Talk:Wine Spectator

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The following was originally posted on /Comments on 20 August 2008, 20:41 (UTC), but was moved here by Robert Skyhawk.
Hi,
I represent Wine Spectator. We recently had an incident in which an author named Robin Goldstein submitted a fraudulent application to our Restaurant Awards program. He created a fictitious restaurant in Milan, Italy, called Osteria L’Intrepido, with an actual address and phone number, then submitted a menu and wine list and website address to Wine Spectator’s Restaurant Awards as a new entry in 2008. The wine list earned an Award of Excellence, the most basic of our three award levels.
He revealed his fake entry at a meeting last week and has been publicizing it on his own Web site and on other wine blogs, but has only put forth limited information about his fake submission and how he perpetrated the fraud, in a way that we feel portrays our program's criteria inaccurately instead of laying out all the facts. We believe he may be doing this to seek publicity for himself or his own book about wine. Now we discovered he or someone else posted an entry about his fraud on the Wikipedia entry about Wine Spectator, without the full facts. We would not normally edit a page about ourselves, but we would like to set forth the facts of the matter before more misinformation is disseminated. We have added links to our explanation of the fraud and of program, if that is acceptable. 
However, we are concerned that the person who posted the information about Goldstein will continue to revise the page. So we wanted to check the best way to proceed with the Wikipedia community and we are happy to provide whatever other information the community needs.
Thank you for your help.
˜˜˜˜Dana Nigro, managing editor, WineSpectator.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnigro (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is a perfectly fine place to bring this up, thank you for your proactive approach Dana. Let me say that Wikipedia's policy is only to include content that is verifiable, not everything that is possibly true. What does this mean? To put it plainly, unless some reliable, published sources (as in traditional periodicals or the like) cover the subject, we will not be addressing it. As an encyclopedia, we are all about distilled knowledge, not writing original reporting. Hope that helps, Steven Walling (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Italian, but I'm pretty sure this article in today's edition of La Repubblica, the largest daily circulation newspaper in Italy, is reporting on the scandal: "Super premio da Wine Spectator ma il ristorante non è mai esistito". --Kharker (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right Dnigro, I apologize for my miseducation. And thank you to all who responded to this. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kharker, I think we should wait for English sources, if only to make it easier to readers to confirm that the article verifies the facts. Steven Walling (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a pass with some English language sources. Hope they appear nonPOV. MURGH disc. 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Murgh, do self-published blogs count as reliable, published sources? Wikipedia's definition seems to imply that a certain level of fact-checking is required to meet that definition, but we've found that a number of blogs out there, including some you cite, did not publish sufficient details to explain the situation, nor did they contact Wine Spectator to try to get its side of the story before publishing. For example, statements such as "Researcher constructs wine list of the lowest scoring Italian wines from Wine Spectator in the last decade" leave out the detail that only 15 out of 256 wines on the list were low-scoring (below 80 points, which is defined as "good"). Regardless of the decision on that subject, we're happy if the link to our full response and our awards program details are provided in any context where otherwise incomplete information appears, so we thank you for that. Dnigro (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The strength of the sources can of course be discussed, but for me per WP:RS, blog publications by published authors and journalists can be found to add context as limited, secondary sources. The Wine Spectator response by forum isn't ideal either, but I'm sure it will eventually come to consensus. MURGH disc. 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments regarding posted information about recent hoax 

message: When did the magazine change its name from "The Wine Spectator" to "Wine Spectator", and when did it move from San Diego to New York City? If you can find the answers, please add them to the article. DBlomgren (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History questions