Talk:Robert Irvine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject England  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

MCFA C.G. ?[edit]

I don't think MCFA (which I assume means Masters of Culinary Fine Arts) and (C.G.) (which I can't guess at) are well known terms. Perhaps they should be parenthetically explained within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MCFA probably is 'Malta Cookery and Food Association'. MCFA sponsors several culinary contests. Mylorin (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

News release, citations needed[edit]

I removed the news release and citations needed tags, because it looks like the article has been pretty cleaned up in those regards. I think it does still need some non-primary sources however, so I left that tag there.Umbralcorax 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough scrubbing. Most of it is pulled verbatim from the bio page at Irvine's company's site. Well, if not verbatim then pretty darn close. Not good. SpikeJones (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Where was he born and where did he grow up? Badagnani (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Grew up in Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. Badagnani (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears he's actually from Swindon, an smaller town near Salisbury, and may have been born there. It's not uncommon for media to identify someone as from a larger city with which most people are familiar rather than the small one they're actually from (i.e. from Boston rather than a small suburb of Boston.) Drmargi (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Swindon is much larger than Salisbury, though! Of course, it is also less prestigious.... (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is he from Swindon or Salisbury? Badagnani (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't be sure whether he's from Salisbury, Swindon or either, and certainly not where he was born. The national papers describe him as from Salisbury, the Wiltshire paper as from Swindon. It's possible he lived both places at some point in his childhood, as they aren't far apart. He was also described in the article as having a father from Salisbury, yet the nationals describe his father as being from Belfast. I think it's most accurate to refer to him as from Wiltshire until we can be more precise as to his origins. I've removed his birthplace information from the career section, since it really doesn't fit there, and added it to previous information already in the opening paragraph where it does fit, as well as correcting his birth year. Drmargi (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Is he a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident? Badagnani (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


The entire article is questionable as the main source is a primary source-- the Dinner Impossible site. This article in theSPTimes casts doubts on all of his claims. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The St. Petersburg Times article doesn't "cast doubts," it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt most of Irvine's credentials were imaginary via quotes from people from the University of Leeds, the White House, etc. I removed his degree from the "Professional honors" section since he never received one and amended the statement "bestowed by one’s peers" re: the Chef’s Five-Star Diamond Award from American Academy of Hospitality Sciences to "recipients pay for the honor," which is accurate. I also removed references to the St. Petersburg restaurants from the infobox and the "Present day" section since it's unlikely they ever will open. (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why was the "Controversy" section removed in its entirety by User: without any discussion? This section includes facts that should be included in the article, especially since the Food Network itself is investigating Irvine's past now. Since the only contributions has made to Wikipedia are the removal of negative comments about Irvine, I wonder if he is one of his reps or Irvine himself. (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
anon removed entire section. I restored best version I knew. Needs further sorting. This version cites SPTimes article from Feb 17, 2008. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't include Food Network responses cited in SPTtimes article of 2/19/08. I reverted that section. (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User: and User: likely are the same person. He/she appears to be determined to eliminate all negative facts about Irvine, which confirms my suspicion this is one of his reps or Irvine himself. (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User: (possibly same as above) has continued to remove sourced content in an apparent attempt to retain a positive POV. Some of the changes seem to be valid, but some of them don't seem appropriate. I'm a fairly new editor, so I'd like some help in determining how to best handle this. Thanks! Godofbiscuits (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a lot of back and forth from anonymous users, maybe this article get locked to cut down on all the needless reverts? Pcrackenhead (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a fabulous idea, but I haven't the first clue about how to make that happen. Clearly, someone is trying to keep obviously legitimate and sourced info out of this article. Godofbiscuits (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't either, which is why I suggested it here hoping someone would pick it up. :) I did some digging around and requested it be protected. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Pcrackenhead (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like they're at it again. Right now, we just seem to be going back & forth about the words "supposedly" and "allegedly." I think it's pretty clear that at this point, leaving those terms out would be inappropriate. If someone disagrees, please give a reason! Godofbiscuits (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Mission accomplished! Thanks, Jmlk17! I placed a warning on today's offending IP talk page, so we'll see if this calms things down. Godofbiscuits (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

