Talk:Nigella Lawson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNigella Lawson has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 6, 2019, and January 6, 2020.

Career[edit]

Perhaps the article could include some information on how she was able to become deputy literary editor to the Sunday Times so soon after graduating. Die she know someone?

Reportedly, Daddy knew someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.135 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish category[edit]

Our position on this matter is that if a reliable source verifies that she identifies as being Jewish (not "influenced" or the like) and if there is a consensus that her putative Judaism is relevant to her notability, then we can use this category. If not, not. --John (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually even stronger than that in the case of potentially controvertial attributes such as religion and sexual orientation. The RS that reports the subject's religion or sexual orientation must in fact be reporting/quoting an explicit statement directly from the subject. Roger (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Lawson doesn't identify herself as Jewish, why such a proactive (and disproportionate) "calling out" of her Jewish ancestry in this Wikipedia article? Further, as you will note, references to "ancestry" are wholly atypical in the context of other Wikipedia articles on celebrity chefs. Which other celebrity chefs are given an "Ancestry" category? Are Christian celebrity chefs identified as such in Wikipedia? Shame on those responsible for Othering a Jew, yet again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.111.222 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're an encyclopedia, not an activist group. Her jewish ethnicity was the subject of an entire TV show, made with her consent, assistance, and appreciation. Her ancestry is listed appropriately and accurately in this article, and cited with reliable sources. Being Jewish is nothing to be ashamed about, as you seem to imply, and as a Jew myself I'm happy to have my identity listed correctly in my own bio. To John and Roger, I think the references to her ancestry are appropriate and do not violate BLP, notability, or reliable sourcing guidelines. Ancestry sections are common in bios and this one seems to be well written and well supported. 131.96.208.60 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you mean: "Part of her ancestry was the subject of an entire TV show, made with her consent, assistance, and appreciation. It happened to show her Jewish ethnicity"? Furthermore, your own identity, Jewish or otherwise, has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. And no one is suggesting that Nigella is "ashamed" of her ancestry?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Why isn't there a proper Archive link "box" on this page? A short note in plain text is very easy to miss. Roger (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic chefs![edit]

Such a long article for someone whose only contribution to mankind is........cooking...........food! Oh and how could I forget, doing a lot of spoon licking. She is indeed a fine looking lady and her background is quite interesting, her family history etc., but why do we need to know all this when all we need to know is that she cooks. Her name could simply appear in a list of Renowned British Chefs: eg. "Nigella Lawson: Cooks and has published recipe books". Why so much information, how could this information in anyway have any encyclopaedic value. Wikipedia should redefine itself from an encyclopaedia to an '"Embraceopedia" a word that could capture the essence of the project, one which has articles on "anything" as long as the "something" is known and can be referenced! Juan019 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that she does not identify as a chef/celebrity chef.31jetjet (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)31jetjet[reply]
I don't think you understand what the term "encyclopedia" actually means...120.136.49.81 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable[edit]

We are told that Nigella does not use the title "honorable". This is true, but it is impolite to extend courtesy titles to yourself, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the death of her first husband in the infobox[edit]

In other articles, I have seen in the Spouse(s) section of the infobox the notation "his death" right after the year in which a marriage ended. I am reluctant to add it here myself because I fear there are guidelines for its use that I am unaware of. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

Shouldnt the article mention the verdict today?--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hillgrove[edit]

I see that there is no article in Wikipedia on Richard Hillgrove. In view of his importance, there should be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article, but it was deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hillgrove. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, PaleCloudedWhite. I stupidly over-looked the deletion debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The honourable"[edit]

Is it appropriate to be styling this article with The Honourable Nigella Lucy Lawson, when she does not use the courtesy title herself, as explicitly mentioned later in the article? Also, considering she turned down an OBE from the Queen, this further cements the point that she obviously does not care much for titles, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.242.158 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nigella overspending?[edit]

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm a bit worried over that millionairess, she could be living beyond her means, see Nigella under pressure: Barred from the U.S., her TV show's under threat - and she can't stop spending. But freed from Saatchi's spell, she's starting to fight back.... Many human beings let material goods comfort them in adversity.

  • Poor people may spend, say £3 - £4 in a Greasy spoon cafe on a whim, the food is nowhere near the standard of what a famous television cook produces. Still the cafe gets them out of the dingy place where they live, they're a little less depressed for a short time and have them a chance to meet a few people. If poor people overspend too often on a whim they risk trouble whenever a big bill comes in and richer people blame them.
  • A Millionairess spends a weekend at Claridge's on a whim but if she spends beyond her income too frequently she too could get into trouble. We haven’t got proof that Saatchi is out to get her but if he is he can’t easily succeed without her help. Nigella Lawson gets easily enough money from her books alone for a very comfortable middle class lifestyle.

By any normal standards, Nigella ought surely to consider herself extremely wealthy. Yet apparently she is worried that she might be ‘broke’ by this time next year. I really hope for Nigella’s sake that all the stuff about overspending is tabloid hyperbola. The daughter of Nigel Lawson should understand the importance of balancing her budget.

I know about abusive relationships, if you read, The Aliens of the Flaming Red Sun you’ll see that. Charles Saatchi has lived with Nigella for 10 years and knows at least some of her weaknesses. Nigella is vulnerable if the difficulties are due to Saatchi’s actions behind the scene or if the problem is fallout from bad publicity. Either way she could end off forced back to Saatchi and losing the freedom she now values. If she overspends and her income drops to a half or to a third of what she expects she could be in trouble. If Nigella is sensible she should ask her accountants for a realistic, pessimistic evaluation of her likely income if things don’t go smoothly. Then she needs enough self-discipline to live within that estimate. If Nigella lives within her means Saatchi can’t get her and hopefully will get on with his life. If Nigella lives within her means and makes more money than the pessimistic estimate later she can enjoy quite a few expensive luxuries.

