Talk:Elizabeth David

See this comment about dates of her influence

I've written a bit about the way the bibliography suggests her influence came later than it did in reality. This is because she was on radio and grainy old tv long before the books were published. See the full spiel on talk:Elizabeth David bibliography. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

She did next to no television or radio. See her information on the BBC schedules (from 1923 onward) for the few ocassions she was on. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What's more, she returned to England in June 1946, and published A Book of Mediterranean Food in 1950, and the article already says she was writing articles in Harper's Bazaar in 1949. So there wasn't a huge amount of time available in any event for any activity before then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a gentle note to that effect on the bibliography talk page. Tim riley talk 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree print journalism was much more important than broadcasting. Hardly anyone saw early tv anyway, especially from David's audience. Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad food

" bad food served in the UK and the simple, excellent food" Doesn't seem NPOV to me. I suggest either removing the adjectives (" food served in the UK and the food") or rephrasing it to attribute the opinion to her. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As it's in the lead, it is an accurate reflection of what is in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"had an impact on" vs "influenced"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:SchroCat has twice reverted my alteration of "had an impact on" to "influenced" and the following colon/lowercase letter to a semicolon/capital letter. He referred to my version as "awful", cited WP:BRD (with no indication of irony) and asked me to comment on this page. Well...

To "have an impact on" public opinion is a lazy and imprecise metaphor, seeing as "impact" is a physical event and public opinion is non-physical. Besides, what was the "impact"? Did David increase/decrease/change the discussion, or did she, um, influence it? It was clearly the latter, so why not say so, instead of using a cliched and less exact phrase? As for the semicolon, it's not a right/wrong issue of grammar, but a semicolon better separates two sentences, while keeping the semantic link between the two statements. A colon implies that one clause is lesser, but we have two statements, the first is a summary and the second is a detailed exemplification. Either would stand alone, without the other: hence, a semicolon is more appropriate.

Ewen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you should have kept to BRD (when you were initially reverted, you should have come to the talk page, not tried to force it back in.

"Had an impact on" and "influenced" are not synonymous. Close, ocassionally synonymous, but not the same, and in this case, she more than influenced things. I see you have gone through many articles in removing the term from articles, regardless of what the text may or may not say (your removals are so quick, it's just not possible to have read the article to make sure you're doing the right thing, rather than just having a bee in your bonnet about a particular phrase). The problem with editors who just don't like particular phrases is that they cannot see tha there are times wherethe are suitable, and times we they are not. This is in the latter category.

