User:Cullen328/sandbox/Garten

I oppose "Controversy" sections in BLPs most of the time, and especially this biased section which does not properly represent the sources.

One source is from a New Yorker food website called Grub Street and is called The War Against Ina Garten. This story reports on a critical review of a Garten cookbook by an animal rights group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is strongly opposed to eating meat or any animal products, hardly a neutral source regarding Garten's style of cooking. They oppose all cookbooks with meat recipes and support all vegan cookbooks. That predictably negative book review is balanced by an article written by Eric Felten in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the animal right's group's criticism of Garten, and the general tone of the article is friendly to Garten, rather than negative. But none of that gets into our article.

The second is an unsigned "Top 10" clickbait posting on HuffPo called Ina Garten Birthday: 10 Reasons To Celebrate The Barefoot Contessa's 64th, which addresses Garten directly and parenthetically: "Though consider yourself warned, Ina: if you're diagnosed with diabetes, don't keep it a secret for three years! Your food may not be as manifestly unhealthy as Paula's, but it's not exactly dietetic." That single weak passing mention, which does not even mention Paula Deen's last name, is used to state that she has been "compared extensively" to Deen. One mention is not exactly "extensive". And when, precisely, is it controversial to compare one chef to another? This seems to be an attempt to tar Garten with Deen's use of racial epithets.