# Talk:Elizabeth David bibliography

This is a super bibliography, and I got hungry reading it.  Should it also contain more discussion of David's magazine articles?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The best of the articles are recycled in the books. A Featured Article would perhaps cover all the articles from 1949 onwards, but for decent B class (or even, hush!, GA) I think there is nothing substantive missing here. And yes, I've been driven crazed with hunger too when writing the article. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone assessed this as "List".   This is a text article describing and assessing several books, but I think it's basically a prose article and relates the books to David's life and other background.  Shouldn't it be assessed as a B-class article?  I don't think it's really a "List".  Comments, please!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of interest: I created the article and wrote most of it (with a little help from my friends). I agree with Ssilvers. I don't feel passionately about the labelling, but it really ain't a list, is it? Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth David bibliography/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Will begin review this evening.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead
"Elizabeth David, the British cookery writer, published eight books in the 34 years between 1950 and 1984, eight years before her death. " I think "the last of which was published" before eight years would make it clearer here.
Tweaked. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
What is a "literary executor"?
Blue linked. (Actually, a true but irrelevant answer to your question is, "I am", or will be if I outlive a certain writer whose name need not concern us here; but I digress.) Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"David's first five books comprised recipes interspersed, particularly in the earlier works, with literary quotations, and with her descriptions of the places and people whence she drew her inspiration. "whence" looks frightfully old-fashioned to me. I'd word it as "David's first five books, particularly the earlier works, contained recipes interspersed with literary quotation and descriptions of people and places which inspired her."
Blast you! I grappled for ages with this, both when I wrote it in 2011 and just recently when preparing for GAN, trying to avoid "whence", and now you do it just like that! I've replaced "which" with "that", though. – Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"ice". Do you mean icing in terms of cakes or literally ice? Seems odd that ice would have much history, being simply frozen water!
No – it's just frozen H2O You'd be amazed! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Background
In using the words "magnificent" and "terrible" I think you should clarify for neutrality purposes it is "which she believed was" rather than simply stating it was magnificent or terrible.
Done the first, but I really dig my heels in about "terrible". An "allegedly" would be like saying that Hitler was allegedly not a good person. We hold some things to be self-evident. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you should really link Cairo, as you've linked Antibes, I recall though on another article you stated why you didn't.
WP:OVERLINK bids us not to blue-link capitals and countries in the ordinary way of things. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Mauritius is a country and you linked it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Mediterranean food
Inconsistency in wording with Second World War.  World War II I'd prefer.
Well caught! When I started editing WP I got the idea that WWII rather than the Second WW was the preferred form. Now consistent within the article. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No links for Horizon Press or Penguin Books?
linked the latter; we haven't, unless I'm going dottier than usual, got an article on the former (which is not the same as the Horizon Scientific Press). Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
French country cooking
Delink "The Observer "
Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Italian food
Again delink "The Observer"
Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Why have you suddenly capitalized Soups etc? Because they are the chapter names? Does stand out a bit but I think it's OK. "with chapters entitled" would make the use of capitals seem more in context though.
I don't think the capitals are needed, and have demoted them to lower case, poor things! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Summer cooking
Why have you only linked Mauritius in Britain, India, Mauritius, Russia, Spain and Turkey? Seems odd.
As with Antibes -v- Cairo, above, though I grant you it looks odd. As the MoS specifically says that its rules are to be applied with a bit of savvy (or words to that effect) do you think it would be acceptable to unlink Mauritius? Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the MoS, Mauritius as a country should be delinked..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
à la provençale is Italicized and obviously refers to a style, but no link or explanation?
Now linked to the cuisine section of the Provence article. I may also run up a short article on the general use of the term. I was quite surprised to find there isn't one! Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
French Provincial cooking
"Pot-au-feu" Should this be italicized?
I think probably so, and have now done it. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Harvest of the old
mediaeval - I think that this wording is still acceptable but does stand out as an old fashioned spelling!