The controversy section seems a bit .... controversial. Using words like dazzling don't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article.. Stepshep (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that we're not putting all of our energy to reverting vandalism, I think we can clean up what we have.Godofbiscuits (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Stepshep (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made some edits I think were crucial. The original Times article cited in no way gives the impression Irvine "enticed" the people named, so I replaced this word with the more accurate phrase "attracted the attention of." Additionally, the article did not "argue" some of Irvine's claims were false, it proved they were by providing specific quotes from people who knew the truth. Also, I completed the quote from Buckingham Palace chef Dave Avery. I feel "He most certainly was not involved with me in making or baking the cake" is a definitive statement that shouldn't have been excluded. MovieMadness (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm taking out the claim that LaTorre invested- she doesn't say that in the article, she just says she's owed. Godofbiscuits (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wandered onto this page for the first time, and can look at it (I hope) a bit impartially. What jumped out at me immediately was the extreme length of the section, largely due to the detailing of the elements of the controversy. I would suggest this could be edited down to a couple of sentences more in line with the other sections, and such minutia as HSN removing his merchandise, whose website has removed his biography or what appearances he is no longer making, etc. could be deleted altogether. As it is, what's here is so out of balance there's no appearance of fairness but rather an article that uses background history as a preface to detailing the Irvine scandal. Drmargi (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great point, but there's a particular problem with balance in this article. Let's say we wanted to expand the rest of the article, and include more details about chef Irvine, and in so doing, bring the article more into balance. Where would we get reliable sources about his background or resume? The controversy itself calls into question many sources one might use to fill out the rest of the article. Godofbiscuits (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And you have a point in return, and a dilemma with which to grapple. But to my mind, it still doesn't justify the excess length, especially given the level of detail present in one section as opposed to the others. I can see the efforts to tighten the article in recent edits, but there's still a lot of editorial bias present in both in what material is included and in the choice of language.
I might also suggest that one newspaper article is proof of nothing, despite some rather emphatic insistence it is. Newspapers have editorial standards and biases of their own. Consequently, we're left to determine the veracity of individual quotes, and have no way of knowing evidence was omitted from the article in order to paint a specific picture. The implication I draw from earlier comments is that what Irvine says is not true (unless he's admitting he lied) and everyone else is truthful. Yet even a cursory glance through the comments accompanying the article and associated material in the same publication indicates one of the other major parties involved has a pretty dicey history herself. I'd say hanging the word proof on any of what you have is pretty questionable absent a second reliable source of evidence (i.e.: not another entity that has picked up and recycled the original source article.) Drmargi (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the length of the controversy section is in direct proportion to the amount of controversy surrounding Irvine. The details of the fallout following his exposé certainly are not "minutia." As far as "balance" is concerned, Godofbiscuits is correct in stating, "The controversy itself calls into question many sources one might use to fill out the rest of the article." Everything about Irvine is suspect now. As far as "fairness" is concerned, the facts have been presented in a straightforward, non-sensational manner. They are what they are. Please check out the Controversy sections at Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselback. You'll find these are as detailed if not more so.
The argument that one newspaper article is proof of nothing because newspapers have editorial standards and biases of their own is weak, at best. If that were true, we could not trust anything we read. If you take more than "a cursory glance" at the articles cited you will find Irvine did admit he lied in some cases, and in others tried to defend his claims so weakly he made himself look more guilty than he already appeared to be. MovieMadness (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Drmargi, I think you're right that the tone could be neutralized. I've removed the word "proved" and organized the section to better communicate the fact that the controversy ultimately stems from the one article. I don't, however, think that this is a case of "he said/she said"- that only really applies when there are only two parties involved. This is a case where a person said one thing, and a whole bunch of people refuted the claims (including those whom he said he would pay for services rendered.) Godofbiscuits (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just carefully re-read the three articles referenced here. Not one of them even remotely "indicates one of the other major parties involved has a pretty dicey history herself," as was claimed above. MovieMadness (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Drmargi stated that the comments accompanying the article call LaTorre into question. Does that prove anything? Certainly not. Should it make us hesitate and have a little doubt about her credibility? Perhaps. Personally, I doubt her credibility, but it's more because of her vagueness about what she did that she is actually owed for. Unlike others, she hasn't claimed to have a contract with Irvine. She just claims she did work for him. And I have not seen a denial of Irvine's claim that "LaTorre was working on her own and he never expected to pay her until she demanded a cut." Godofbiscuits (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

MovieMadness, where are you getting the assertion that LaTorre actually invested anything in the restaurant? From the article: "Another woman, St. Petersburg socialite Wendy LaTorre, says Irvine owes her more than $100,000 for marketing and promotions and for helping him find property." To me, that means she did work, but did not invest anything. Am I missing something? Godofbiscuits (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering the above discussion, can we change the word "disproving" to "disputing"? I think you're right that "suggesting" was too week, but I think the word proof is too strong. Godofbiscuits (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the way the article is written, I agree LaTorre did not necessarily spend $100,000, she may merely feel that's what her time and effort was worth, so I'll amend the comment accordingly. But I strongly disagree the word "proof" is "too strong." Irvine's claims definitely have been disproved by a University of Leeds rep, the Buckingham Palace chef, and even Irvine himself. At what point do you believe "disputing" becomes "disproving"? MovieMadness (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason I hesitate to go as far as "disproving" is that this is still only based on the one article from the one paper. There's no way to know at this point if this reporter slanted quotes/claims/etc. in favor of the angle that Irvine is a total fraud. I think if we get some hard documentation (say, a copy of the degree he does have) or an investigation from another independent source, then we have proof. Until we get that type of confirmation, I think it's only prudent to give a modicum of benefit of the doubt.Godofbiscuits (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that two different reporters quoted the following reputable sources:
  • Sarah Spiller, a press officer at the University of Leeds: "We cannot find any connection in our records between Robert and the university."
  • Jenn Stebbing, press officer at Buckingham Palace: "He is not a KCVO Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and he wasn't given a castle by the queen of England."
  • Walter Scheib: "Irvine's ONLY connection with the White House is through the Navy Mess facility in the West Wing ... never in the period from 4/4/94 until 2/4/05 did he have ANYTHING to do with the preparation, planning, or service of any State Dinner or any other White House Executive Residence food function, public or private."
  • Dave Avery: "Robert Irvine may have been a trainee student at the Royal Naval Cookery School whilst I was making the royal wedding cake. He most certainly was not involved with me in making or baking the cake."
To suggest either or both of these journalists "slanted" these comments in favor of the angle that Irvine is a total fraud seems rash. I don't think we need to see "hard documentation", i.e., "a copy of the degree he does have" when a press officer at the University of Leeds clearly is disproving Irvine's claim he earned a degree there. Let's face it . . . Irvine's own website removed his bio. Isn't that proof enough? MovieMadness (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think we're just discussing semantics at this point. By your definition of proof, those quotes prove that Irvine was lying about these things. By my definition of proof, you need more. And I'm not sure how to get past it. Is there a Wikipedia standard for using the word "proof"? I doubt it...
I'm not suggesting that the reporter slanted the quotes themselves, but I am suggesting that he may not have included quotes from other people who support Irvine's claims. As for the removal of his bio: your assertion is that the article proved that he was lying, not the other circumstances surrounding the controversy. Godofbiscuits (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See 8 months ago

and —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The above were reverted by an editor sans comment. I'm always uncomfortable when writing by one editor is removed by another, and have restore them. These references are interesting as they paint a somewhat mixed picture of Irvine's exploits in Florida. Meanwhile, I see you guys have been busy with the article. I look forward to reading it carefully, and to commenting on a couple points above when I can do them justice. Drmargi (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Irving fired from "Dinner Impossible"[edit]

Robert Irving has been fired from Dinner Impossible following claims that he had embellished his resume. Though he will play the rest of the season, the network has stated that they would be looking for a replacement host. Please make relevant changes to the article as I do not know too much on the subject to do so. Thank You. Gryffon (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already been done - I did so yesterday. Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got a source in New York telling me that The Food Network are thinking of cancelling Dinner: Impossible after the final shows air or turning the reigns over to Michael Symon of Iron Chef. The other is picking any chef from the Next Iron Chef series as a replacement.BigBoi29