We may improve this article by looking for evidence how careful Nigella Lawson is with money. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not the right approach. Articles are improved by amassing reliable sources and accurately representing the information they contain - editors should not go looking for sources to back up particular perspectives. Also, all this speculation and hypothesising is suitable for a blog or forum, not Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unflattering photos in article[edit]

This can be a form of subtle vandalism.

There are many photos of her that look far better than the ones in the article. 132.239.90.13 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are very many very good photos of her that are copyright to someone or other. Does anyone know of good photos that aren't copyright? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many images in the article, so it does need more, but as Proxima Centauri notes, Wikipedia cannot use images which have copyright restrictions. There are only 4 images available for use at Commons, and of those, the 2 currently used in the article are probably the most suitable. However please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or a personal website, and as such the suitability of images within an article should be gauged according to how well they illustrate the article subject, which is not the same as choosing images to show someone to their best advantage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current two images don't look unflattering at all - in fact as a healthy heterosexual male I think... never mind what I think LOL! ;). I don't see any compelling reason to add more photos, two is quite sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would find the most unflattering photo possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to take some tasteful portraits of the lady and, with her permission, allow two to be used for this article in accordance with WP policies about copyright. All that is needed is for somebody to set up a session with Ms. Lawson for that specific purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:FDF6:DFCF:EB1C:1BB0 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Can folks remember that as an article about a living person, this article is subject to the provisions of WP:BLPSOURCES. My recent removal of poor quality sources from the article was an admin action. Please do not restore these sources. We cannot use them. --John (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedical[edit]

"Lawson had an established sense of cooking from her childhood, having had a mother who enjoyed cooking.[13]" This sounbds as sheer marketing/journalist bullshit, or an opinion at best. - and its reference is a newspaper.

Also theres hardly any substantial information included in the article. after reading it i still have no idea: -what made NL famous/memorable, -are her cookbooks good/bad/remarkable, etc. (80.98.212.141 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

Eurovision 12 point score in French[edit]

I simply wish to add a sentance to say that Ms Lawson announced the 12 point score in French. She was supposed to say it in English because she was speaking on behalf of an English speaking country, or at least keep it all in the same language. Also the first time a UK spokesperson has done such a thing and unlikely to be repeated, therefore I think it's quite a notable thing to include and it's only a short sentance. I don't see the problem. Cexycy (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be included because it's trivial and of little consequence when considered in the context of the whole of Lawson's life. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? If you're going to be like that, why mention Eurovision at all? Why mention many things? It is only a small sentance as well Cexycy (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall turn that argument around onto your case: who says this information is notable? Not all information about a subject should be included, but you haven't even provided a reliable source for this information that you wish to add, so your case for inclusion is particularly weak. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, it is quite a notable moment as no other spokesperson in Eurovision has acted this way. Some would say it's innovative, some may say it's downright absurd, others may say pretty much anything else, but that's for the reader to decide, not me. Plus I found a source, several Youtube videos. I know this will count because it has been used to support Jimmy Jump's ESC invasion back in 2010. Cexycy (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is generally not regarded as a reliable source, and it certainly cannot be used to establish that a topic or fact is notable. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to fill articles with every possible trivial detail and then insist that readers trawl through it all; only information that is most pertinent to the article subject should be included. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What! Not notable?! The Telegraph even reminded us it was actually "German, Italian and French language skills"! What's not to like?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There you go! The Youtube videos confirm what I'm trying to add as fact. You're clearly not a Eurovision fan, but even so the UK has always announced their votes in English so this occasion is quite different and notable indeed. Cexycy (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... "clearly not a Eurovision fan"?! How very dare you! You've dropped a real clanger there! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my absence but I can reiterate and stand by what I originally said. This is a very significant issue for Eurovision especially when such a thing has never been done before and countless millions of people saw it and many recordings exist for the people who didn't. Therefore it is notable and can be supported, like any good matter in an article should be. 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nigella's linguistic skills were a personal highlight for me. I was deeply touched. It seems The Daily Telegraph was equally impressed. Whatever next, Boris Brexit aiming to be a hero? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a great addition for a few reasons. For a start, the article already has a French Eurovision quote from Lawson. Adding another French quote bit of info seems to be labouring a rather minor point, and implies that speaking French is some kind of major achievement. In addition, the most recent insertion of the 12-point info put it in the wrong place chronologically (i.e. before the existing quotation from Lawson confirming her spokesperson role), so the whole thing doesn't seem to have been very well thought through. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other French spoken parts have been mentioned is totally irrelevant and as I said before it is important because the French speaking by a UK representative, despite not being particularly wrong, just isn't the done thing. It certainly isn't an achievement by any stretch of the imagination. I am a Eurovision fan myself and the only French I really know is the numbers and most country names because they are used in Eurovision. I certainly wouldn't call myself a French speaker. And how it is chronologically incorrect? I mentioned this in the same sentence as the one which mentions she was the UK spokesperson. Cexycy (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nigella Lawson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nigella Lawson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nigella Lawson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nigella Lawson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth[edit]

This source, used in the text, says 1960. This source, used in the infobox, is not available in Europe. But 1960 is also supported by biography.com, IMDb and marriedbiogrpahy.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nigella_Lawson&oldid=1207474075"