Jump to content

Talk:Rachael Ray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 16 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alanderson3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

[edit]

Cape Cod or Glens Falls? Past discussions indicate it's Glens Falls. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology or Article?

[edit]

I just read this "article" for the first time, and I noticed that it seems to written more like a chronology than an encyclopedia article. There doesn't seem to any flow to it, and most sentences have dates with an occurrence of something. Has anyone else noticed this? 74.107.146.22 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age

[edit]

Rachel Ray said on an episode of her daytime talk show (when Jennifer Anniston was on) that she is 43 years old, not 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.133.18 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


EDIT: SOURCE ADDED: http://www.accesshollywood.com/jennifer-aniston-reveals-ageism-concerns-admits-to-protesting-frog-dissection-as-a-teen_article_43899 It says it in the text, but also if you watch the video, you clearly see Rachel say she is 43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.133.18 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Those 2 photos of Ms. Ray, esp. the first one, make her look very unattractive and noticeably overweight, yet she's been rated among the most attractive women in the US. I know that photos are not as accurate or consistent as they might appear to be, but if these are representative, she's a dog and a half. If they are not, this article needs to change them. Bostoner (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Husband cheated on her

[edit]

Her husband was unfaithful to her and no one bothered to post it. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a blog says this claim (ie, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed) comes from "... an interview with the National Enquirer", quite the paragon of high quality reporting. Really tops out on the reliability scale, no? This arguably shouldn't even be on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't real, than it should still have be posted as "False news" or something. If it shouldn't be on the talk page, than you implied that it should be on her actual page. Thanks Majinsnake (talk 31, MAY 2011 (UTC)

BS posted somewhere does not get elevated to "False News" and automatically get a place in the article, otherwise we would all be living in a "garbage-ocracy". If it was all over the press, and then proven false, that would be different.69.171.160.235 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have "bothered to post it" but someone, "Gimmetoo," keeps taking it down even after the Daily Mail in the UK reported on it.[2] Gimmetoo seems to have a reason for what he/she/it is doing, but Rachael made her husband news when she broadcast her wedding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.250.44 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013
What you're trying to add is 1) from an unnamed source, 2) identified as a "sensational claim", 3) is a claim, not oonfirmed. All that makes it inappropriate per WP:BLP. Even if it were properly sourced to a reliable source with appropriate journalistic levels of confirmation, the info is about her husband, not her. She is the focus of this article. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity - part Cajun?

[edit]

Is she part Cajun? 69.171.160.235 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this too. I found these citations to support her claim that she is Cajun on her paternal side.[1][2] They are not the best sources though, wondering if someone has reviewed this information before?

References

  1. ^ Vigliotti, Jake (2017-09-04). "Things You Didn't Know About Rachael Ray". Mashed.com. Retrieved 2021-05-13.
  2. ^ Avery, Laura (2008). Newsmakers: The People Behind Today's Headlines 2007. Thomson Gale. p. 371. ISBN 978-0-7876-8091-6. Before her Italian mother and Cajun father divorced, they owned a restaurant in Cape Cod

Chef?

[edit]

I removed the word chef from the description, because Rachael Ray has never had any formal training, let alone being an actual chef. Even calling her a cook is being generous. 124.168.181.224 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum of expressing your personal opinions, much less changing an article to fit them. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "personal opinion" that Rachael Ray is not a chef. She herself has admitted on numerous occasions that she is not a chef, and that she has no formal training. She has been known to become borderline defensive when called a chef. So, unless she was lying, those aren't "personal opinions," they're facts. The previous user did probably take it too far with his/her "[e]ven calling her a cook is being generous" comment--that one IS a personal opinion--but the rest is spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.185.162 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4] Celebrity chef is the term used by Forbes, etc. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care if the word "chef' is used on the page or not, but for the sake of accuracy,one need not be 'formally trained" to have the title of Chef. There are in fact many "industry trained" Chefs who put the formally trained variety to shame. You want to compare Rachel Ray's culinary prowess with that of a "formally trained" so called chef like Ann Burnell? Please...Ann is not qualified to be one of Rachel's line cooks Cosand (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up. I've restored the Celebrity chef link. Looks like we need to keep a better eye on this. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rachael Ray doe's deserve to be called a cook by all measures. As hundreds of people even thousands of them have, both men and mothers who have been watching Rachael's TV Show since it has been airing. We say that Rachael Ray, Food Network, TV, Cooking Host Is Here And Ready To Show You How This Will Take Place And Go Down This Evening. So all you out there who have been hiding thru all of this , you need to come out now please so we can all be joined together to prepare and cook this food so again the people of the food network can fight it out with others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.112.150 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it reads "celebrity cook" in the lede, which is a strange turn of phrase. Jooojay (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray (tv show) name changed?

[edit]

I saw on tv today the show is named "Rachael" now she has seemed to drop the "Ray" from the shows name. 72.2.252.159 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism/Controversy?

[edit]

I've noticed this article doesn't contain any criticism or controversy regarding Rachael, yet there are several articles to be found online regarding it. 173.21.95.112 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Several articles critizing Racheal Rays ownership of a pitbull dog that has attacked other dogs five times while on a leash and under the care of trained handlers. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/rachael_rayging_pit_bull_ordeal_eWJO7IMFCfhpcmzigecKVM This link to a New York article is just one article on her pitbull and the dog attacking other dogs. A facebook page on the subject of Rachael Ray and pitbulls is also not mentioned. The page is called Rachael Ray's pitbull attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.188.32 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to be famous and not get criticized, so finding something negative on the Internet about someone who is well-known is not really unusual, it's commonplace. But yes you do have a right to add a controversy section, so long as your sources are accurate and are cited according to Wikipedia policy. Pheonixrising (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Ray in Article Not Complimentary

[edit]

This may not have been intentional as there are only 4 Wikimedia commons photos of Ray and none really fit this article (including the one now being used)--

The best way to get a good photo is to do searches for photos of Ray on government web sites (Federal only-- US government photos are not copyright restricted). Ray, like many celebrities does special public service work for government service agencies, now and then. Plus the Federal government has some of it's own internal news services for federal employees where celebrities are occasionally covered. But I would stay away from State or local government sources as some are copyright protected. (Wikipedia does not allow use of copyrighted photos without express permission).

So getting Federal government photos is always the easy way to get pictures on Wikipedia without the usual headache of hunting down copyright permissions to use photos.

Then just create a Wikimedia commons account (easy), upload the picture, and then add it to the article (look at the current pic in "Edit" to see the tags you have to type in before, and after, the pictures' new link on Wikimedia commons, you'll see that it's also easy).

I'm very busy or I would do it myself. I may eventually have time to do it, but if someone else wants to, that's how you do it. Just so long as it's not an obviously uncomplimentary picture which is a violation of Wikipedia policy (this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a forum and not an image wall on Facebook where you can post anything).

Plus it' a great way to learn how to add a picture to Wikipedia! Pheonixrising (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy vs Rach

[edit]

I've seen a majority of the shows she's hosted or been part of and I honestly don't remember there being a show called Guy vs Rach. Is this possibly a typo?Needs2learnmore(talk) 07:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachael Ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rachael Ray. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rachael Ray. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

WP:LEDE states, The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

Please note that the article has a past of edit-warring over celebrity chef --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachael_Ray&oldid=1245724177"