Interesting! Speculation will no doubt be rife - I've seen something similar speculating they'll use John Besh, who lost to Symon. Trouble is, a show like DI is a full-time job, not the occasional appearance Symon does on ICA, and he already runs two restaurants. One would think that they've got to find someone who is a catering chef, a specialized skill, which would relegate these rumors to the scrap heap.
I've noticed two errors/possible errors cropping up as the story passes from media source to media source (the media version of the game "Telephone".) One is that Dinner: Impossible has already been canceled (appearing in a couple British publications) and the other that the current series in production is Series Four. If Irvine is currently filming Series 4, it means we've got roughly 20 episodes yet to air (7 remaining in S3 and 13 in S4) before Irvine ceases to be the face of DI. It sure looks like FN isn't in any hurry to be rid of Irvine. That's a long time for ratings to tell the story and for Irvine to atone for his mistakes. The point being: we need to be cautious about these rumors (I know you're not suggesting anything be added to the guide) and expect to see a lot of them working their way in here before this all resolves itself. It's entirely possible all will be forgiven and Irvine given a second chance. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
When you say source what do you mean? We need relioable, verifiable sources such as newspapers. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV in Omissions/Inclusions[edit]

I'm concerned about POV evident in several recent edits made to the article. Someone recently came in and cut a good bit of detail, including some important information, from the Food Network section of the article, yet the St. Petersburg section remains overly detailed, particularly now that is no longer the news of the moment. I would propose it is possible for POV to be reflected not only in the language used in the article, but in the decisions made regarding what it included/excluded, a common form of bias employed by the media. Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a sneaky way for POV to weasel into an article. Unfortunately, I think it's going to often come down to a judgment call to determine if a particular edit is biased or not. I think our rule should be that sourced info (such as the food network response, biographical info from the Guardian article, etc.) should not be removed unless first discussed here on the talk page. If all can agree with that approach, I'm more than happy to help enforce it. |Godofbiscuits| 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my concern - a good bit of relevant sourced information was removed, and when one looks at the pattern of edits, it reflects POV to my mind. I'm take a bash at rewriting later today. Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now gone back and restored some of the more detailed discussion of his dismissal and the discussion of the status of the show. The overly draconian edits that were done seem to have resulted in the misunderstandings seen in the comments above and below this discussion point, as well as in a series of duplicative additions to the article. Hopefully the new edits will at lest help solve the problem. I have referred any editor wishing to make changes to this discussion. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! Since this is currently in the news, we've had a new wave of editors adding incorrect and duplicate information. If it gets worse, should we think about re-doing the semi-protection? |Godofbiscuits| 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, but let's keep an eye on it. I think the additional level of detail about the current production of the show adds back a bit of balance. It's getting to be time to trim the St. Pete part a bit, however. BTW, do we stillneed the facts under dispute box, or can that be removed? Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can say that the information related to HSN and HarperCollins isn't significant. I also sourced my information correctly. I don't see that you, or anyone else, had discussed these exact two things on the talk page, so I'm not sure what you are talking about with your comment about "secondary" stuff that has already been discussed. I think that any significant fallout that results from this is relevant and not just the television show information. If his book and HSN deals, the other two significant things in his career, get pulled because of this--I think even Robert would agree that it is significant. In addition, you are leaving writing in the page regarding filming an episode that occurred about 2 weeks ago as though it is present tense.Atlantabravz (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, Atlanta, please see the 6th paragraph under the Controversy discussion above. Drmargi at that point gave rationale for removing the HSN info specifically. The argument was that if you looked at the article as a whole, there was an imbalance due to the excessive amount of detail in the fallout from the controversy versus the lack of detail in all other sections. In the interest of preserving neutrality, it was suggested that we remove some of the ancillary detail from the controversy section. Furthermore, I'd like to argue that the HSN deal and the book deal were directly as a result of his status as the host of a hit Food Network show. Therefore, it seems much more important and relevant to cover his status as host than the subsequent fall out from that situation. I think of it like this: if a major sports star was fired from his team because of a scandal, that should be a main point in his article; his loss of endorsement deals as a result of the firing might not be significant enough in the grand scheme of things to even mention. |Godofbiscuits| 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, one more question: I don't see the tense issue you mentioned. The only sentence that mentions the filming of a specific episode currently reads "The show remains in production, with Irvine's team recently preparing the Japanese-themed dinner for Washington DC's "Pink Tie Day" celebrations, and new episodes began airing on March 12, 2008." I break that down as: In the present the show is in production, and recently (in the past) they filmed the DC episode, and on 3/12 (also in the past) they began airing episodes. Am I missing something else? |Godofbiscuits| 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GOB, I think you've got it covered nicely. The tenses are correct as posted. Past tense doesn't reflect the ongoing nature of events in the way the present progressive does, and would be inappropriate. Sorry Atlanta, but I still stand by my position that secondary fall-out from the article and FN investigation of Irvine's credential simply isn't important enough to include, and looks like the article is attempting to throw in every bit of negativity possible. A few pans sold on HSN is really pretty inconsequential to my mind, and the publisher is posturing (like Irvine is the first author ever to pad his vita), nothing more. Neither is of any consequence - what Food Network does is what's important. And frankly, I don't think we have a clue what Irvine would think about any of this, nor is it particularly relevant. Importance to him and importance to the article are two different kettles of fish. Drmargi 07:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so how long ago could it have happened to be to still be termed "recent?" To me, that's just not encycylopedic because I imagine someone reading it a year from now. No, Irvine might not be the first author to pad his resume, but it merited a mention for James Frey. Kobe Bryant's endorsement deals are mentioned in his article. Yes, I agree, that if someone has a plethora of things going on then something might not merit a mention, but the guy had a total of 4 things going and they've all been affected. Something just doesn't sit right with me on this and I get the feeling that there is some protection going on.Atlantabravz (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

fraud allegations[edit]

just today he was exposed as a fraud! someone please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully as well as the discussion above. Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense re: Irvine's status on show and related broadcast detail[edit]