I called "awful" your decision to drop capital letters into the middle of sentences and spaces around dashes where there should be none: I have no idea why you thought it was a good thing to do, but making formatting and text inconsistent (particularly on an article that has been through a couple of reviews relatively recently) just because you prefer something different isn't good practice. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As you also reverted my edit then perhaps BRD was also something you could have observed? Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet about "had an impact on" as a phrase. It's shit, literally; the first things that i think of as "impacted" are faeces. You do presume that I can't assess an article in the time I take to edit the phrase, so; Did Elizabeth David "more than influence" food culture? In what way? How does "had an impact on" better describe her effect than "influence"? Obviously she could not literally have had an impact on an abstraction such as culture, any more than I can use a hammer on the concept of "society", so why use this cliched, verbose metaphor when there is a simple, clear and precise alternative - "influence"? Ewen (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the phrase doesn't mean it should be expunged. If you want to know about her impact, then read the article. I have no idea why you think of shit when you hear the word "Impact", but that's a different kettle of fish. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it because there is usually a less verbose and more precise word or phrase. I read the article, obviously, and there was little about her literally hitting anyone or anything. She did affect, influence and inspire people, though. As for the other "matter" then I suggest you educate yourself by reading Fecal impaction. Ewen (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of fecal impact, but that is not the sole connection to the term any more than "hitting anyone or anything" is. I suggest you refer to a good dictionary for further details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So you are aware of fecal impaction, but you 'have no idea why [I] think of shit when [I] hear the word "Impact"'? A "good dictionary" also includes the word "disingenuous", you know. Anyway, I still see no good reason to use the tortuous metaphorical phrase "had an impact on" when the simple verb "influenced" is clearer and more exact. Ewen (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because there are many other things to which impact is connected; I still don't know why "shit" should be the first thing that comes to your mind. Other words in the dictionary include tangential, tiresome and misguided, if you want to play silly games, but at the end of the day, David had more than an influence: she had an impact. Once you understand the two terms are not synonymous we can move on. Again, the dictionary would come in handy for you about now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Another outbreak of tin-eared pedantry. The two phrases have different nuances, but those with monomaniac obsessions fail, as usual, to detect them. This sort of thing is wearyingly familiar. I've just checked Fowler and the OED, not that there was any need. Tim riley talk 19:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So, SchroCat, you think "impact" means "influence" but... more so? I'm not sure everyone would agree. Besides, I never said "had an impact on" was synonymous with "influenced" but rather that "influenced" more exactly described David's effect on culture. Well, a clear way to say "more than an influence" would be "great influence", "substantial influence" or so on. An "impact", on the other hand, not only means (metaphorically) an "effect" but also implies a negative effect, and also refers to physical, destructive collision: and that's confusing and imprecise language. Ewen (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't say that, there is a none-too-subtle difference between what I said and how you have re-phrased it. Either way, the point appears to be moot: the consensus seems to be against you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ewen may be shaky about vocabulary, but he is a record-breaking speed reader if, as he claims, he actually read the article - between 20:44 and 20:46 yesterday as his edit history reveals. Tim riley talk 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, you do assume that I had no prior knowledge of Elizabeth David. Would *you* care to enlighten us why her "influence" was actually an "impact"? SchroCat has failed to offer any substantial explanation on this point. Ewen (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't assume anything, or seek to challenge your good faith. If you say you read the article before making your change I should not dream of calling you a liar. I congratulate you on being able to read 10,000 words in two minutes. Tim riley talk 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Much as I congratulate you on avoiding the key question: In what way is her "influence" better described as an "impact"? Ewen (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not seen the phrase deprecated in any style guides, so it would seem to be somebody's pet hate. Furthermore, "positive impact" is a common enough combination, cringemaking in some contexts, but evidence enough that not all impacts are negative. Mere "influence" is weak, though ED could be termed "influential". Her influence extended to something akin to "citation impact". I wonder if we are now to consider that too a banned phrase? William Avery (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ewen, you delude yourself about the "key question". The key question is whether we are to take notice of a drive-by bulk edit. The question of whether your pet phrase is better than the existing wording is not a key question, or indeed a question that need detain us further. It is already answered, and we have wasted enough time on your King Charles's head. Tim riley talk 20:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, William. Yes, it's a pet hate of mine but that does not make it wrong. I would say that "positive impact" implies that, in general, "impacts" are not "positive", or at least they have to be qualified as being "positive" or "negative". In which case, why shoehorn a noun into the phrase "had an impact on" and not use the verb "influenced"? You say "influence" is weak, but how are we to measure and justify the extent of someone's influence?

And just because it's a pet hate of yours does not make it right. If it is acceptable in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, then it seems to be that the arguments against are little more that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, perhaps I missed it, or perhaps you avoided it again, but in what way is her "influence" better described as an "impact"? Ewen (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For somebody who can read 5,000 words a minute, Ewen, you seem to be remarkably inept at reading everything above in this thread. You think "influence" is better than "impact". Nobody else does. Everyone is out of step except you. Let's have no more of this tiresome distraction. Tim riley talk 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, you haven't seen the number of edit "thanks" I have from replacing "have an impact" phrases with "influence", "affect" etc (they outnumber the reverts by I-can't-be bothered-to-count to 1) so I'd just sit back down on that point, Tim and SchroCat. I notice that, populism aside, you still avoid answering my question. Ewen (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you can't call consensus and close a conversation when it's simply two vs one and the two can't explain a simple, key question. Ewen (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Edit warring to re-open something that's closed...? Jeez... Despite your lose grip of maths, three four people don't see it as an improvement, and you arethe only one pushing for a change. Where it is used in this article, "had an impact on" is more appropriate than "influenced". - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Impact and influence are synonyms. There is no reason to simply impose your preferred term for one that is already in an article, especially an FA. Certainly, once you make a suggested change and one of the article's regular editors resist the change, WP:BRD requires you to go to the Talk page to see if you can raise a new WP:CONSENSUS, rather than simply edit war for your preferred version. It is clearly nonsense to say that impact suggests a negative impact any more than that influence suggest a negative influence. Your campaign to make this change to your preferred phrase is simply a power play: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. ... The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.” -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat: Closed in your opinion. "more appropriate" in your opinion. (Loose grip of maths versus "lose" grip of spelling? Let's not go there.) Prepared to justify either of those opinions? ... Not so much. Well, you can co-opt William to your side if you want to make three but "correct" isn't always democratic, you know? I'd respect an argument that said "we need four vague words in place on one exact word because..." but I'm not seeing that, and I'm still waiting.

