Talk:List of Iron Chef America episodes

Error in secret ingredient link; how do we actually reference this?
Season 2, 2005, Episode 4 (Morimoto vs. Sanchez), the ingredient on the show was "black bass". Unfortunately, the casual term can confuse people. The link in this article for "black bass" goes to the freshwater sunfish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bass - i.e. "largemout", "smallmouth", "spotted" bass. And that is not the fish used on the show; observing that episode reveals that it really should be black SEA bass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_sea_bass. A comparison of the picture at that link as well as other Google images show that that's the actual fish used in the show.

I want to change the link, but as per the editing standard, I have no direct reference coming out and saying that the episode used black sea bass. I'm relying on 1. My own personal experience as a fisherman, and 2. Comparison of images on the internet. How would this be referenced? Or should the link just be changed without further work and worry?

Aldctjoc (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not doing anything different that whoever originally set up the link did, so I'd go ahead and make the change. I would be careful to leave an explanatory edit summary to make your rationale clear, but I doubt there will be much fuss.  --Drmargi (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd proceed with caution, Aldctjoc. Here's some general wikipedia advice from someone who's used the site since the early 00s. On many wikipedia pages there is one editor who has put in a lot of work on that page, and does not want anything happening to it that he or she does not agree with. On any given wikipedia page, you can scope that possibility out for yourself simply by looking at the revision history of the page, the talk page, the talk page archive if it exists, and the revision history of the talk page. Have fun! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.205.66 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Country
I've changed the flag for Roger Mooking to "Canada". While he might have been born in Trinidad, this chef is now Canadian. It is well established that he was raised in Canada and made both of his careers in Canada. As an alternative, it might be worthwhile putting icons of both flags, but place of birth alone seems arbitrary and irrelevant. Agent 86 (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit is inconsistent with the body of flag identifiers which are countries of birth, and represents your POV perception of Mooking's influences. Many others are naturalized citizens, and may also be influenced by their adopted countries, but we have no way of documenting this; home country is consistent across the article.  Moreover, Mooking is influenced by his Trinidadian roots as well, to which he routinely refers in his various Food Network and Cooking Channel appearances.  His relationship with his adopted country can be discussed at length in his article.  --Drmargi (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My POV, nothing. It's the fact that Mooking is a Canadian. By this logic and your POV, Giada De Laurentis must have an Italian flag next to her name in this article. She was born in Italy and her cooking is influenced by her Italian roots, which she routinely refers to in her TV shows. It's also inconsistent with the icon for Marcus Samuelsson, who correctly is identified with a Swedish flag, rather than an Ethiopian flag, which would represent the country of his birth and represents one of the cultural influences that is strongly reflected in his cooking and his TV appearances. Truth is, the article is already internally inconsistent and using a factual basis for a flag icon seems appropriate, which in reality supports the suggestion that more than one flag icon is appropriate for such individuals. Agent 86 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix Giada and Samuelsson. (Never mind; I did.) --Drmargi (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems rather disingenuous to "fix" a problem that didn't exist and was contrary to my point. In fact, I clearly stated that the Swedish flag was correct for Samuelsson. Moreover, it's somewhat misleading to imply that De Laurentis is Italian and nothing else. Despite her strong Italian roots, which I noted, I find it hard to believe that she is not American. This leads me to my earlier suggestions, that it is appropriate to have two flags for individuals with strong roots or connections to two countries. Agent 86 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pfft! Nothing disingenuous about it. You found an inconsistency, and I fixed it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

