Talk:The Great British Bake Off series 11

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

Ziggy Stardust

Note that the show used Ziggy rather than Ziggy Stardust, we should use what is given in the show. I should also mention that the character being depicted in the cake is Aladdin Sane, and not Ziggy Stardust, but that is an error in the show, I'm not sure we should correct it. (But mention it in a note, perhaps?) Hzh (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They each describe him as Ziggy Stardust when Mark discusses his cake with Prue before the image is shown. That Ziggy Stardust/Aladdin Sane/Thin White Duke (which Matt uses in voice-over) confusion is a common error. It's reasonable to add Stardust to the name of the cake based on the discussion. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 12:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the bake used is normally what's given in the illustration, so even though full names are mentioned somewhere in the show, we used only what's given there (hence only Sir Chris, Lupita, Freddie, etc.). This is true for all the titles of bakes, for example, Loriea's 'Hot Summer's Day Treats' Battenberg Cake is mentioned as "Bubblegum and Cream Soda Battenberg" in the voice-over. Not sticking to one title is a recipe for disputes and endless reverts. Hzh (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 3: Bread

Edits around Paul Hollywood's comments in episode 3 were reverted with the comment 'this is a minor controversy at best, not notable enough to mention.'

Looking at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, given this has received significant coverage in many major British papers (Independent, Daily Mail, Mirror, Metro, etc) across the political specrum, and has received complaints to the regulator, I think this should be kept within the article, or discussed further before reversion. Leaving a note at User_talk:Drmargi 86.6.12.251 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I might have misunderstood this - and the principles of due and undue weight Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight apply to this particular situation, as it is about content within an article, and not the notability of the article itself. However, as a British show, within the UK, this is receiving continuous coverage, and some papers are now starting a conversation about LGBT history education in the UK in general. This isn't on fringe sources - this is covered on papers across the multiplicity of the UK newspaper spectrum. 86.6.12.251 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking further input on this contribution removal [[1]] - this is a British show, and a controversy currently being discussed in the UK media - the . I think we should have other editors weighing in here, given it was removed with the comment "This is a minor controversy at best, not notable enough to mention" - without reference to local media.
86.6.12.251 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple good reasons to remove the entry. First, it's about Paul Hollywood, not GBBO. There was no controversy associated with the episode, just his remark. It had nothing to do with the bake or its outcome and the handful of complaints to Ofcom were about Paul not the show. You might have an argument for adding the issue to the article about Hollywood, but not this one.
Second, the sources you list are all tabloids rather than broadsheets, and several, notably the Daily Mail and the Mirror, are not considered reliable sources. But most importantly, this is a small group of people misinterpreting his remark (vis a vis the use of the rainbow in the U.S.) and blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Moreover, he did not refer to the rainbow flag, he referred to the rainbow patterned doughs used to make the bagel, which he chose to associate with the NHS, given the times and the previous tribute to them in the opening episode, which included a cake with an NHS logo and a rainbow. It's his choice; the gay community does not have exclusive rights to rainbow colors or the pattern, nor are they exclusively associated with the gay community. This kind of fuss happens constantly with Bake-off, and we've elected to omit a number of other such incidents in the past.
For the record, in the U.S., the rainbow is associated with a number of things. Yes, the gay flag uses a rainbow pattern to represent inclusivity, but that's relatively recent. Rainbows are associated with good luck and good fortune (tied to Irish lore brought by Irish immigrants in the mid 1800s) and with fairies and unicorns, often favored by little girls. It's been used in candy making, notably lollipops and candy sticks for as long as I can remember; we used to buy big rainbow lollipops in the Disneyland candy kitchen when I was a child. Children draw them at school. It's a commonplace decorative motif. Rainbows are all over the U.S. including in baking, and that's what Paul was referring to. Frankly, I'm no great fan of Paul's, but the insinuation that he is somehow homophobic because he didn't associate a rainbow with gay pride is way over the top. This isn't a controversy; it's a few people with a very specific perspective on the rainbow getting bent out of shape. As such, it's simply not notable enough to include in the article, were it about the show and not Paul. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul's mark was made in the context of the show, and responded to by other presenters. In the context of the UK, this particular remark has been used to talk about why it's important that shows are well researched, and have an understanding of LGBT history - so this remark is leading to a broader conversation around LGBT history in the British curriculum.
I understand that some of the sources I've listed are tabloids - this is because I wanted to demonstrate that the issue was raised across the political spectrum, including in sources which aren't traditionally that friendly to LGBT rights. However, not all of the sources I cited are tabloids. The Independent is relatively well respected, and the Metro claims to take a neutral stance to reporting; and those are the two I inserted into the article.