It is my preferred spelling, but now I look again at the book I see Mrs David didn't use it, and I have changed to the shorter version. Moreover, I see the OED prefers the shorter spelling. I may have to change my habits. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Spices, salts
"Not all call for unfamiliar spices" seems a strange expression, "not all use exotic spices" or something would seem to fit better.
Fine. Done.
Writing Awards
Not sure the relevance of this section, I'd be inclined to move either sentence to the era of the book publication it applies to.
I can't now remember what possessed me to include it. It is, as you say, not frightfully relevant, and I've blitzed it.  Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
References
Published needed for ref 61.
Done.
Ref 62 title in lower casing?
That's how it was printed. Since the 1970s so called "title case" has been largely supplanted by "sentence case" in the broadsheets and quality journals, much to the benefit of readability. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Images
I personally have no problems with it but I'm sure certain editors on here would frown on the use of 5 fair use images in one article. I think it would worsen the appearance to remove them but technically to illustrate with the covers you need to literally display that they are being use for critical commentary on the covers themselves. Silly, I know, I'm not going to ask you to remove any, but at some point don't be surprised if somebody comes along and robs you of them, they've done it to me! That'll be all Master Timothy.
I pondered hard about this, and studied Wikipedia's rules carefully before uploading and adding the images. I think I am within the letter and the spirit of the rules, not least because if this article were chopped up into single articles on each book, few people would raise an eyebrow at a fair-use image for each article – so the net result is the same. Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The lead could probably be improved further, but the article looks fine for GA, has all the major points and is well-written and informative. Nice job!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: this discussion is copied here from another Talk page, as it is about this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I refer to your comments on my talk page. I am aware of the WP rules to which you refer and I cannot understand why you imagine this, for instance, does not consititute consideration of the image in the text of the article: "He commissioned a dust-jacket painting and black and white illustrations from the artist John Minton. Writers including Cyril Ray and John Arlott commented that Minton's drawings added to the attractions of the book.[17] David thought good illustration important. Although she did not like Minton's black and white drawings, she described his jacket design (right) as "stunning".[16] She was especially taken with "his beautiful Mediterranean bay, his tables spread with white cloths and bright fruit" and the way that "pitchers and jugs and bottles of wine could be seen far down the street." Please revert your deletion, as your persistent deletions are beginning to seem like deliberate disruption. Many thanks. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, please stop warring.  The actions have been explained by Tim and you will be in breach of 3rr if you revert again.  Your warning to Tim on his talk page was pointless as he was aware of the problem which was due to an unintentional deletion of content.  If you had bothered to read the previous threads then you would have been more the wiser. -- CassiantoTalk 11:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFC is fairly clear, usage in list like articles are not allowed. A bibliography is defined as a list of the books of a specific author or publisher, or on a specific subject (my bolding), it is the same thing as a discography is for musicians NFC states The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Can you please provide evidence making Elizabeth David bibliography excluded from that rule? Otherwise this is a clear violation of NFC and exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, apart as we unhappily are, if English is your first language, but I cannot imagine any sane native speaker describing this article as a list. When I gave it the present title it seemed less clunky than "Works of Elizabeth David", "Books by Elizabeth David" or "Elizabeth David's Oeuvre", but it was never a mere list. It is an analytical overview of the great lady's entire output published in book form, with – as you will see if you can find time to read the article (not too painful an ordeal, I hope, as it has been judged a Good Article) – discussion of the images. As to your minatory comments in your edit summary, I am not so naïve as to fall into any 3RR trap, but kind of you to mention it. So nice to run across editors with a colleaguely and collaborative approach. – Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The title of List of books by Elizabeth David would also apply, This is the same thing as a list of characters or a half dozen different list formats. Usage of non-free media is very restrictive, there just isnt justification for these files. Dr. Blofeld did warn you that the this would happen. Werieth (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