I've reverted two sets of edits today changing the description of Irvine on the show from present to past tense. Given Irvine will continue to appear on the show until at least July (based on the airdate for the Cherry Blossom Festival episode cited in the article) I would maintain the article should continue to refer to him in the present tense until such time as his last episode airs. Drmargi (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which episode Irvine recently taped and when it will air isn't relevant and the information will be outdated as soon as the cited episode is broadcast. Please stop adding trivial data to this article. (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Ordinarily episode tape dates, etc. would be inappropriate, but in this case, while the controversy around Irvine is fresh, it's relevant because it establishes his standing regarding the show - this is the first new episode since the scandal broke. Once it becomes dated, the article can be revised accordingly. Interestingly, I note you leave in the broadcast of Chefography, which suggests POV on your part.
Other editors have asked you not to remove sourced information without discussion on more than one occasion, with which I agree. (I might add telling us to stop removing what you consider trivial data isn't discussion.) I'm sure you make your edits in good faith, but we who disagree with them do, too. I would request we reach consensus before such wholesale deletions are made again. Drmargi 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Drmargi. It seems to me that one of the advantages of Wikipedia vs. a physical reference document is that it can be kept current. The text in the artcle should reflect the situation now, not some supposed future situation. Is it not possible that events will unfold differently than you expect? Could Food Network not change their stance before the contract runs out? I say we refer to the present state of affairs, namely:
  • FN has not renewed Irvine's contract
  • FN is looking for a new host
  • Irvine's current contract has not expired, therefore, he remains the host of the show.
Once this state of affairs changes, then and only then would it be appropriate to change the article to the past tense. |Godofbiscuits| 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur 100%. Given the situation, a little fluidity and latitude are both in order. One person's "trivia" is another person's relevant detail. Let's be bold and leave in what might otherwise be inconsequential information. There's a new update on Irvine today, regarding the restaurants, I'm going to add for now, then the whole section will probably need a rewrite soon to reflect the face the dust has begun to settle, so to speak. Drmargi 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The statement "Consequently, the show remains in production, with Irvine's team recently preparing the Japanese-themed dinner for Washington DC's "Pink Tie Day" celebrations, and a new episode, the seventh of the current series, is scheduled to air on March 12, 2008" is NOT encyclopedic in nature. Why is mention of a "Japanese-themed dinner for Washington DC's "Pink Tie Day" celebrations" relevant? Why mention "a new episode, the seventh of the current series, is scheduled to air on March 12, 2008" when on March 13 that info will be outdated? This most definitely is "inconsequential information." To be bold doesn't mean to tolerate crap. (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. I think it's fine to remove some of the detail, but this conversation began with a concern about tense. Many editors have changed the tense of statements like "Chef Irvine is the host of Dinner: Impossible" to "Chef Irvine was the host of Dinner: Impossible." And this is not just a matter of style- the tense makes a huge difference in the accuracy of this article. If we can agree that removing the details will not lead to the perception that Irvine's contract is over, then I'm okay with the changes. |Godofbiscuits| 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why it is crap during the period of time that we're tracking the progress of the scandal? Ordinarily, I'd agree with your assessment that this is not encyclopedic, and tend to take a conservative view of what is. In this case, I don't. Those entries establish the status of the program and are the most current information we have about it. That IS encyclopedic. All encyclopedia entries on current topics run the risk of being dated at some point. It doesn't, by default, make them in appropriate at time-of-publication. At some time in the near future, this will all be out-of-date and a good editing down of detail on both sides of the story will be in order. This morning, along with your stock edits, you removed current information about the status of the restaurant deal with no explanation. That content was not time sensitive, and was sourced. At the same time you added material that was not sourced, including a judgment-based qualifier about the reliability of the St. Petersburg Times' sources. I've reverted the changes for two reasons: you need consensus before removing sourced material, which has been asked of you three times at least, and because the edits throw the balance of the article into the negative as well as returning it to a less-than-current state. I might also point out again that I am rather uncomfortable with the absolutist language used: you say it's wrong, therefore it's wrong. Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the content of the article.
GOB, what's happened here is the issue of one user repeatedly removing sourced material without consensus got merged into the discussion of tense, so we're really talking about two separate issues. I've changed the heading accordingly, in the hope it will help. Meanwhile, once the new episode runs tonight, I'll revise the item regarding the scheduled new episode, etc. Drmargi 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then I don't see what the big deal is. Drmargi, you say you're going to remove the episode details after it airs, so I'm not sure why our anonymous colleague is so insistent that it be removed immediately. The fact remains: it's accurate now, and we have established that it will be taken down when it is no longer accurate. I've added the current event tag to the top of the article; perhaps that will suffice to calm some anxieties about the encyclopedicality of the article. Wikipedia documents current events all of the time, so I'm not sure what basis he/she has for calling it inconsequential. |Godofbiscuits| 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very clever, and very wise! We've got one user, with one point of view, using at least two closely numbered IP's not responding to requests that we reach consensus, just making the same edits over and over again. This rather strident approach, along with the tendency toward absolute pronouncements I've noted since mid-February, are of real concern to me, since they suggest an inflexible approach to editing I don't see as in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Drmargi 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was no controversy attached to Irvine, there would be NOTHING relevant about the topic of the show he most recently taped. It's a bit of trivial fluff and simply is not encyclopedic, period. Your insistence on adding this detail suggests an inflexible approach to editing I don't see as in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is going nowhere. Constant restoration of edits reverted by multiple editors suggests an inflexible editorial style far more than leaving some detail designed to give a bit of balance to an article. That you characterize it as trivial fluff doesn't make it so - detail serves multiple functions. At some point, probably in the not-too-distant future, it won't serve a function any longer, and we'll take it out. But right now, it does to my mind, and merits inclusion. Drmargi (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow Drmargi, if "detail serves multiple functions," then why are you guys conveniently leaving out the details of the full response to his posing? I say again, he had 4 things going which is not the plethora you make it out to be (Food Network, Book deal with HarperCollins, HSN deal, and restaurant deal). The article details the restaurant and Food Network things falling through but conveniently ignores the fact that HSN completely disassociated themselves from him and his book is going to be edited for corrections and they might even sever that relationship, too. Just like, in your mind, mentioning the name of an episode whose filming happened 2 weeks ago serves a function, many of us think that ignoring these details is indicative of article-protection, but I am not sure if that is your motive. So what if it shifts the balance? Should we edit Charles Manson's article to give it a less negative balance? Irvine posed and now the referenced details are coming out. Instead of including significant details about what he's lost because of his posing, you choose to leave the name of the episode in there. That is selective and we may have to ask for mediation on this.Atlantabravz (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a time-out at this point. I don't think we're getting anywhere, and the discussion is beginning to get too far over the line toward the personal, both in terms of rhetoric and in terms of how edits are being interpreted. Arguing the content versus the editor is a difficult distinction to maintain, and we're in a dangerous place at the moment. I'm concerned that whereas GOB and I are trying to argue in favor of how edits affect the article in terms of the overall, others are arguing by looking only at a specific edit's merits/demerits. Consequently, we're talking at cross-purposes, and I hope we can all agree to step back for a few days, let events run their course, and then see where they take us. --Drmargi (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can get behind that idea. I think we need a little objectivity here and if everyone can take a step back maybe we can look for a compromise that everyone can accept. |Godofbiscuits| 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been awhile since I contributed to this article and I was surprised to see how much it has been edited and how much controversy those edits have stirred since I was here last. I strongly support the position taken by Atlantabravz. I have to agree that some of the additions were frivolous and not at all encyclopedic, and I too question why the part about HSN was removed. I have made edits that I feel clearly present the important facts and remove the trivia that doesn't belong here. I hope everyone else agrees. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, MovieMadness. Way to step up. I would only add that if HarperCollins does anything significant, like cutting their ties or actually editing his book, that it probably should be reflected as well. They already said they would edit future copies in case of errors, but since they haven't acknowledged any actual editing has taken place then I can understand why it's not significant yet. They are also the last group he still has actual ties to at this point, so maybe the significant thing is that they are sticking with him so he can write a book about all of his tall tales and they can publish it :).Atlantabravz (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the fact the Home Food Network opted to pull the Irvine episode, which had been prepared specifically for the latest Chefography week, from the schedule is a significant reaction to the controversy, so I have reverted it. MovieMadness (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, because I think that it's been pretty well established, even in the article, that Food Network was taking necessary steps for damage control on the issue. That, and the fact that Food Network didn't make an additional statement regarding the reason for removing it. I know we can assume the reason for them pulling it, but playing devil's advocate, maybe Robert decided HE didn't want to do it and not the other way around. He could have pulled out because he was embarrassed. I'd personally like to see what Food Network has to say on the matter, but we can leave it in for now until more information is obtained.Atlantabravz (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, you commented that "if HarperCollins does anything significant, like cutting their ties or actually editing his book, that it probably should be reflected as well." Why then shouldn't the latest action taken by Food Network be noted? While I understand what you're saying re: the reason the show was pulled from the schedule, it's not likely either network executives or Irvine publicly will discuss the role they or he played in the decision. I think everyone involved wants all of this to disappear quietly. MovieMadness (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we can compromise as I agree with what you are saying after some thought. I found in an earlier article by the SP Times (March 4th) that the network was undecided on whether or not they were going to air the episode. I think it establishes a good chronology and "before and after" if we add in the reference relating to any of the articles that mentions the network being undecided and maybe put something in the article that states that "Although there were original reports that the network was undecided on the matter, they removed the episode..." or something to that effect. Right now the current link just shows what the current schedule is and doesn't show that before and after relationship. What do you think?Atlantabravz (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the current link merely proves the show isn't on the schedule. Thinking your suggestion of a rewrite with an additional reference was a good one, I searched the SP Times archives but couldn't find the March 4 article you mentioned. Are you sure you have the right date? MovieMadness (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well here is the link I found from the Denver Post. They reprinted the SP Times article on March 4th, but now I can't find it in the SP Times now, either. Atlantabravz (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it - the correct date was March 1. I think the statement now reads as you suggested it should. MovieMadness (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks great. Sometimes I just have to see it through a different pair of eyes, so to speak, to really appreciate the changes.Atlantabravz (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DrMargi sent me the following message in response to my posting his middle initial, so now that I've found a good source I have re-posted it. I will respond publicly to his post to me on here after posting his: "I'm glad to see you moved the use of Robert Irvine's middle intial to the proper location. I'm guessing that was your comment on my talk page - can't be sure because it's unsigned. However, I've reverted again as the initial, which Irvine never uses, is unsourced. You've got a 1 in 26 shot at getting it right, but that's not sufficient. Far more interesting to a) wait until you have his full first name, and b) provide a source for the initial. As is, it's unreliable and just one more piece of trivia added to a hatchet-job article already overburdened with minutia that's dated and no longer relevant. (from Drmargi - the signature function doesn't seem to be working.)Retrieved from ""

