CarolinCYoung

Catherine's Legend

Hi Carolin. I have glanced through your text about Catherine's culinary legend. It's fine, in my view. Since there is nothing about this in the article currently, but it is necessary and well documented, I think you should paste it in there. Since you haven't done this before I'll tell you exactly what I suggest you should do!

1. Have your sandbox and the Catherine de' Medici article available on two browser tabs
2. Open "edit source" on your sandbox. Leave it that way
3. Go to the Catherine article and decide where the new section is to go. I would suggest that it is most relevant at the end of the main text, after the current section "Patron of the Arts", before the next section "Issue". I would also suggest that it should be a subsection of "Patron of the Arts" rather than a main section on its own (because, a., it is quite short; b., it is negative: the conclusion is "she didn't do any of this"). If you agree,
4. Open "edit source" on the Catherine de' Medici article and find the heading == Issue == about three-fourths of the way through. Place your cursor in the blank line before this heading, do a carriage return, and move the cursor up a line. Leave the edit window open
5. Flip to your sandbox, look at the heading (top line below the template) and change it from == Culinary Legend == to === Culinary Legend === to make it a subheading
6. Now do a copy, omitting the top template but including the heading and the whole of the text below the template
7. Flip to the Catherine article. Your cursor is in the ideal spot. Paste that whole text in
8. Below the edit window, find the line "Edit summary". Type in words to this effect: "added section on culinary legend. See talk page"
9. Click on "Show preview". You can now see the whole article above the edit window. Verify that your section appears where intended and that the footnotes seem to be present in their proper place. (If something is seriously wrong, you can if necessary curse quietly, go BACK on both windows and start the process again.) If it's OK
10. Check "Watch this page" and then click on "Save page"
11. If all still looks OK, go from the ARTICLE to the TALK page (tab at the top). Along the upper line, click on + (you see the words "Start a new section" as you hover over it)
12. As heading, type in something like "New section on the culinary legend"
13. Below, in the text window, write some brief comments on why this addition to the article was needed and invite others to comment and suggest improvements. Remember to add your signature ~~~~ and save
14. You can close the tabs now. There's no immediate need to delete the text from your sandbox, but you'll eventually replace it with something else, no doubt

That's it. Then you wait. If any changes are made to the page or the talk page, you will see them on your Watchlist whenever you visit Wikipedia.

My impression from the page history is that the great work on this page was done by User:Qp10qp, who has not been active for some time, but may of course still be watching some favourite articles. It would be polite to go to User talk:Qp10qp, add a new section (+), and invite Qp10qp to look at your new text and comment on it. Andrew Dalby 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

One point of detail

This shouldn't stop you, but I noticed the words about Fisher's "charming but historically inaccurate essay". Those words don't suit an encyclopedia article (I'd say). Charming and historically inaccurate are both written as if they were Wikipedia's point of view, but Wikipedia shouldn't adopt such points of view. Other Wikipedians will (I think) expect you either to footnote these opinions (to some reliable source that has previously commented on Fisher's article) or to take them out. Better consider this ... Andrew Dalby 14:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Gosh, I cannot thank you enough for these detailed instructions and comments. It's a new universe for me! The last re: MFK Fisher really are my own interpretation - but virtually a quote from a review I recently wrote for the TLS about a NEW book that, sadly, reprised the Catherine culinary myth, revealing its lack of recent (as in of the past 3 decades sources)... But, yes, let's leave judgements out... Although I'm thinking that the TLS is not considered the worst reference, I know that it's also considered bad form to cite one's own work...

That's where this also becomes a slippery slope. I intend to do this the correct way and be entirely "Kosher" about it - as does, for example, Darra Goldstein and all the rest of the lot... but, as we struggle to understand the logic, quite honestly, there is the temptation to simply trade original work with a friend and to ask the other to add the citation to the other's entry...

Well, that's a broader philosophical discussion... but one that this particular addition to a Wiki-entry highlights since one of the things that my currently published work on this subject and that the eventual book will emphasize is the degree to which, for example, even (especially) many of the primary texts-- Huguenot pamphlets as well as the ultra-Catholic ones put out by the duc de Maine and his sister, Mme de Montpensier, who carried silver sheers hanging along her skirts in order to give Henri III "his 3rd crown"), manipulated facts or just made them up to a degree that makes today's Hello Magazine, etc. look highly reputable...

Of course, I've opened Pandora's box with this one because now I see that I need to fix the "fork" entry, etc... (a particular passion of mine as you know...)...

There is, of course, a whole section about the things that Catherine DID do - or slight tweaks - that could be added to the "patron of the arts" or my sub-article stuff... she DID OWN forks... as a post-mortem inventory of her house shows, and a very beautiful copy of Scappi bound in her royal arms can be found at the BnF (and was the source of my Scappi images in "Apples of Gold") - and she did embellish entertaining with her "Magnificences" that Roy Strong brought people's attention to...

However, I'm going to start small and as you instructed... I'll let you know how it goes...

Thanks again!

Carolin

On the issue of quoting your own work, the issue needn't be exaggerated. Be dispassionate, that's all. If there is a conflict of interest (i.e. you aim to push your work or your opinion) don't ever do it. If you are quoting your own work because your work is the obvious available source and what you are saying is not contentious, it's OK. In those circumstances, I do it and I don't recall that I have ever been reverted. But I always add, on the talk page, a section saying clearly that I have done it - "On this subject I quoted my own book" etc. - and saying that anyone who wishes to do so is welcome to replace the citation with a better one. And if someone does that, I wouldn't argue, I'd just move on.

Actually it's rather similar with primary sources. There's no absolute rule, and you can find published primary sources cited on tens of thousands of articles. But it easily leads to issues that are contentious. I'd say, remember that you are writing in Wikipedia's voice. Just as with the Fisher article, Wikipedia must not take a position on the accuracy (etc.) of the primary source. Wikipedia can quote a Huguenot pamphlet, but cannot say (e.g.) that its statements are true or false. If that needs to be said, a secondary source that says it must be cited.

Primary sources that are unpublished and not available on line shouldn't ever be cited, though, because other Wikipedians would not be able to verify the citation. Andrew Dalby 20:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Carolin. Notice that in the list of food introductions wrongly ascribed to Catherine, another editor has removed the item ices. This was reasonable, because, if you follow the link to ices, you see that it is a mere list of possible meanings of the word -- a disambiguation page. You probably want to reinstate the item, but, when doing so, I suggest, think of a clearer name and make sure it links to a Wikipedia page about that precise thing. Maybe one of the pages listed at ices will be the one to link to. If you do this, you can write in the edit summary something like "restored deleted item with an appropriate link" or words to that effect. No other action needed. This is just normal give and take. OK? Andrew Dalby 14:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)