A Featured Article that I took from scratch to FA is Piano music of Gabriel Faure which is of the same nature at the ED biblio one.  You don't, I hope, imagine that everyone at PR and FAC foolishly failed to realise that the Faure article was a list? As to the present matter, as I said to the Doctor, I could chop this up into a short article on each book, but how is that helpful to the reader? (You remember readers? We have them and should aim to anticipate their needs as best we can.) Dr B is wise in the ways of WP and knows there are intransigent zealots about, and I am so glad that you are not of their number. You have, inadvertently, I'm sure, neglected to answer my question how "He commissioned a dust-jacket painting and black and white illustrations from the artist John Minton. Writers including Cyril Ray and John Arlott commented that Minton's drawings added to the attractions of the book.[17] David thought good illustration important. Although she did not like Minton's black and white drawings, she described his jacket design (right) as "stunning".[16] She was especially taken with "his beautiful Mediterranean bay, his tables spread with white cloths and bright fruit" and the way that "pitchers and jugs and bottles of wine could be seen far down the street." does not comply with the WP rules. I would like to thank you for your non-confrontational and friendly approach, and look forward to being able to do so. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you are referring to Piano music of Gabriel Fauré there are zero non-free files in that article. If they wanted they could include 100. Usage of free media vs non-free media is far different. In your case you are using non-free media and thus the restrictions on their usage are far far more restrictive than those placed on free media. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Everything in that article is based of a single non-primary source, the rest are primary sources, this article really shouldnt be GA as it still need quite a bit of work. Werieth (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't seem able to make you understand. If the Fauré article is not a list then how is the ED biblio a list? Contrariwise, if the ED biblio is a list then how is the Fauré one not? As to to whether the ED biblio "shouldnt" (or even shouldn't) be a GA, you are at liberty to refer the matter to the appropriate review process. Purely as a matter of record, the GAs and FACs in which I have had the honour to contribute can be checked on my talk page. Perhaps, despite your blank user page, you would be willing to reciprocate? Meanwhile, please address the matter of taxonomy which you seem determined to avoid.  Tim riley (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if Piano music of Gabriel Fauré is a list or not, (which most of it is) as it utilized free images. You cannot compare list usage of free files and list usage of non-free files. Different rules apply to each. Werieth (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
To give you credit, I believe you genuinely don't understand. It matters crucially if you - versus all the WP reviewers - don't think the Fauré article is an article, because your failure to understand that it and the ED articles are articles means that all your assumptions are based on a misunderstanding. Whatever your personal preconceptions, you must attempt to keep up with the WP consensus. Kind regards, Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never stated that Elizabeth David bibliography or Piano music of Gabriel Fauré are not articles. Articles take many forms, including lists (or have a section(s) of a article can be a list). All lists are articles, However usage of non-free content is restricted in list or list like articles. If you disagree file a WP:NFCR and then only add the files back if it is closed supporting the usage of those files. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If I split the article up into small articles on each book would that satisfy you? I don't think the readers (remember them?) would find it helpful, but it wouldn't be even slightly list-like and we could all sleep peacefully. Tim riley (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley's points above.  Also note that the GA reviewer also determined that the images in this article comply with the NFCC guidelines.  Please do not edit war.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually the review stated that he had no issues, not that it met NFC. Please file a WP:NFCR if you think the files are justified. Until then the files need to stay removed. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The phrasing used was technically to illustrate with the covers you need to literally display that they are being use for critical commentary on the covers themselves. Something that isnt justified here. @Masem: Werieth (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering why it is that our esteemed and polite colleague Werieth refuses to answer, e.g. the question why "He commissioned a dust-jacket painting and black and white illustrations from the artist John Minton. Writers including Cyril Ray and John Arlott commented that Minton's drawings added to the attractions of the book.[17] David thought good illustration important. Although she did not like Minton's black and white drawings, she described his jacket design (right) as "stunning".[16] She was especially taken with "his beautiful Mediterranean bay, his tables spread with white cloths and bright fruit" and the way that "pitchers and jugs and bottles of wine could be seen far down the street." does not constitute commentary on the image. Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, this is a bibliography, whether you want to call it a list or an article; you're documenting all the author's books so the NFC aspect applies, and using NFC for each item is not allowed. As to one cover , the over mentioned above, that could be included as a representative sample and one that is the subject of the discussion, but any other cover images needs to have critical commentary to be included. --MASEM (t) 19:35, thank 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for inserting some expert clarity into this bizarre and unexpected brouhaha. I'll split this article into fourteen small ones if that is what WP rules require. Seems very unhelpful to the reader, though. Tim riley (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Except you're now going to run into notability issues. Many of the book sections only source the book, and that fails the notability test per WP:GNG. Some of the books may support standalone articles, but certainly not all of them. It is better to keep them in one article and understand that we can't use all the book covers here. