Jump to content

Talk:Rachael Ray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kraffenetti (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 7 September 2006 (what happend to the criticisms section?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


New Photo

I think the current main photo should be replaced, possible with the official photograph of her provided on her Food Network mini-site. The current one is simply too grainy, pixelated, and distored to pass as encyclopedia quality material.

Below is the link to the photograph I propose for use, under Fair Use terms: [1] --IndigoAK 09:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree about the negative fan reaction (see below.)

Did she actually appear in a magazine (Maxim, I think?) dressed sexily in the kitchen? Or were those fakes?

She did appear in FHM dressed as you describe. Mitchell k dwyer 08:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, she's really hot. Watching her show for the food is only half of it. ;) Rudykog 04:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else suspect that either Rachael's grandfather's name or her brother's name is misspelled? They've got the same name, but the spellings are different. Can anyone verify? Mitchell k dwyer 08:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"Her mother is Sicilian; her father lives in Louisiana."— Nice use of the random-ass grab bag here. (Sixten8 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC))


Definitely need to add something about how her substitutions and shortcuts drive more orthodox chefs/cooks completely insane. JD79 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

""E.V.O.O... extra-virgin olive oil" explained with each use, defeating the apparent purpose of the acronym" ... LOL! I've always wondered why she says that and then explains it. --Quasipalm 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


'Now Ray owns a pit bull named Isaboo Ray said in an interview, "I do 200 sit-ups every day, and I do 100 pushups too. Man pushups."'

This sentence is a little confusing to me. Is that supposed to be one sentence, or has a period accidentally been left out? Am I missing something or should it read:

'Now Ray owns a pit bull named Isaboo. Ray said in an interview, "I do 200 sit-ups every day, and I do 100 pushups too. Man pushups."'

Thanks. - Square pear 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a section on the negative fan reaction that she's garnered. See http://community.livejournal.com/rachael_ray_sux/.

206.61.144.2 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry about her apartment and dog are irrelevant, invasive, and gossipy. Can we please remove this? Aaronproot

Cooking style

It says that her cooking style is "Italian;" I totally don't think that's right, but I don't know how you could really describe what she does. (Personally, I would say she makes stuff you can find on the back of jars of tomato sauce and calls them her own.)

Not Really 30 Minutes

This was deleted earlier, but I'm storing it here until I can find the article.

"Ironically, a reporter for a newspaper went through one of her 30 minute meals books and was unable to complete any of her dishes in under an hour.[citation needed]"


thoughts while watching her shows

Has anyone else noticed that when she takes a bite of any food (watch $40 a day in particular), she makes a weird face that sort of looks disgusted? Does anyone have any older pictures of her? I have a theory she might be anorexic... of course it's origional research so none of this will make the article but I was wondering if I'm alone in thinking this?? Kuronue 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. IF she IS anorexic, she is in the wrong profession! Actually, I think the look is one of pleasure. PrometheusX303 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but she scrunches up her face in a way that seems like she's trying too hard to look pleased. Pleasure tends to relax the face, not tense it up like that. Maybe she's just weird. Kuronue 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Nigella Lawson

I remember reading something years ago that Food Network developed her as an American Nigella Lawson when the latter was too expensive to bring to FTV. If anyone remembers anything about this, it might make an interesting addition. Aaronproot

what happend to the criticisms section?

I really connected with the criticisms section where people acknowledged how unbelievably ridiculous it is that this woman has a show. Not only does her show start off with her doing most of the prep work, but I also think her use of nicknames are completely asinine! Maybe I just really dislike how a person with little culinary education can have a show and most of FTV viewers buy into it. But seriously, what are with those spastic expressions and horrible nicknames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.157.176 (talk)