Well, DrMargi, I thought you might take the time to find one of the many sources out there that reference his middle initial rather than just reverting it, but that appears to be how you operate as a "protector" of Irvine's reputation. However, I found the source of off his OWN website. I say you are a protector because you refer to it as a "hatchet-job," when it is a fair and accurate re-telling of the events considering that they are all properly sourced and worded. MovieMadness and I are like many Wiki users in that we want to see the truth told, and I think the article is from a NPOV in that it gives a detailed chronology. The one time there was an issue involving the removal of something an anonymous user posted, he and I talked about it through this feature and then the wording got fixed. However, we didn't get into some sort of edit war without talking about it rationally and coming to an amicable conclusion. You need to try to do that before removing material that can be better sourced or worded better. For example, instead of removing the middle initial the first time and telling me to put it in parens, you could have done that yourself and found the same source I did as this is a community project. Or you could have left it and told me on these boards that I needed to source it or it would be removed. However, you removed it twice because you appear to have a beef with those of us who want to keep this article the way it is instead of glossing over what Irvine brought upon himself and his career with his stories.Atlantabravz (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're taking this personally. Don't. You're also making it personal and uncivil through your characterizations of me. DEFINITELY DON'T.
I notice you felt the need to bring a discussion on our talk pages here, and to inflame the situation further by using of personal attacks on me, and the description of two perfectly legitimate reverts as a "mini edit war." Interesting...
As for NPOV - sorry, it won't wash. This is a massively POV, highly biased, and trivia laden article reflecting a very specific agenda, but bearing no resemblance of anything encyclopedic. --Drmargi (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being uncivil at all. I have pointed out legitimate criticisms of your actions and you seem to be taking it personally. I suggest that you not threaten me with all-caps font when all I am doing is criticizing the way you revert edits without discussion. I moved our discussion onto here as you did on a previous discussion that was held before MovieMadness stepped in and edited the article back in mid-March after you suggested a timeout. I wasn't trying to "inflame" a situation, but trying to allow my response to you make some sense. After all, I wanted people to see that you say that Irvine "never uses" his middle initial, but he actually uses it quite a bit, including on his own company's website. You could do a web search and find all of the places he actually does use it, but instead you chose to do a revert to pull some sort of Wiki power trip on me. I called it a "mini edit war" because you didn't bother working things out or digging up proper information in the spirit of Wiki's "community project" mentality...rather, you just removed the stuff in question. I am also not sure how it "won't wash" that the article is from NPOV. All of the content is verifiable and a good chronology of what happened. Yes, I suppose the ones who like it the way it is have an agenda--the truth in encyclopedic and verifiable form. I guess if you are on the opposite side of our "agenda," then where does that leave you?Atlantabravz (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Status as of June 2008[edit]