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems very sound advice, and a most welcome injection of comradely good sense, showing that confrontational absolutism is not de rigueur. Thank you very much, Masem.  Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And as a last piece of advise, the cover for Mediterranean Food is clearly reasonable to be used under NFCC due to the sourced discussion about it as well as being her first book, and I would suggest this could be a lead image (as opposed to putting it next to the section about the book). Now, trying to find other reasons to use other covers, I came across this that shows that she acquired the painting "Eggs" by Morris (the feature of that cover) and donated it to the Tate, and the reasons here are at [1] and [2].  I would argue you can incorporate those sources to justify that cover without problem.  I'm not sure about the "Two Quinces" one, but with the first book and the Eggs one, I think this fairly illustrates the article. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I can only reiterate my thanks. I am so grateful for the trouble you have taken to research the above points. Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you re-insert the files without going through WP:NFCR, I will be going to ANI and requesting that whoever violates NFC again will be blocked. Werieth (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear why Wearieth is threatening everyone else. Have we not got a consensus here? Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have asked two respected image experts to look in and comment. Meanwhile I am reverting to the status quo ante. Tim riley (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Local consenus cannot override policy. Taking this to ANI. Werieth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the article is, not unexpectedly, left in the wrong version and the images under discussion will be deleted shortly, creating a fait-accompli. Why is the editor, who boldly removes media and is then reverted, not required to put his case, either here or at WP:NFCR? Isn't that how WP:BRD is supposed tow work? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There was nothing bold about my actions, enforcing clear NFC violations (which this case is) is exempt from 3RR. BRD doesnt apply to all situations (copyright violations, NFC violations, spam and others). With NFC the burden is on those wishing to include the media, not those who remove it. Werieth (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
You assert these files constitute clear NFC violations in their current use; I suggest they comply with all ten points listed at WP:NFCC and those at WP:NFCI, and they do not fall foul of WP:NFC#UUI or WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is a list. The definition of a bibliography, is a list. If you read above there may be justifcation for two of the files, but definitely not all 5. Werieth (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 I was asked to comment here by Tim riley. First off, the fact that this is a Good Article means that it is not seen as just a list (as lists are not eligible for GA, per WP:WIAGA). Second, non-free content is allowed, even in lists, if it meets WP:NFCC. Looking at the individual images used, I agree with Masem above. I think that WP:NFCC criterion 8 is the deciding factor here "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My interpretation of this is that each non-free image is used only if it is also discussed in a significant way in the article text. Another way to look at this is that images may not be used solely as decoration, but may be used to help the reader understand what it written in the text (here, where there are comments on the cover and its art). So File:David-mediterranean.jpg clearly fits that criteria, and if the cited material is added to the article, I think File:Omelette and GW.jpg would also be justified. The other cover images do not meet WP:NFCC, though it may be that some of the art used on them is old enough that it is free. So if the painting on the cover shown in File:French prov.jpg is free, an image of just the painting could be used in the article (with the comment that it was on the cover of her book...). Another important point to remember with Fair use is that minimal usage is required, so having so many fair use images is not minimal. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that full and clear explanation, Ruhrfisch. I will sadly but willingly blitz the others and keep the one that you identify as properly used, and possibly the OGW one on the basis you outline. As always, your expertise and helpfulness on images are a godsend. Tim riley (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if the other covers are the subject of critical coverage, they could theoretically also be included here (as long as the article discussed the cover and its art). I am also in favor of one big article, as it gives an overview of her career and development as a writer. Sorry to lose the other covers. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not a list.  Each entry is a notable subject in its own right, and could be split into separate articles.  They are only combined into one article for the sake of organization.  Notable subjects should have identifying artwork and they should be reinstated.  That the page is protected without the images in place means that the images will be deleted by default in two days. - hahnchen 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The definition of a bibliography is a list. Our policies regarding non-free media are fairly strict. Per above 1 possibly two images can be justified, but not all of them. Werieth (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Very pleased indeed that you have withdrawn your absolutist insistence on removing all images. The later input from well-informed image experts is most gratefully received. Meanwhile it would give me great pleasure to thank you for your colleaguely and co-operative approach, Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