I don't even understand why there is a criticisms section. No other Food Network personality has one, yet this particular one is extremely long. Isn't that a little overboard? Wouldn't it be ok to have short mentions of her critics with links to an article or web page? It isn't an encyclopedia's place to weigh in heavily on one side or the other of someone's personal ability. Readers are presented with an overwhelming amount of criticism, but almost no praise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraffenetti (talkcontribs)
If other Food Network personalities receive the same amount of criticism, they should certainly have "Criticism" sections. We should include any important facts, positive or negative. If you feel her virtues have been neglected, you can add more facts. Just cutting things out is not the answer. DanielCristofani 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then some criticism should be cited. The only story cited that has anything to do with criticism is a story that is favorable towards her. Otherwise, it just looks like people who don't personally like her show are bad mouthing her on her entry. I'm considering removing the entire section and splicing some random quotes throughout the article. The Tiger Woods article had a similar problem when his controversy section was overpowering the rest of the article, as was this section. Let's not lose sight of the fact that she's a media personality, and that's what an encyclopedia should reflect. Critics have their say in their own forums.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraffenetti (talkcontribs)
If one of the other personalities on your network publicly calls you a "bobblehead", I think it's safe to say that criticism has become a meaningful fraction of your notability. So I've put in the Bourdain quote. On the other hand, the "Sux" site - whose amateurishness I found indistinguishable from any number of "Paris Hilton is so gross!" hate sites - doesn't seem to warrant anything more than an External Link mention, if that. Ribonucleic 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I've got a question. Bourdain's article also notes that he routinely criticizes Emeril. Therefore criticism must be a meaningful part of his persona, yet there is no criticism section on his page. This is what I was getting at. Before the section was essentially what you would have seen on the "sux" page. It has been cleaned up quite a bit and I think the Bourdain link belongs just fine (even if he is a hypocrit). Kraffenetti 21:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point. A slam from Bourdain, in itself, would not warrant a Criticism section. Nor, in itself, would an amateurish hate site. But when you've got both, plus the Slate piece, plus what I perceive as the majority opinion of Wikipedians, I think the one here has earned its stripes. Now if anyone wants to start a Criticism section over in the Emeril article, I'll be first in line to share my thoughts on that sitcom of his. :-) Ribonucleic 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"what I perceive as the majority opinion of Wikipedians" -- Someone believes in Wikiality :) Kraffenetti 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for Attack on Food

The line "Ray relies heavily on hamburgers, cheese, bacon, ice cream and other obviously unhealthy "go-to" items." is a personal opinion on these foods. Hamburgers, cheese, bacon, and ice cream are not inherently unhealthy items. All of these items contain nutrients necessary for a healthy life. People cannot live without some fat and protein in a diet, and there is nothing wrong with using these ingredients if they fit into a balanced diet. For people on the so-called healthy low carb diets hamburgers, cheese, and bacon are some of the only foods you can eat. The top 2 components of ice cream are water and air. I doubt someone could call either of these items 'obviously unhealthy.' Please don't put things like this in an article just to try to further a criticism against someone.

You're right. All we can say objectively is that these items are high in saturated fat. I'll fix the article. DanielCristofani 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Sites

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I have removed all fansites save the one with the highest Alexa ranking, as the policy here is one fan site link. If a good neutral argument can be made for a different site, that's fine, but there should be no more than one fan site- that's Google's job. --TheTruthiness 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Loaded Words

The article tells us of things that Rachael Ray relies "heavily" on, and that her format of 30 minute meals is under "strong attack." I wouldn't think these types of things belong. Kraffenetti 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the Slate article is misrepresented. It says that the author was unable to prepare *any* recipes in under an hour, while the article clearly states that she was able to make the Super Sloppy Joe recipe in 49 minutes. Kraffenetti 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "Restore sourced criticism that was deleted in last edit. If you don't think it belongs, explain why instead of saying it's "unsourced and inaccurate"." I thought I explained myself when I said I was removing inaccurate and unsourced material. If you feel you can edit it to be accurate, by all means, but I think it's better to remove it than leave up questionable content. Kraffenetti 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments. It's fair to note that some people dislike her, and some of their complaints. But the previous criticism section read as if it was written by one of those critics with the purpose of persuading readers that there was something wrong with Ray. Lucky Adrastus 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits that hopefully improve this section. Anyone should of course feel free to improve on what I've written. On this topic, does anyone have any source for the criticism regarding the anchovies in the Caesar salad? Is there any evidence Ray actually claimed it was vegetarian? (It's not like I have the episodes on tape!). Lucky Adrastus 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the recipe that was linked. The anchovy paste is labeled as optional. The recipe itself is vegetarian friendly, but like you said, it's not like I have a copy of the episode to go on. Overall, the section is worlds better than it was a week ago. It no long has the almost mean-spirited tone that some wanted to keep. Kraffenetti 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a comment on the Food Network site complaining about the meal not being vegetarian.[2] I did a Google search and this is all I found. Maybe not necessary to include this part (i.e. is this really a big scandal?) but I'll let someone else make that decision. It's a pretty small point, and the this page seems basically fixed for now. Lucky Adrastus 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, and I think it's probably best to just remove the vegetarian criticism thing. There seems to be no source for it beyond the one comment on the foodnetwork page. I think it comes off as petty and/or silly, since the anchovies are listed as optional in the recipe. I'll remove it, but anyone can feel free to put it back if there's a different consensus. Lucky Adrastus 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]