Ssilvers - the article's regular editors do not own the article any more than you or I do. I've not edit-warred the content (it is currently the "had an impact" version) and you will note that I started this section of the Talk page. No, "impact" and "influence" or not synonyms (A bullet did not "influence" JFK's skull in Dallas...) though their meaning can overlap: this is why I contend that "influenced" is clearer and more concise than "had an impact on" - "had an impact" has a greater range of meaning than "influenced".

Ewen (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can do this in words of one syllable, but trying to get it into Ew-en's brain that there is no need for a-ny-one to just-if-y the ori-gin-al word-ing: it is for Ew-en to just-i-fy a change and he has-n't. It is only a 'key question' on planet Ewen. Tim riley talk 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious now. As you seem unable to accept the fact that four people disagree with you (yes, four), then we'll say external sources say she had an impact on food culture [1], [2], [3] and The Times obit. You can keep banging your drum as much as you want, but in this case its use is justified and is backed up by the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can Pat-tro-nise you too, Tim. Does that help the dis-cus-sion? Or should I keep it mo-no-syl-la-bic? Now, seeing as we are talking about reverting the edit of "influenced" for "had an impact on" then it would seem to be the key point, eh? My contention is that a single, exact word is an improvement on a four-word, cliched and vague phrase. I did say that before and invited anyone to explain why my choice of words was not better. So far, not a lot.

SchroCat - it says nothing that some sources choose to use the phrase you prefer, when there may be a better, clearer choice of words. You still have not said anything in favour of "had an impact on" than "lots of people like it". Lots of people like [insert popular but stupid choice here] Ewen (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Google has '"elizabeth david" influenced "food culture"' at 16,500 hits and '"elizabeth david" "had an impact on" "food culture"' at 135: 134 not including Wikipedia. Ewen (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have crossed over into tendentious levels of comment here. You are not listening to what people are saying, and refusing to accept the consensus that is developing; you are also mischaracterising what I have written. Your campaign to remove this phrase that, in the case of this article is supported by the text and reliable sources is misguided and increasingly disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck what a Google search says: unreliable sources, personal sites and uninformed drivel. Yes, she influenced other chefs (particuarly modern ones), but she had an impact on food culture. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm "Tendentious" but you don't give a "flying fuck". Hmm. Anyway, you started throwing the weight of numbers around with your references, I just thought I'd lend some objectivity to that line of argument. Sorry if it didn't work out in your favour. I listen to what you're saying but at no point have you, or anyone else, said why "influenced" is not an improvement on "had an impact on". I've not reverted your last edit, or tried to shut down this discussion (which I began). How "disruptive" is that? Ewen (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the wording you have to establish a consensus. You haven't. To borrow Attlee's remark to Harold Laski, "a period of silence on your part would be welcome". Tim riley talk 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"you started throwing the weight of numbers around with your references": nope. Nothing about weight of numbers of references, but the quality of references. There is a massive dfference between the two, and you need to try and understand that: there is no objectivity in throwing numbers without looking at what they actually show, and the raw numbers show absolutely nothing. It's comparing apples and pandas. "at no point have you, or anyone else, said why "influenced" is not an improvement on "had an impact on": nope. several people have provided examples, source and support as to why she did more than "influence" food culture. You have provided nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT to try and change the status quo as part of an ongoing campaign you have, in which you know nothing about a subject, but are hapy to change the phrase without looking into sources or circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tim, you will notice that I have left the wording alone, though you have consistently failed to justify that wording. As for consensus, I would quote Dick Tuck.

