Talk:Clarissa Dickson Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clarissa Dickson Wright article.
Article policies

'she moved to television in a series which was allegedly a response to, and parody of, those made by another celebrity chef, Delia Smith.' I find this very hard to believe. Don't parodies require some kind of obvious similarity to the thing they are parodying? Delia Smith's programmes and 'two fat ladies' have pretty much nothing in common.

Contents

[edit] Clarissa Theresa Philomena Aileen Mary Josephine Agnes Elsie Trilby Louise Esmerelda Dickson-Wright

Uh. Is that *really* her name, or is there a vandal among us? I can't find a supporting reference besides the IMDB (which is user-edited) and Wikipedia mirrors. Parents have certainly done worse things to their children. Vashti 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this transcription [1] of her Desert Island Discs Interview, it's correct. --Eine 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I undertook the transcription hosted at [2] direct from a recording of BBC R4's Desert Island Discs (transmitted 03 Sept 1999), as part of a university project studying the history of cookery books. I have listened again to the original and can vouch that Sue Lawley does indeed give this as Clarissa's full name, albeit in the context of "The lady... who rejoices or suffers in the name of...". It is worth noting however that Clarissa's entry on the England & Wales Birth Index found at Ancestry UK only states 'Dickson-Wright, Clarissa'. Whether this was for brevity or not I don't know! --Fishingcat 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In an interview on Radio 5 Live Simon Mayo Programme on 6th September 2007 she confirmed that this was her name. Trilby, she said, was the nickname of an aunt of hers.

According to the autobiog

Clarissa (a book in her parents' library) Theresa (Saint of Avila) Philomena (her mother's fav saint) Aileen (for her mother) Mary (as a Catholic child) Josephine Agnes ('two rich relatices who did not remember me in their wills') Elsie Trilby (for my grandmother) Louise (for the cook) Esmerelda ('for my father's favourite pig as I was born in the Chinese year of that animal')

Great stuff

The Eye Of Sauron 07:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish?

I am puzzled by Clarissa being classifed as Scottish seeing as she was born and seems to have spent much of her live in England? However, I do not know much about her. I have refined the category to Scottish TV chef but would be interested to hear whether this is appropriate. --Vince 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IS this one the dark haired one with the glasses or the light haired one?

On thr above radio interview she referred to her self as an ex-patriate Scot.

I think she has Scottish ancestry, but she has been born, brought up and lived most of her life in England. --UpDown 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controvesy

For starters phrases like "BTW beware the 3RR", is totally uncalled for. I have been on Wikipedia some time and am well aware of it. To be honest it sounds like a threat, and I'd sooner you didn't threaten me. However, to the point. I don't know whether you have a POV, but its seeming like you do. Where's the controvesy - you have invented it. She has been taken, via private prosecution, to a magistrates court on a hunting charge. It received a very small amount of media attention. What is contraversial - nothing. This does not warrant its own section, to do so invents the serious of it, pretends there was a contravesy. This, I think, is your POV. Each section should cover a major part of her life, not one small private prosecution with little media attention. It needs to be merged with the main text, which I will do when I am able under 3RR. --UpDown 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel the 3RR comment is harmless although perhaps poorly worded. There is no way someone can know if you're aware of the 3RR and informing people there is a 3RR before they break it is usually considered good practice. Nil Einne 07:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but to be honest a quick look at my edit history would show how long I've been on Wikipedia. It sounded very much to me like the user saying, "Ive got it my way and you can't change it or I'll have you blocked".--UpDown 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly wasn't a threat, a threat would be along the lines of 'I'm going to report you' I had no intention of reporting anyone for 3RR and I have never reported anyone for 3RR, so don't get paranoid about my intentions - I apologise for not checking the history of every editor whose edits I change, but I don't really have the time or patience for such things. I do however disagree with you regarding what is and is not controversial, I consider someone breaking the law, to be controversial, and what she supposedly did was hardly driving too fast or an similar minor incident, if you take a look at the Michael Vick article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Controversies_and_incidents then you will see a huge section on the charges he faces, relating to Dog fighting, this is a similar animal cruelty case, and my edits made this far less prominent. Please get some consensus before removing my edit, because I consider it to be in line with many other wikipedia articles. thanksSennen goroshi 15:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As it stands there is a cited information here, presented in the wikipedia standard form, please obtain some form of consensus if you wish to change it, and do not turn this into an edit-war. thanksSennen goroshi 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're wrong. You have turned this into an edit war not me. The article you cite, Michael Vick, is very different, he has numerous arrest and so - its a long list. This is not, this one charge, which I do not consider contraversial, considering the little media attention. Having a whole new section for two sentences, is franky odd in itself. There is no "consensus" for your view of having a whole section for 2 sentences, for one private prosecution. I am going to revert. If you believe its "contraversial" - cite. If you believe two sentences deserve a section rather than being in chronlogical order in a section about her life since coming to fame - cite. You now apparently have a POV, making one private prosecution into a "contravesy". Wikipedia is not the place for this. --UpDown 07:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that you are always the victim and accuses others of doing edit wars with you? when its actually you UpDown who always course controversy. pease cool down and behave.Zingostar 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, I'm reporting you. --UpDown 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hi. :) I've had a look at your conversation and at the history of the article, and it seems to me that the current organization of the article, with the arrest incorporated into the section above it, presents some difficulty. Even if "controversy" is too strong a word for the section, it certainly doesn't seem to fit in as "rise to fame." Given how recent it is, it may develop into a controversy before its over, but it seems appropriate now to either section it off in some way from the material above it—it could be moved off into a new section neutrally entitled "Criminal prosecution"—or or to restructure the existing article. For instance, "Alcoholic years" could be retitled "Early years" and the bookstore information moved into it. The "Rise to fame" section might be renamed "Television career", and the material after Absolutely Fabulous moved into a new section with the current criminal charge labeled something like "Recent years". --Moonriddengirl 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input, I was like a 3rd opinion. I've edited similar to your second suggestion. Let me know what you and Sennen goroshi think?--UpDown 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
seems fine to me. if this turns into a controversy, then I might consider re-editing it, but only if she is convicted or something equally dramatic happens. so as to avoid this descending into an edit-war, if I feel changes to the article are warranted, instead of jumping in with both feet and editing, I will discuss the edit here and send updown a talk message, so that we can discuss it first. thanks for the opinion moon, thanks for the cooperation and willingness to discuss things updown.Sennen goroshi 13:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like consensus, then. :) It sounds like you guys have a good plan for further development. Happy editing. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks very much Moonriddengirl for your help, and thanks Sennen goroshi for your willingness to discuss. I will watch Dickson Wright's case with interest, and will discuss any changes on here first. --UpDown 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] £2.8 million in eight years

How did she manage to get through £2.8m (in 1975 money) in only eight years? Thats about £1000 a day. I'm sure that even in 2008 money, spending £1000 or probably even £100 a day on booze would be fatal. 80.2.192.85 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)