Talk:Robert Irvine

message: 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)
replies: text: MCFA probably is 'Malta Cookery and Food Association'.  MCFA sponsors several culinary contests. Mylorin (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCFA C.G. ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  News release, citations needed 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Birthplace

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Veracity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV in Omissions/Inclusions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please read the article carefully as well as the discussion above. Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fraud allegations 

message: 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)
thread_title: Current Status as of June 2008

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 FN.com 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  TV.com 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not crystal ballism

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Youtube interviews are not a reliable source that he ever served on HMY Britannia nor are promotional 'blurb' from a TV channels PR department. A massive case of 'citation needed' is needed all through this page.--Nozzer71 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: is needed. Belasted (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen worse on here.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me. I'd really like to see worse. Belasted (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged engagement to WWF "Diva" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Irvine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chefrobertirvineblog.com/index.php/robert0004-jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017014615/http://lachaine.org:80/orlando_Current_event.htm to http://www.lachaine.org/orlando_Current_event.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Robert Irvine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506123818/http://www.irvinethyme.com/AboutUs.htm to http://www.irvinethyme.com/AboutUs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705164907/http://www.chefsforhumanity.com/pdf/SponsorshipInformation.pdf to http://www.chefsforhumanity.com/pdf/SponsorshipInformation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411150157/http://blogs.timesunion.com/tablehopping/5164/return-date-for-dinner-impossible-with-local-chef to http://blogs.timesunion.com/tablehopping/5164/return-date-for-dinner-impossible-with-local-chef
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328050120/http://blogs.islandpacket.com/40739 to http://blogs.islandpacket.com/40739
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122020314/http://www2.wsav.com/news/2011/dec/12/food-network-star-opens-second-restaurant-lowcount-ar-2854984/ to http://www2.wsav.com/news/2011/dec/12/food-network-star-opens-second-restaurant-lowcount-ar-2854984/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To add to this article: Irvine's net worth. He has stated that just one of his businesses, if it sold today, would sell for half a billion U.S. dollars. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net worth