The article looks pretty good right now. I am for inserting the item regarding "fittest guys" for Men's Fitness in 2007 once I (or someone else) can find a source. I would like to see a source for his hearing problem, but I think he wears the device for more than just hearing the director. I added an "After the Controversy" section to document anything else that he does to revive his career, but deleting the factual chronology of the controversy will do nothing except gloss over what happened.Atlantabravz (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not crystal ballism[edit]

It's going to be a moot point in a very short time period anyway, but to insist that Irvine is the *current* host of a program that is no longer using him in production when the article contains a cited reference that specifically says he was released from the show is a bit unbending. I am curious how you can say that clarifying his status as the host of seasons 1-4 in the opening paragraph qualifies as WP:CP, when the article says this with the citation in the text further down. SpikeJones (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree it's unbending at all. It's accurate as of broadcast time, and for all we know, as of production time. First off all, Series 4 hasn't even begun broadcasting. Second of all, we don't know if it's completed production or not. If it hasn't, Irvine is still the host both in broadcast time and in production time. Third of all, and most troubling, your reference is problematic. Now, I have no choice but to assume "the ref" you keep referring to (since you're never been specific, and I'm not psychic) is the Tampa Bay publication, reporting what was in the St. Petersburg Times, reporting what was presumably in a Food Network Press release (ref. #19.) You've already got a game of telephonic reportage, but it gets even dicier. Making the accuracy of the reference more questionable is this is the same Tampa Bay pub. that broke the Irvine scandal and has plenty of accompanying bias. Worse, there is a contradiction between the article's statement that Symon takes over in summer and the show goes to an hour, seemingly at that time, and the DI schedule posted on as of this morning, which shows series 4 starting on July 2 and going to an hour with Irvine still the star (I cross-checked that with my Time-Warner Cable schedule, and it's consistent; both 4.1 and 4.2 are an hour.) So, here's the problem. At some point, not yet announced by Food Network, Irvine will finish his broadcast role on DI and Symon will take over. No argument there. At that point, what you've written will be accurate. But right now, it reads as though series 4 is finished and Irvine is off-air, and that's not accurate, nor will it be until Series 4 finishes. And until that time, any statement referring to Irvine as host, past tense, particularly including a reference to Series 4 that reads as if it is finished will not meet WP:CRYSTAL, no matter what you reference says about what's happening in the future. It's not the reference that makes the determination, it's what's happening on the show now. --Drmargi (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with stating "seasons 1-4" vs "currently", as the former is a more accurate statement. If you want to debate whether season 4 is "current" or not, then that's a discussion for the show page, not on the host bio page. As for the ref that you don't like, here's the Washington Post link stating Food Network President Brooke Johnson released a statement yesterday saying Irvine's contract has not been renewed for future seasons. The network will, however, continue airing old shows and producing the remainder of the current season with Irvine as host.. While you may say that this quote supports your argument of "currently", I say it better supports the "seasons 1-4" statement. And, since I know you're interested, here is the full text of the two statements that were released: “We looked into the situation and found that, as Robert as already admitted, there were some embellishments and inaccuracies in his resume. The few and minor incidents of the inclusion of these embellishments into “Dinner Impossible” have been removed. The show is, and has always been, completely accurate in the depiction of the cooking challenges faced by Robert. We will continue airing both old shows and the new season of programs currently in production. We have not renewed Robert’s contract for future seasons but will fulfill our contractual obligations. We rely on the trust that our viewers have in the accuracy of the information we present, and Robert challenged that trust. We appreciate Robert’s remorse about his actions, and we can revisit this decision at the end of the production cycle, but for now we will be looking for a replacement host.” The network also released a statement from Irvine that read: “I was wrong to exaggerate in statements related to my experiences regarding the Royal Family. I am proud of my work while serving in the Royal Navy and on board the Royal Yacht Britannia, also as part of the Guest Chef program in the White House with the United States Navy, in addition to my culinary accomplishments. I should have stood on those accomplishments alone, without embellishment. I remain committed and enthusiastic about my work with Food Network and other future endeavors. I am truly sorry for the errors in my judgment. To all my family, friends and loyal fans, I will work tirelessly to regain your trust and continue to use my show and life to benefit the less fortunate.” SpikeJones (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Symon's first episode premieres tomorrow night, on July 20. 2008 with the 5th season beginning in August. They have already filmed several of the episodes with Symon for season 5, and you can check to verify the titles of them. Food Network has also posted information about season 5's locations on the DI portion of their website. This information that is currently on the page as it is written does not go against WP:CP. I did read that section, and it states if there is significant planning, it will go off without a hitch, and is verifiable, then it is okay to add it. Therefore, it is okay to say that Irvine starred in the first 4 seasons since Symon takes over on television tomorrow night in his new role. Yeah, re-runs may be shown of Irvine, but for all intents and purposes, Symon is the current star, DrMargi.Atlantabravz (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Put it in in August. There are still Irvine episodes to air in the original time slot. Although there's a preview of Symon's episode before Irvine's finish, and no question it's getting close to Symon's time, thus the change on FN's site, Irvine is still the host. holds no weight with me - it is fan edited and fan submitted, not a reliable source. Edit reverted. Drmargi (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
DrMargi, there aren't any episodes of Irvine still scheduled or remaining to be shown. That is the point. After tonight, Symon is the official star and that is why they are showing a preview episode. I want you to check out the locations list here. Notice that for season 4 there are only three locations listed. Those are the only episodes for Irvine for season 4 and they ended with the Cherry Blossom Festival from the other night. It's a small season, but that sort of thing happens when you change hosts because of controversy. Then, you can check out the following sites that detail information about season 5's episodes with Symon: Passover and Opryland, Wildwood Boardwalk, Mother's Day Shrine, and Crayola. It is not violating WP:CP to say that Irvine starred in the first 4 seasons. He is done. Symon has filmed episodes with one scheduled tonight. From this point forward, he is the official star. Playing re-runs does not make Irvine the current star.Atlantabravz (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


