Talk:Yotam Ottolenghi

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Yotam Ottolenghi. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130423084236/https://www.iacp.com/documents/IACP35_AwardWinners_2013_FINAL.pdf to https://www.iacp.com/documents/IACP35_AwardWinners_2013_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm working for Ottolenghi, the company. I realise that the editing history of the article is somewhat patchy, but I think that, reading it, it is not any different in tone to that of any celebrity chef. Please compare the content to that of Nigella Lawson, for example; is there any difference?

If possible, I'd request a fresh look at it, to assess if the two "health warnings" ("A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and "This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view") are reassessed.

Many thanks,

Noam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam Bar (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, such warnings are really more of a standard editorial caution. They appear whenever someone close to the article's subject contributes a substantial portion of an article. They don't carry an implication regarding the veracity of the contribution(s). Whenever it appears that an editor is close to the subject about which they write, that cautionary warning has to appear. This is because WP strives for neutrality in its point of view, something which an associate of an article's subject inherently lacks.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
This article attracts far too much attention from a multitude of COI SPA editors and is, in my view, on cursory glance, more promotional than neutral. The tags were laughably removed by an IP who has effectively made no other contributions for the reason '''I notice that there's been lots of neutral edits, from different sources, over quite an extended period of time. I therefore thought it is right to remove both remarks.''' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yotam_Ottolenghi&diff=prev&oldid=740311759 I reject this assertion and the tags are back. Rayman60 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rayman60: I have standardized the layout. I don't think we need to reference the books if we have their ISBNs. The main problem seems to be the focus on the awards, which does sound like advertising, yet it is referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is looking much better, thanks. Agreed don't need references. What really riled me was the excessive list I found in december (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yotam_Ottolenghi&oldid=755942055). The awards are referenced, yes, but for me that would not be sufficient reasoning for their inclusion. What I was looking for was notability of the awards, and it does seem the majority are notable (using the 'it has an article' rationale) and all but 2-3 meet this criteria so I would be hesitant to cull the list. That's just my personal view - feel free to act upon your own instinct! Rayman60 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Publicity
This article appears to be very much an advertorial. Admittedly that is a common use of Wikipedia and is not effectively addressed by its editorial structure, which is a pity for a site that aspires to be regarded as a real encyclopaedia. 81.156.104.123 (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)