Talk:Robert Irvine

MCFA C.G. ?

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 66.92.217.194 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

News release, citations needed

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)

Birthplace

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.... 81.137.246.159 (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)

Citizenship

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

Veracity

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. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was the "Controversy" section removed in its entirety by User:70.18.190.64 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 70.18.190.64 has made to Wikipedia are the removal of negative comments about Irvine, I wonder if he is one of his reps or Irvine himself. 209.247.22.166 (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. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:70.17.33.105 and User:70.18.190.64 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. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:70.18.191.240 (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

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 http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/Food/Knight_moves.shtml 8 months ago

and http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/18/images/chefresume.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.93.40 (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"

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. http://www.wfsb.com/foodnews/15454213/detail.html 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

POV in Omissions/Inclusions

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)

fraud allegations

just today he was exposed as a fraud! someone please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.143.201 (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)