My only point in removing was that the number that it had (5 I think) wasn't justifiable. It was never a insistence to remove all. Just that its better to start with zero and see which files absolutely need re-added, versus trying to eliminate them one at a time. The second method tends to be less effective at minimizing the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well thank you for making that clear at this stage. A helpful and unconfrontational colleague is always good to encounter, and if our paths cross again I hope I shall find you so. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
A list leads to other articles.  Instead, this is a collection of other articles; it is not a jumping off point, it is a destination.  With a list, you'd have a very short entry on Mediterranean Food, linking to an article at Mediterranean Food.  In that case, duplicating the images would be against policy.  This is not the case here.
Ask yourself, "if this article was split, would the individual articles justify identifying artwork?"  If the case is yes, then they require them here too.  The question isn't "how many images/article", the application of WP:NFC is not and should not be a one size fits all approach.  It depends on the subject. - hahnchen 20:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth David bibliography. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110922125227/http://www.foliosociety.com/bookcat/9030/SMC/summer-cooking to http://www.foliosociety.com/bookcat/9030/SMC/summer-cooking
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928151549/http://www.foliosociety.com/bookcat/9030/FPC/french-provincial-cooking to http://www.foliosociety.com/bookcat/9030/FPC/french-provincial-cooking
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) 21:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I see this and its main article rests heavily on her books, which is fair enough in terms of WP guidelines. Yet I must say the books came after quite a long period when her views were already well known. It is worth remembering that the main sources of ideas for most people in Britain after the war was not books, but the BBC and the newspapers. Any talks given on the radio (BBC monopoly till 1973!) or the early black & white grainy tv (BBC monopoly till 1955) would be supported by articles in The Listener (BBC publication). One can scarcely overstate the influence of this weekly magazine during the middle period of the 20th century in the UK. I knew all about her ideas on bread by the late 1950s or early 1960s, and remember it because the horrid wartime white bread and phoney brown bread was all one could buy in the shops. 
On the issue of Italian cuisine in the UK, we had a welcome settlement of Italian families in (mostly) Bedford and London after the war (this a result of former Italian POWs deciding it would be good to live and raise a family in Britain). As a result, the post-war scene had not only some classically-trained French chefs (mostly in London restaurants), but also soon had some Italian restaurants. It took much longer for the regional cuisines of France and Italy to become known in the UK. I didn't experience this myself until I spent time in Nice during the 1970s. To sum up, the (correct) publication dates of the books rather suggests her influence came later than it did in reality. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Memory is playing tricks with you, I'm afraid. If you read the article carefully you will see that Mrs David's first book came within a year of her first published press articles. As to broadcasting, she habitually avoided appearing on wireless or television. I wonder if you are mixing The Listener up with The Spectator (for which she did write regularly)? Tim riley talk  18:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a really useful article - thanks.  I note that you refer to "Elizabeth David Classics" (the omnibus edition comprising Mediterranean Food, French Country Cooking and Summer Cooking, with an introduction by Jane Grigson : first published 1980 by Jill Norman Ltd., republished by Grub Street 1999)in your sources at the end, but it does not appear in the listing of her books, although various anthologies do. Is there a reason for its omission, or does even Homer nod? (PS Sorry if I am causing confusion, but I am not sure quite where to place this comment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.140.75 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 

Thank you for your kind comment. Homer quandoque (not to say saepe) dormitat – this impersonator of Homer at any rate – but in this case the omission was intentional. I am open to argument on the point, but it seemed to me that binding three books together didn't really make a new book, in the way that, say, the rejigging of recipes and essays from earlier books into new titles does. Happy to discuss further. Tim riley talk 18:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)s
I see your point, but as it does have a distinct title would it not merit at least a parenthetical entry?  Its exclusion rather presupposes that someone coming across the title would automatically know that it was an omnibus edition, and of which books.  There is also the matter of which editions comprise the omnibus - they seem to be the second editions, apart from Summer Cooking which looks as though it is the original edition.