SchroCat, you still have said nothing more than, in your opinion, "impact" is synonymous with "great influence" without considering that "impact" has other meanings and that its use in the phrase "had an impact on" is clumsy, imprecise and cliched compared to "influenced" Ewen (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have not said that. You, however, have said little more than '"had an impact on" is clumsy, imprecise and cliched compared to "influenced"': that's your opinion and carries no weight against both the status quo and the consesus against you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Arithmetic isn't Ewen's strong suit any more than Eng Lang is. I cannot quickly count how many times we have explained to him that nobody is required to justify the existing wording, but that he is required to justify and gain support for a change. In the absence of any hint of that his editing is now becoming a distraction bordering on disruption, it seems to me. 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Arithmetic would suggest that just 1% of 16500 sources using "influenced" is greater than the 135 using "had an impact on", you know? I appreciate that "nobody is required to justify the existing wording" which is (a) why I have left it as it is and (b) why nobody has actually justified it (I guess). You're free to leave the wording as it is, obviously. Ewen (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, raw numbers are little to do with things. Quality over quantity is key, context equally so. The problem with the monomaniacal obsession in swapping out a disliked phrase for a preferred word is that it doesn't take context or quality of source into account. Time to move on, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you did say that "David had more than an influence: she had an impact" so I took that to mean "great influence". As I said, Oswald's bullet had "more than an influence" on JFK's skull, but that's probably not what you mean by "impact" in this context, right? So why not use a word that nobody can misinterpret? Like "influence"?

As for "raw numbers". Yes, there are a few sources which use the phrase "had an impact" but there are many more that say "influenced" (e.g. Daily Telegraph obit). So, the consensus seems to be against you there. Ewen (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

JFK has nothing to do with this, neither does that one definition of impact. As I've advised before: use a fucking dictionary to see that "impact" has more uses than your rather narrow interpretation. Your refusal to acknowledge that it is used in this context in a way acknowledged by the dictionary is bordering on trolling now.

Oh dear. I see that just changing a phrase is about as much as you can manage: it certainly isn't judging sources or how to use term. As I have already said (more than once I think), yes she influenced. She also had an impact on. Time for you to stop being quite so tendentious here and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Both are rather vague but sometimes inevitable words or phrases. "Impact" is at least less common. As someone writing on art history, i have an automatic distrust of "influenced", often a sign of a poor grasp of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, SchroCat, there is a definition of "impact" that is relevant to your case but there are other ways to use the word. Can you say the same of "influence"? No. Is "had an impact on" more concise than "influenced"? No. Why use a vague phrase when a more concise and exact word can be substituted? Ewen (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

FFS, this is getting utterly tiresome. Let me try again: "influenced" is not more concise or exact than "impact". That's just your opinion, nothing more. "Influenced" is a hackneyed, imprecise and overused word. (See: no more or less true than your learned opinion on "impact"). - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's now 3 editors disagreeing with you, & no-one else is likely to bother to read all this before commenting. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. Nobody is persuaded. William Avery (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, "influenced" is more concise than "had an influence on" by the very definition of the word "concise". As "impact" has various meanings then "influence" is more exact, it having fewer meanings. QED.

Johnbod, William, DILLIGAF? As I said, I kept the page as the majority want it. Despite your numerical superiority, nobody has explained why my choice of words was not more concise and more exact than the original, but there you go. Ewen (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Less words does not mean greater clarity, nor a more precise description. Your logic on the QED is deeply flawed, rather facile and utterly incorrect.

