
I'm thinking 'author' is too much of a title - within the namespace, not the article - to distinguish one known mainly for cooking on television, who happens to have cookbooks associated with their program, although I'm sure she wrote the recipes and personal 'whatevers'. So, should article "Sandra Lee (author)" be relocated to "Sandra Lee (television cook)", with "Sandra Lee (author)" becoming the redirect page? Discuss. --Rcej (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No discussion necessary. Once again you've changed your tone. The above makes no sense at all-- "author is too much of a title..." My how you do go on and on and on, shifting about with no logical order. Like others have mentioned already, you maybe Lee herself. If so you're looking for an out. It's become ridiculous at this point. "Sandra Lee is a cook on the Food Channel". This is very clear. -- Magten (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've wanted author out of the namespace for months, regardless of the fact that she is an author of cookbooks. And, you may notice on this page, before starting this section I've never posted anything pro or con regarding Lee as an author. I haven't changed my tone on this subject, nor finding irrelevance in 'Sandra Lee is a mean, gold-digging, dog-kicking, butt-slapping, psychotic failed actress'. This is my only mention of this particular subject, which strictly pertains to improving the article - nothing more. --Rcej (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Miss Lee, You have all of a sudden become the voice of reason. "Dog-kicking?"-- poor you to be warranted with such names. I'm sure you've done nothing to deserve these accusations. Like others, I'm not fooled at this point that Rcej is you. Otherwise, how is it that you are the designated person to maintain this site? How is it that you always have the last word and all the control over the final words/phrases used on the article? You can continue shift your voice in these discussions, but as the old saying goes,"Actions speak louder than words." -- Biff714 (talk:Biff714) 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So then let's say it should be "Sandra Lee (Cook)". -- Biff714 (talk:Biff714) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is it. I'll go for "Sandra Lee (Cook)". -- Magten (talk) 22:02, 31, January 2008 (UTC)

It does appear that Rcej is Miss Lee, herself, but let's take it easy. Remember nobody heard of her until a couple years ago so naturally she's a bit defensive. -- Lkoutfu (talk)

Okay. Take it easy. -- Biff714 (talk:Biff714) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Per consensus, the article has been relocated to Sandra Lee (Cook). Disambig link also changed to reflect the move, and the former namespace redirects to the new location. --Rcej (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cook is the best possible title for Sandra Lee. It is one decision we all accept, and it looks like it may bring to an end these continued back & forth postings. If Rcej is Sandra Lee, she also accepts the title finding relevance to the points made earlier. --rsatterfield (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008


 * Well, that cinches that you're just a fan. The real Sandra would have denied it. Lambertman (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...Or you're a relative, or you work for her, or you work with her. I'm not convinced "you're just a fan." But who is the one who really cares except Lee? She's the one with a stake in this site. The question which was brought up earlier is: Why are you the designated person to have the final say of what is and what is not posted? For some reason, not proven one way or another, you have been made the only one posting who is alloted the right to make all final decisions. This is why "just a fan" does not really work. Though you are amusing. -- 22.416.823AD (talk:22.416.823AD) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I never claimed final say on anything; but according to the talk page guidelines, posts such as 'Jane Doe is psycho' do not belong on article talk pages... and I've obviously broken those rules too, by responding to such crap with crap of my own. As for the article, nobody has the right to vandalize it, nor make edits for the sole purpose of maligning the subject. --Rcej (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet you always do have the final say. Isn't this true? I am quite sure you will have a final word regarding this comment. If you do not want to respond to 'such "crap" with "crap" of your own' why do you? Maybe this question should not be posed, as it invites you once again to have the final word. You have appointed yourself the official arbiter. As pointed out I think by you, direct your own views to the article. I think Lee has done the best she can with what capabilities she has available. --rsatterfield (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP & POV
The article needs much better sourcing, or to be trimmed back if such sources aren't available per WP:V and WP:NPOV. There's a lot of WP:BLP problems with edits to the article and in comments on this talk page that only add to the problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain
I've moved the following here for discussion. I don't believe it meets BLP, let alone belongs in an encyclopedia article in the first place. This is petty name-calling. Bourdain does it for humor:

Celebrity Chef Anthony Bourdain has publicly described her as "Betty Crocker after a weekend of huffing crack." and has reffered to her as "Pure Evil". --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. People will come to this article for info on Lee, not jokes about her. BTW when did cooking get to be more contentious than politics? Steve Dufour (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What's written is written. All should be noted. I disagree. sallykiv (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree, like the so called majority. All is fair in public domain.22.416.823 (User talk:22.416.823AD) 18:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a VOTE. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You, Ronz & Rcej, are the same person? Or just the arbitors? Comments are comments and this one is as valid as yours. People have different opinions regarding Lee. They all want to participate in discussing her article. 22.416.823AD (talk) 24:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. Different people. And I have no problem with the Bourdain stuff, actually... unless it's inappropriate Wikipedia content. But opinions belong here only, not the article. Voting does not always apply, either. --Rcej (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's voting? I was just stating my opinion when this defense popped up. Intersting perspective regarding "voting", especially since you're the one who initially brought up "the majority" concept when discussing the notion of cook as a title. There seems to be a "them and us" paradigm here whenever people have a different standing on certain aspects of the article- lots of defenses come up when it's not necessary. --22.416.823AD (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You actually brought the majority issue to this section, not I. Read your earlier post. Now, let me clarify. Majority does apply to semantics such as putting 'cook' in the title. But as I posted in this section, solely on this topic, majority will not apply if the Bourdain content is improper according to WP:BLP. I don't think it is improper content when verified, but I may be wrong. --Rcej (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true. You started "the majority" discussion when "cook vs. author" came up. You change your tone and position a number of times on the discussion page, and you also said you would not get into anymore of these tangles, but here you are again. More than one person has disagreed with you and you take on a debate almost everytime. -- Biff714 9talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rcej,when will you stop making yourself the judge, the jury and the warden? You go on and on about how important your perspective is, while at the same time degrading everyone else's contributions. Let people contribute as they will. Stop with your "holier than thou" attitude and comments. We're all tired of you. It's Lee people want to discuss, whether they agree with your view or not. Please let others be free to comment and stop adding all your views for a change. And please stop "stirring the pot".timnbo (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2008


 * I'm not the one removing the Bourdain section from the article; and you seem to value my opinion much more than I do. --Rcej (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP and WP:RS. I'll see if we can get some help from WP:BLPN --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "huffing crack" comment is unduly derogatory, whether or not Bourdain actually said it. The "pure evil" is not a BLP violation because it is a rather silly comment on the worth of her public work, not a comment about her.  He has also called Rachel Ray evil (but in a more specific way), a fact noted in the encyclopedia.  It is arguably relevant to her notability that fellow television chefs disapprove of her work.  The blog source isn't reliable but if you google around it's pretty obvious that Bourdain did say this, and there's probably a good source to be found.  As a matter of principle, though, I don't want to get involved on the side of what look like a bunch of sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts trying to add this - even if it is not a BLP or RS violation there still has to be consensus to include the material, and consensus is impossible to gage when people are gaming things.  So for now, I agree that it should stay out.Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I offer a solution? While it may not be appropriate to cite Bourdain word for word, it would certainly be appropriate to include a vague reference to the fact that he looks on Lee with contempt.  Bourdain is a noteworthy individual and is recognized as a published authority on food, chefs, restaurants and the culinary arts in general.  It would certainly hold to Wikipedia standards to reference him in this article without being outright derogatory, and would most certainly be as appropriate, if not vastly more so, than the current bits of trivial flotsam in the "Critical Reaction" section.63.111.163.13 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Food Network's 2008 website, Anthony Bourdain posts a video and makes a reference to Lee when he says: "Rising to mediocrity is never a good thing and Sandra Lee show just go (bleep), (bleep), (bleep)"..... zoeysal (talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing the video on Food Networks's site early in 2008, this post is interesting, AND cited, sourced, and relevant as it relates to information or critics on the article page. 22.416.823AD (talk 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Where's the source for this? Why is it worth mentioning? Seems to be just another BLP violation: "Even though Lee attended the university records at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse indicate she did not graduate."--Ronz (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is with the university at the alumni association and in the hall of records. Why not tell the truth instead of insinuating she has a degree. Why is this not worth mentioning? There's no violation. It is a more complete version of the statement allowing the reader to see the complete picture. Biff714 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is a more complete version of the statement allowing the reader to see the complete picture." I disagree.  We have WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to consider.  Without sources, I think it should be left out per WP:BLP.  Even with a source, we still need to consider WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If a public record source which states that she did not graduate is cited, it should be included in the article for the simple reason that it is biographical information. When sourced, it would not be in violation of WP:BLP as it does no harm, is neutral, and would not be in dispute. --Rcej (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is too trivial anyway even if cited. I don't see the problem here. Do you need a college degree to cook on TV? And if you don't like her show just don't watch it. I don't think anyone ever became a worse cook by watching a TV cooking show, although some are a waste of time. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think the phrase, "where she did not earn a degree or graduate" should be treated any differently than the quote above. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Numerous other sites with Lee's bio state she did not graduate from college. This is a fact listed in the schools records. �"Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.234.226 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Post the addresses of the numerous websites. Even the one from her school would be enough, since you've apparently seen the school records on the internet. --Rcej (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)