18 complaints is more than a handful, and is in line with other incidents which are reported in the media. Ofcom complaints are made about a show, in line with the Ofcom broadcasting code. We don't yet know the content of the complaints, as the full details will be published next week.
While I understand you are from the US, and I know the history of the rainbow with many other organisations in the UK too (Rainbow Trust Children's Charity for one is an organisation which has been using rainbows since the 60s), I've made an assumption that you may be applying an American cultural lens to what is a British show that happens to enjoy a cult following elsewhere. I don't think his comment about the USA is relevant, and I think the controversy is about the focus on the NHS, not some kind of specific homophobic comment.
My reasoning is, Paul Hollywood wasn't considered to be homophobic as a result of that statement. The main controversy is that Paul's statement indicated a lack of awareness of all of the other meanings Rainbows have, as he stated that the rainbow was considered to apply only to the NHS within the UK, and to have been imported from the USA, which isn't the case - or certainly is only one originator.
Rainbows have been a part of British culture for some time, from drawing rainbows in primary school, drawing rainbows in Sunday school as a child, Rainbow the TV show, to the charity usage I mentioned, to Greenpeace. The controversy is the erasure of all of the other meanings, of which the LGBT usage is only one. I mentioned the charity above - and throughout the pandemic here, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52724818 about the history of the rainbow within the UK, and whether or not everyone using the symbol is aware of its many different meanings.
In isolation, this statement would not be a controversy. However, in the context of the reporting for many months across the pandemic about the British need to teach LGBT history in schools, I do think this is an important fact, which I would want to know about if I was opening up a wikipedia article about this particular show. 12:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.12.251 (talk)
First of all, you need to lighten up, remember we're all volunteers who edit as/when we can and let this discussion take its course, not forum-shop to get your own way. It's totally inappropriate to go to
WP:3O
so early. Discussion takes as long as it takes, and it's useful to see how this little fuss will play out over time. From what I can see, it's already died out in the media and thus is of little notability, as is so often the case with a dust-up over some minor remark or another.
I remain unconvinced that this is sufficiently important, related to the show or notable enough to be included in the article. There was no response from other presenters; he was only with Prue, and all she did was smile, then talk about the bagel. What's more, I very much doubt he's unaware of other interpretations of the rainbow; he simply chose to use it to make an association with the NHS in this particular instance. Trying to read some larger motivation into his remark is absurd and frankly, laughable.
The emphasis in this whole thing is on Paul, not the show and as such belongs in his article if anywhere. The tie to British schooling issues may seem relevant, but again has nothing to do with the show; if anything it makes it clearer that this is a matter to do with Paul and/or LGBTQ issues, not GBBO. My so-called American cultural filter is simply your way to discount my concerns when you don't have a leg to stand on, and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's; we see the episode the same week as you do. You'd have to be living in a cave on a remote island not to know of the world-wide cultural phenomenon that is GBBO, none of which has anything to do with making a simple judgment about whether an off-handed, innocent remark Paul made in support of the NHS was controversial, much less some missed opportunity to make a point about another application of a commonly used motif. Moreover, you've completely ignored context. To describe it as somehow "erasing" (which is a misapplied word, but we'll let that go) other applications of the rainbow is ludicrous. There is no controversy, just a small group of people bent out of shape, a few calls to Ofcom and the usual short-term fuss in the media. Try to put it in Paul's article if you want, but it has no place here. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll admit I jumped to
WP:3O
very quickly (and I apologise for doing so before we exhausted our conversation), and although I think our views are a bit intractable, there's definitely some mileage in us continuing to discuss.
To respond to your points, I felt this warranted coverage in the article because most of the secondary reporting around the topic mentions Paul, but then moves the discussion back to the show itself. Shows have researchers, production team, and crews - so I agree with you, I very much doubt Paul is unaware of other interpretations, but it's because it would (presumably) have been a decision by the show producers and not Paul himself that I think it warrants inclusion in this article, and not more generally.
I think your American cultural filter does have a bearing - in the same way that my British filter has a bearing. It isn't an intent to discount your concerns, although the way I wrote the phrase came across as very direct. I think your concerns are valid - but I'm hearing people talk about this event still, and in the UK at least, I see this as being very relevant. To explain this further (whilst unrelated to my points in the article) - my colleagues in the US seem to watch GBBO, and treat it as a niche programme which they enjoy from abroad. In front of me, they don't discuss the show as a larger part of British culture, which reflects certain attitudes, but also sits in a bubble, hearkening back to a simpler time.