I reverted the edit made by User:LightningMan in regards to using Irvine's Food Network bio as a source. WP:SOURCES specifically states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Food Network previously had a bio on their website that was littered with inaccuracies and embellishments, so they are not known for fact-checking or accuracy. There is nothing published by a third-party to suggest that they have verified the information in the current bio, so using it as a source for anything Irvine has claimed is suspect. I don't doubt that Irvine served in the Royal Navy or assisted the Naval Mess in the White House, but I would like to see those claims verified by someone other than Irvine himself or Food Network, both of which have failed miserably in presenting the truth about the man.Atlantabravz (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Better picture[edit]

is needed. Belasted (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse on here.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Show me. I'd really like to see worse. Belasted (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it was taken by an Air Force photographer with that federal government license, that's the best I could get. I had to edit it down to only show him. There is really nothing out there with a free license on the guy. If you can find something better, by all means go for it. Atlantabravz (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-edited controversy section[edit]

The controversy section regarding Chef Irvine's fall from grace and alleged shady dealings in St. Petersburg have long needed a good editing, particularly in light of Irvine's fairly speedy return to the Food Network, its reliance on one source (the St. Petersburg Times) for most of the account of the restaurant affair, and the lack of any legal outcomes resulting from the failure of the restaurant project. I believe that, as it stood, both WP:UNDUE (because of the excessive detail regarding the restaurant project) and WP:RS (due to the dependence upon one source), applied

I am currently undertaking a thorough editing of the section, and have made the following edits thus far:

  • Move the section down the page, following more general discussion of Irvine's life, career and credentials
  • Move the Food Network discussion ahead of the discussion of the restaurant controversy. While the restaurant issue generated a good deal of ink for a short time, it was more a catalyst that gave rise to Irvine's short fall from grace than the centerpiece of the controversy. Given Irvine is now back at FN with two new shows, the Food Network element of the controversy should assume primacy. Moreover, 2-1/2 years on, there has been no outcomes from any threatened legal action, rendering the whole restaurant affair far less relevant and the various sordid details reported by one source with a fairly clear bias both unnecessary and of questionable reliability.
  • Reduce restaurant controversy to key details. Few of the various parties' claims were substantiated beyond the SPT article, and as noted above, no legal action was taken.

I have also added a section that addresses Irvine's activities following the controversy, which is needed now he is back in the network's good graces with two new shows. In so doing, the section takes on some badly needed balance, and reads like a discussion appropriate to an encyclopedia, not a more sensational publication. Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think even into 2013, the Controversies section is still completely undue weight to matters that are under the bridge and fairly trivial, at that. What also worries me is that good Wikipedians aren't giving a shit about this page. For example, this formatting error was in place for 8 days without any regular editors lifting a finger to fix it. Let's clean up the garbage in the Controversies section, and let's move it toward the bottom of the article, where it belongs. - (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for cutting it further. I gave it a good revision in early 2011, as noted above, but the controversy was far fresher then than it is now, and there were more militant editors than now. Now all we need is the big picture.
As for the formatting error, which is actually a stale template still in place, that's the nature of the beast, and it hardly stands as an indictment of "good" Wikipedians. Edits go where interest goes. Why not register and take some responsibility for the article rather than pointing fingers at others from behind an IP? That's what a good Wikipedian does. --Drmargi (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Alleged engagement to WWF "Diva"[edit]

Several folks have posted news that Robert Irvine is supposedly engaged to a so-called WWF Diva (whatever that is). The first edits were unsourced, and the recent one was from a wrestling website passing on a gossipy tweet. We have no information that he's divorced from his first wife, and the source for the engagement is far from reliable. It sounds like a giant hoax to me. Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Drmargi get your facts straight please its WWE not WWF and a diva is like a female wrestler. Intoronto1125 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. The issue is unsourced gossip being added to the article, not my command of trash entertainment in which I haven't the slightest interest. And do not edit another editor's writing. Drmargi (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Drmargi is correct, the article needs to abide by WP:BLP and the WWF Diva engagement would need reliable sources in order to add that content. As for the WWF/WWE issue, not worth aggressive comments; and after all WWF is the former name of the WWE. Can't we all just get along?  :) Dreadstar 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, heavens yes. It's just irritating to be corrected on a small detail that's not relevant to the article; had it been put on my talk page, I'd probably have appreciated the info, but on this page and couched as "get your facts straight", it felt like I was being called out. It's a minor matter the other editor and I dealt with. Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The rumors was that he and Gail Kim (the WWE Diva in question) were engaged to be married. Gail has tweeted that those are unfounded rumors and nothing more, and that she doesn't talk about her personal life. This is a pwsforum thread on the subject ( Not saying that via that thread is proof, I'm only saying that that thread is where it had been discussed and dismissed. I think that the fuel to the rumor also came from where Robert was sitting at the recent WWE Hall of Fame (as shown in this picture: (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That helps a lot. There has been nothing reliably sourced that he is divorced from his current wife, much less engaged to this other woman. All anyone is passing on is one gossipy tweet, from what I can tell, with no attempt to fact-check. Irvine laughed it off as a rumor on his twitter account. Drmargi (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another rumor-ish edit, based on a gossipy note that Irvine and Kim were "spotted" somewhere in Florida, has been reverted. The editor did not source correctly, and added far more information than is actually in the piece he refers to in his edit summary. The piece claims Irvine and Kim are dating, but says nothing about the state of his marriage, and its reliability is questionable at best. Despite this, the editor stated he is divorced, a clearly unsourced statement. Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He said in an interview yesterday that they are engaged, here is the url for the interview I'm too dumb to figure out how to source it on the mainpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How is an interview with Irvine himself (even if it is a podcast), not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, so since they got married yesterday, is it still just a rumor? (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant opening is listed, but not closing[edit]

Do Irvine's restaurants belong in the "Early life and career" section? If so, it seems like restaurant openings and closings should both be listed. If not, neither belongs there. User:Drmargi keeps removing any mention of eat!'s closing with the comment "The restaurant is not a biographical detail," but leaving the fact of eat!'s opening. Can anybody explain the sense of this? --Alexbook (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