Some good points there. And my edition of Elizabeth David Classics (the 1999 Grub Street reissue of the 1980 Jill Norman edition) has an introduction by Jane Grigson, which one could say marks it out as a new book in its own right, I suppose. I concur with your deductions about which edition of each of the constituent books is printed in this collected version. I'll ponder on how best to mention the book in the text of the article. It can't go in "Posthumous publications", as Mrs David was still very much alive when the Jill Norman edition came out. Possibly a brief section between English Bread and Yeast Cookery and An Omelette and a Glass of Wine might be best. Tim riley talk 10:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Later: done. See what you think. I'm not 100% certain about it, but I can happily live with it if others can. Suggestions for improving will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 13:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Even later  That looks like a nice job to me.  It is sufficient and succinct.  (By the way, I have just discovered that Macdonalds published another combined volume "A Book of Mediterranean Food and French Country Cooking" in 1968 for the Cookery Book Club, but I do not think that it warrants inclusion in the article.)
I didn't know that. Mrs D. wouldn't have been thrilled, I imagine, as she loathed Macdonalds. I agree we needn't make mention of that combined vol. Thank you so much for your helpful suggestion and follow-up input. Why not come and join us as a Wikipedia editor? It's a most satisfying avocation. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for striking when the iron is cold, but I was doing some research to check whether there should be accents on the "pates" in her booklet title "English Potted Meats and Fish Pates".  I came across a link to Old Cook Books (http://www.oldcooksbooks.com/master_book_by_let_search.php?order_by=price_low&category=&page=18 )which contains images of the covers of several of her booklets, including this one.  That image clearly showed the title word as pastes, not pates.  I have found only the image of the cover, not any textual reference to pastes, but it seems to make sense that the correct title would in fact be "English Potted Meats and Fish Pastes".  It would have been odd of her to use the French "pâtés" in this context, when fish paste is (or was then) a commonplace English foodstuff and, if she had chosen the French word, it would have been odd of her to omit the accents. It suggests that there was a typo when the booklet was first mentioned on the internet and which has been perpetuated ever since. 90.241.228.153 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. You are right about the title: I haven't got a copy of the booklet, but it is mentioned in Elizabeth David's Christmas (p. 21). the unauthorised Chaney biography (p. 383) and in Jane Grigson's English Food (p. 105), and in all cases the last word is printed as "pastes", and not "pates". I've made the requisite amendment to our article. The booklet was, says Chaney, "a version of the article [David] had first done for Food and Wine on 'Neats Tongues', then expanded for Nova in April 1965". Tim riley talk 08:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Later: from Chaney again (p. 371): "In Wine and Food's Winter [1963] issue Elizabeth has 'A Nostrum of Neats Tongues'. She ranges from the seventeenth to the twentieth century in a résumé of recipes on how to get the best from a calf's tongue. 'Packed into shallow pots or white-lined terrines and sealed with a layer of clarified butter', this is, she later wrote, 'to my mind the best and most subtle of all English potted meat inventions'. Her recommendations include eating tongue hot with her favourite Cumberland sauce, or potting it in a variety of ways." Tim riley talk 08:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)