But as a show embedded in British culture, I think any notable events which occur and are discussed in reliable secondary sources, deserve to receive a reference related to its discussion. I can see how some people might look at the show in isolation, like other series available to stream online, and want to limit the article on Wikipedia solely to the show content. It's a difference of viewpoint between a show being something which stands alone, or a show as being something which is a cultural phenomenon and affects the society around it.
Given that view, whilst Wikipedia isn't a democracy, in order to achieve consensus, I was looking for another opinion other than my own, your own, and the people I speak to - because I fully get that consensus may not be with me, but I'm not hearing viewpoints other than yours, and my own, both of which seem to be coming from different positions, and have no real middle ground.
Because you seem to be taking the remark strictly in relation to the fact it was spoken innocently by Paul, on the show, I'm getting that you think it deserves no place on this page, and a place on Paul's page (at best.) Because I'm seeing the remark as made by Paul, in the context of a show which is researched and planned by the production crew, and reflects elements of British culture, I'm seeing the concern around this relate to the show - and not about Paul's personal beliefs or otherwise (I feel placing this on his page would imply he has some form of homophobia, which I don't think is the case - that's why I'm reluctant to place it there.)
This event is still being reported in the UK media (using the word erasing in the same way I used it ;)) - Nadiya Hussain was questioned earlier today about her views on the event, and again, responded along similar lines to my thoughts - to reference it properly. Not saying that rainbows were only for the NHS, and not saying they were for the LGBT community - just saying they should be referenced properly.
I agree with you that controversy may be a bit strong, but the subject has independent reliable sources, and while I don't want to give the fact undue prominence/weight, the event is of interest to at least a significant minority, and again, I think is of interest to people in the UK who want to find out more about what happened in the show. I'd be up for compromising on the phrasing, but the event has historical interest I think. 86.6.12.251 (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the double post, but as per my last paragraph, talking about compromise - it looks like maybe following the example of
The_Great_British_Bake_Off_(series_5)#Controversy
could be an appropriate resolution.
I picked these because they relate to a controversy over gendered icing (s7), marital breakdown + favouritism (s4), betting, spoilers, and semi-professionalism (S6), bingate/innuendo (s5) (I left out one about winners being spoilt on social media, because that's clearly related directly to the show.)
They show consistency of including reporting of events of this scale, over this period of time after episode broadcast, in these types of secondary sources, in the Wikipedia article for the relevant series. The approach they took is to include a separate controversy section, and therefore I think it would be consistent to include this for this particular event. 86.6.12.251 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on this - I think it would be worth an update to reflect the previous four examples from older series, where controversies were listed in their own separate section. Any comments beforehand from anyone? 86.14.180.240 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not a controversy, still about Paul Hollywood not the show, and has long ago passed. The removal from
WP:3O reinforces that. There's no need for an update. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It’s as notable as other controversies mentioned about GBBO on this site, and received media coverage for a similar amount of time, in reputable national and international papers (Fr24, BBC, and those above.) News coverage links it to the show, and not Paul Hollywood. The WP3O removal was nothing to do with this - as it states below, the request was declined, as thorough back and forth discussion is required.
I have responded with rationale, to points which have not been rebutted, and explained why this should be included. I won’t rehash these, as they are listed above. 86.14.180.240 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im a bit torn on this one. The IP editor makes a good case that this sort of thing regularly gets mentioned on other GBBO wiki articles in the manner in which the IP would like this article to be edited. Further, it has been covered in (maybe) reliable sources. Having said that, the 'controversy' in question strikes me as trivial at best, with no lasting importance to either the GBBO or Paul Hollywood. My recommendation, for what its worth, is to exclude this material and to revisit the other 'controversies' mentioned in other GBBO articles to see if they are truly relevant to a good understanding of the subject, or should be removed as well. Bonewah (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the

here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hermine's Surname

Does anyone have a source or knows what Hermine's surname is? It's now week 8 and I personally still haven't been able to find a source. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressively up-to-date

This article shows how impressively uo-to-date an encyclopedia Wikipedia is. It is now 9:43 p.m.GMT, on November 17 2020 shortly after the semi-final of GBBO Series Eleven was broadcast, and already the article shows who the Star Baker was and who was eliminated. Vorbee (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_British_Bake_Off_series_11&oldid=1216336267"