After repetitively removing any mention of eat's closing,User:Drmargi requested that discussion be moved to this talk page. However, User:Drmargi has not yet responded to the aforementioned question fromUser:Alexbook regarding the lack of logic in insisting on keeping the opening of the restaurant in the article while deleting any mention of the same restaurant's closure, despite requesting that discussion be moved to the talk page. I agree with User:Alexbook in questioning the argument of User:Drmargi that mention of the closure of the restaurant is not an admissible biographical detail while the opening of the restaurant is an admissible biographical detail. Failure to mention the closure of eat! insinuates that the restaurant is still open for business. Thus, the article would be promulgating inaccurate information should it continue to exclude the mention of the closure. I would like to read what User:Drmargi has to say to support the case that mention of closure should be excluded while mention of the opening should be included. (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all, IP, discuss the issue not the editor, or take it to my talk page. Second of all, editors will respond in their own time, not to your timeline.
The content regarding the opening of the restaurant describes Irvine's activities, i.e. he opened the restaurant. That's a biographical detail that merits inclusion. The comment that the restaurant was closed is a. unsourced; b. was at one point attributed to it having failed (which is incorrect) and; c. is about the restaurant, not about Irvine, the topic of the article. The notion that omission somehow promulgates inaccurate information is a nonsense. The purpose of the article is to provide A biography of Irvine, not keep readers up-to-date on his restaurant. Ergo, just as with closures of restaurants featured on shows such as Kitchen Nightmares (which have nothing to do with the show), the closure of the restaurant, as presented thus far, has nothing to do with Irvine. --Drmargi (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response User:Drmargi. Your editor's "timeline" evidently allows time for you to delete and undo multiple article edits of three different users within minutes of each of their postings, yet it somehow takes a full week to respond to a discussion that you requested to occur in the talk section of this page. Additionally, your contribution history shows that have been active on Wikipedia each day since as you have been undoing contributions of other users. If you have time to undo other users' posts then surely you have time to participate in a discussion that you asked for in the first place. This kind of incongruent discrepancy comes off as convenient and self-serving as edits to this page that you do not like will evidently be summarily reverted without first engaging you in a talk page discussion that you have delayed participating in until attention was finally brought to your conspicuous absence. Thus, a failure to engage the talk page discussion with nothing remotely close to the speed with which other users' edits were undone by you appears as nothing short of an intentional obstruction and delay to the efforts of other users to improve the article's accuracy in favor of your own autocratic whim and wanton monopolization of article content. All of which impugns the accuracy of the article as well as your objectivity as an editor.
Regardless, your counterarguments for undoing mention of the restaurant closing are, at best, specious. I agree that the content regarding the opening of the restaurant describes Irvine's activities. However, I fail to see any argument that content regarding Irvine's decision to close the restaurant does not equally describe Irvine's activities. Also, your assertion that the comments regarding that the restaurant is now closed were unsourced is incorrect; the comment was sourced at 01:47, 21 January 2014‎ by That sourced comment was undone by you less than an hour after posting with the assertion that the restaurant was not a biographical detail. Interestingly enough, the reference link to Irvine's own webpage that discussed the closure of eat! seems to have mysteriously, and rather conveniently, gone dead since the posting by that IP user. Is Irvine, or someone else, trying to cover this closure up by removing mention of eat! from his website? Nonetheless, Zagat, Yelp! and the Island Packet all have functional source links that can be referenced in discussion of the closure of the restaurant in lieu of Irvine's website.
If the restaurant is not a biographical detail then why is any mention of it included at all? The discrepancy of mentioning one and not the other gives the appearance of a rather hypocritical train of thought. Moreover, it is not correct to assert that the restaurant did not fail. There is zero unbiased proof to show that is not the case. When a restaurant closes then it fails to exist. The aforementioned sources say that Irvine asserts that the rent was too high. Well, if that is the case then why sign that high a lease in the first place? If Irvine could not make enough money off the restaurant to make the lease affordable, should that not constitute grounds for financial failure? Additionally, there was an amelioration of the statement that suggested that the restaurant failed and reverted it to simply say that it was closed by that user. That change occurred less than 20 minutes after the initial posting. Apparently, you find that sequence of actions to be a rationale and license for undoing any mention of the restaurant closing in the further contributions of any and all users. Furthermore, suggesting that it is nonsensical to state that an omission of information makes the article inaccurate is in itself nothing more than a lackadaisical assertion on your part. It is, however, nonsense to suggest that the closure of his own restaurant has nothing to do with Irvine in any way. After all, it's his restaurant. Finally, in consideration of Irvine's televised role of a "restaurant rescuer" on Restaurant: Impossible, it comes off as rather ironic that he did not, or more likely could not, keep a restaurant in business that he himself owned. (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:TLDR. Cut the hyperbole, keep the focus on the issue and get to the point. --Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Drmargi, since you have not been capable, or inclined, to refute a single one of my arguments, I'm just going to revert the page to reflect the fact that Irvine's restaurant is not open. Should you not like that, you really ought to come up with something more compelling to strengthen your argument. Refusing to engage in a discussion does not make you a prima facie victor. Instead, it is nothing but obstructionism. I am very sorry if this bothers you, but my arguments obviously are proving difficult for you to respond to. You have not answered a single one of my arguments or charges with any sort of compelling answer. That suggests that you know that I am fully right and correct, but can't handle the fact that you have no argument to support your view. If you can't figure out what the points are then you obviously do not have a strong grasp of the English language. Sorry, it's not hyperbole when it is correct. Please stop inferring with the veracity of this article and stay off this page, until you can respond to each of my points with a compelling counter-argument. (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia pages on chefs like Ferran Adria and Emeril Lagasse make mention of the closure of some of their restaurants, what is the rationale that the mention of the closure of a restaurant owned by Mr. Irvine be repetitively deleted from Wikipedia? Why does User:Drmargi insist on persisting to enforce this rather severe double standard without producing a single bit of evidence to support this arbitrary and capricious stance? (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a double standard at all. Inclusion of unsourced content in one article is never a justification to include it in another, especially when it comes to BLPs as there may be legal implications. If unsourced content is present in these articles it should be removed. --AussieLegend () 10:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)