The choice has been explained, it is just that you have decided not to accept it. As the consensus is against you, your continual pushing of your agenda is just trolling to get a reaction now, and I think it best that this thread is now closed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, you said "had an impact on" was more concise than "influenced", which flies in the face of the meaning of "concise". Similarly, you admit that "impact" has multiple meanings, whereas "influence" has one, so if I don't hear a convincing argument for your choice of words being clearer, maybe it's because it is not clearer at all? Of course you want to close the thread - go right ahead and stop writing, that will do it - but it still lacks an answer to my points. Ewen (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonfree image removal

A nonfree image has been removed from this article, as it violates several of the nonfree content criteria:

• The article contains eighteen free images which quite comprehensively illustrate it. The image is therefore not necessary to illustrate the article subject, failing NFCC #1.
• The free text already quite clearly states the reactions to the images. That renders the image unneeded, failing NFCC #8.
• The image is used outside the article about the book itself, where it is properly used. This fails NFCC #3a.

Under no circumstances may a disputed nonfree image which fails even one NFCC be reinserted. Should one look at, say, Stephen King, Orson Scott Card, David Eddings, or any other author biography, one will see that nonfree covers are used only in the articles about the books themselves, not in the author biography. This article contains many free images, and those are more than sufficient for the illustration of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: You were kind enough to review the images at the FAC, but another editor disputes your findings. I should be most grateful for your expert views on this, if you have time and inclination. Tim riley talk 20:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment above on several points. NFCC #1 regards a free equivalent to the non-free image; the fact that there are free images illustrating other aspects of the article does not mean that NFCC #1 is failed. NFCC #8 is by its nature a subjective assessment, but simply knowing how others have reacted to an image is not in my view a sufficient replacement for being able to see the image for oneself. The image provides values for readers of this article by contextualizing content here. Similarly, with regards to #3a, the cover art is used here in the context of critical commentary about its design, rather than simply for identification purposes. The image does not at the moment have a non-free rationale for this article, but that looks to be because the OP removed it. I'd also note that per WP:3RRNO, re-removal of content based on an NFCC dispute is not so cut-and-dried. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If that were correct about NFCC #1, there wouldn't be an NFCC #1, since there would always be no free equivalent to the nonfree image. It will always differ in some way. It regards the article subject, not a facet of it. Otherwise, there would never be a case where #1 applies, and that is clearly absurd. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not what NFCC #1 says: the requirement is "the same encyclopedic purpose", not "the article subject". It doesn't follow that NFCC #1 never appliesNikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If we allow repeated drilling down based on that, it will never apply. If, for example, we have a free image of singer Joe Example after a concert, one can always say "But we don't have a photo of him during a concert." And then if one presents a free photo of that, one can say "But we don't have a photo of him on the 2011 Foobar Tour." And if one presents a free image of that, one can say "But that's of him performing in Buffalo. We don't have one of him in Denver...". So one could, by that metric, always drill down enough to say "Well, the nonfree image isn't exactly the same as any free ones", and that is trivially true. That would render #1 completely meaningless, and that is, again, absurd. The question is whether we have any free images to illustrate the article about the subject. Illustrating the article about the subject is the "encyclopedic purpose". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's not what the criterion actually is. The image in this particular case serves to support critical commentary about it - that is its encyclopedic purpose. An image of the article subject is clearly not equivalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

In another FA (which for obvious reasons I don't propose to name here) I sought advice in advance from image experts at the appropriate talk page and was told by two or possibly three of them that I could use three non-free images to explain three very different aspects of the subject's work. I did so, and again it passed the FA image review without a hitch. It seems that Seraphimblade's personal interpretation of the rules does not coincide with that of our experts. Tim riley talk 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you think is an "expert". I was involved in both NFCC and in its revision in the face of the WMF's revision of nonfree image policy and the Exemption Doctrine Policy. In a very real sense, I substantially wrote them. And for biographical articles, it has always been true that if either the subject of the biography is not deceased (meaning taking a free image is possible), or the subject is deceased but a photo of them is available, nonfree may not be used. So I don't know what "experts" you have been talking to, but illustrating a facet has never been permitted. I'll take a look for that other one and we'll pull those as well, but you cannot do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Everybody is out of step except you. (Sigh!) Tim riley talk 20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)