After researching Wiki policies and guidelines that might offer assistance, I've gone and removed all the flag icons. Any usage of flag icons in this article is inconsistent with a number of guidelines set out in the Manual of Style for Icons. Thinking about it, many of the individuals at issue have articles, which will better explain any given chef's national heritages. Moreover, if it's important enough to include, notes can be added to chefs who do not live in America but compete on the show. Agent 86 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue of icons being included has been previously discussed with no consensus to remove as failing WP:ICON. I've restored your revert over consensus, and would encourage you to avoid was appears to be pointy editing. --Drmargi (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read that discussion, and it appears that the only "lack of consensus" was your own. My edit was perfectly in keeping with the discussion and is supported by WP:ICON. Your version has no basis in policy or guidelines. Moreover, I would remind you to assume good faith before accusing others of doing what you yourself might be characterized as doing. Agent 86 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. The stable version of the article retained the flags after the discussion and that constitutes consensus -- you know how this works.  This sudden interest in application of policy in an article in which you've previously taken no interest is hard to see as anything other than what it is: selective and somewhat creative application of policy to make a point.  The use of flags within this article falls within policy as they impart specific information; they are the alternative to more notes in an already note-heavy article.  The flags have been here consistently since the origin of the article.  As for assumption of good faith, I'd get out a mirror, then ask yourself what this is really about -- the best interests of this article, or a grudge and the desire to win.  The culinary field is very international, and nationality plays a significant role, as well as being stressed, on Iron Chef America.  Meanwhile, the article must remain at its stable version during discussion, and the WP:BURDEN is on you to gain new consensus, not to keep reverting.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is NOT an international competition -- or, honestly, a meaningful competition -- nor is even organized along any kind of international lines that way that, nominally, the original Iron Chef was. The nationalities -- however defined -- are utterly irrelevant and adds not a scintilla of understanding here. So yeah, out they go absent something more than empty handwaving. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one said it was. Please reread my comments carefully.  An editor as experienced as you should know the article stays at status quo until new consensus is reached.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one said what? It's a straightforward statement, explaining to you -- despite your vague handwaving -- why flag icons don't belong. Also, if you want something included, you have to make the case and convince others: an editor as experienced as you should actually know that instead of hiding behind Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

BS. This is one editor disrupting an article because xe can't have their own way, and canvassing a bully-buddy off Wiki to make it happen. When an edit is in dispute, the stable version is considered consensus, and the editor wanting to change the article has to discuss and get a consensus. The flag icons do a job in this article, and should remain. The Canada flag discussion is a different problem that should be worked out without all the disruptive editing removing valuable content. WP:icon covers decorative use of flags. Thses flags are comparable to the ones used in a lot of Sports articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.172 (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [I wrote the following before the preceding - and somewhat suspect - comment was posted, resulting in an editing conflict. i am going to ignore it as it is largely founded on speculation with no basis in fact or any type of proof.]
 * If you really want to know why I have a "sudden" interest in this article, Drmargi, and not that you really need to know, it's because I was reading up on Roger Mooking, which led me to this article. I noticed the inaccurate flag, so I made one small edit - corrected the flag by his name. You also know full well that one of the types of articles that interest me are ones about TV shows - and Iron Chef America is a TV show. And while I will acknowledge that it was a very long time ago, I have edited this article before. Not only have you failed to assume good faith, based on your past history on this article, it appears you're straying into ownership of the article. As for my motive, it was and remains the accuracy of the article. At first I made a change that was in keeping with common sense. When you decided to twist my comments and "fix" what wasn't wrong (a very "pointy" thing to do, to borrow your phrase), rather than endlessly debate in circles, I decided to check policy and guidelines. Guess what? Turns out you and I were both wrong and the applicable guideline indicates that flag icons do not belong in this article. While I've acknowledged that fact, you seem unable to. I stand by my good-faith edits and my position, as they are consistent with the applicable guideline. How that is editing to "make a point" is beyond me. Rather than trying to attack me, instead of my argument, (or Calton, by questioning his expertise despite years of contributing rather than addressing his argument) you'd be much better off presenting a rational response that is founded in some sort of policy or guideline. Agent 86 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're really good at abiding by every policy except the one that says that we leave an article at status quo during discussion. Instead, you dodge your responsibility to gain consensus under WP:BURDEN and have tried to throw that on to me.  Sorry, no dice.  It's amusing, given the number of IP's that routinely edit this article (and there are a lot) that this particular one, who calls you on your actions, is "suspect".  A convenient view, given, in somewhat less than elegant language, the editor makes valid points, particularly about the disruption of the article (I can't speak to the sports element without some research, since I don't edit sports articles.)  So, back to status quo we go, and let's get a solution hammered out.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me as how WP:BURDEN applies. That portion of Verifiability has absolutely nothing to do with consensus. It is entirely about providing verifiable sources about disputed content. So if the issue were the factuality of any given flag next to a person, BURDEN says provide a verifiable source for the asserted fact. However, it in no way supports the suggestion that flag icons are appropriate for the article. Agent 86 (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the hundredth time, you're using WP:BRD, which is neither policy nor guideline, wrong again. Agent 86 (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it further, WP:BURDEN supports exclusion of the flag icons, unless you go in and footnote each one with a verifiable reliable source for each one. Agent 86 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems awfully convenient that the "status quo" and "consensus" version happens to be the version to which Drmargi stubbornly adheres to, despite the use of the flag icons being contrary to WP:ICON and WP:BURDEN. I fail to see how a version that runs contrary to policy and guidelines can remain in place, whatever the content dispute. It now seems necessary to spell this out in detail. Here are a few of the reasons why WP:ICON precludes the exclusion of the flag icons:


 * ICON says, "When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant"
 * The cheftestants do not actually represent their countries in the competition. It is a contest between individuals. The nationality of the contestants is not usually pertinent to the purpose of the list. ICON indicates flag icons should only be used next to individuals who are officially representing the country indicated. As I suggested above, if nationality is worth noting, it should be done as a note, which the article actually makes good use of. (See WP:WORDPRECEDENT)
 * The guideline discourages use of flag icons in sportspeople's individual infoboxes. By analogy, they should not be used in an article.
 * If flags are to be used, the guideline requires the use of the country's name next to it, which would unnecessarily clutter the article and is beyond its scope.
 * ICON says, "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason."
 * ICON says, "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality."
 * On biographical usage, ICON says "Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. For example, the actress Naomi Watts could be said, depending upon context and point of view, to be any or all of: British, English, Welsh, or Australian. She was born a British citizen in England, lived in Wales for a long time, then moved to Australia and became an Australian citizen. There is no single flag for that, and using all four flags will not be helpful…Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality; a great many people have been born or have died abroad." Watts' circumstances are similar to several individuals in this article, including the chefs discussed above (i.e. Mooking, De Laurentis, Samuelsson).
 * Take heed. ICON says, "Avoid flag usage, especially to present a point of view, that is likely to raise editorial controversy over political or other factual matters about a biography subject."
 * An analogy to usage for sportspeople is not helpful for inclusion. ICON clearly states the flag is to be used for the country, not the individual, competing in the event. Other countries do not officially send competitors to Iron Chef America. This is reinforced by the admonition, "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise."
 * ICON says, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Sounds like the case with this article.

If need be, I can go through this same exercise with WP:BURDEN. In short, without putting citations of reliable verifiable sources next to each flag icon, they should stay out. Agent 86 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The show sources the icons, as it does the chefs, specializations, secret ingredient and score, as has been accepted practice since the article was written (excepting the after-the-fact addition of early scores), a common practice with television articles, so the source argument is moot. Moreover, your continuous refusal to respect WP:BRD, an essay which widely accepted and followed by the larger Wikipedia community (as has been pointed out by many an administrator in many an application), is increasingly disruptive. There's a limit to how long you can hide behind "it's not policy" -- the community expectation is that once an edit is reverted, you, as the editor making the change will start a discussion designed to find a resolution to the problem, not have an electronic temper tantrum designed to accomplish who-knows-what by removing information that has been in the article and valued by readers since the article was written.


 * There is no consensus whether WP:ICON is applicable here, just your interpretation, which you continue to try to unilaterally force on the article (as is your wont other places as well), thus further disrupting the article. And all so you can win a petty victory over one flag.  This could have been solved by now had you stopped reverting, discussed and worked toward an acceptable middle ground after the first revert.  But instead you came out with both guns blazing, refuse to respect the expectations of the community regarding the handling of edit conflicts (as spelled out in BRD), act on a grudge toward me, and possibly even canvassed off-Wiki to bring in an editor never involved in this article or issue before, as suggested by another poster.  It's time for you to walk away from this article, and frankly, Wikipedia until you can get some perspective on how ludicrous this situation has become, how blinded by petty spite you are, and how rooted in a rigid position you are that it will never be possible to find a collegial solution to this issue.  I will again extend the offer to work toward a reasonable solution, but you must cease disrupting the article, leave it as it is per the expectations of the community in a conflict, and stick to reasoned discussion of the original issue, Roger Mooking's flag, on this talk page.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. I don't know how to respond to such a bitter, self-serving response that says more about you than the false motives you attribute to me. Maybe take a moment and think about it. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with policy and practice, as I always have. Agent 86 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't check this article for four crummy weeks, and I come back to nearly 3000 more words of talkpage venom between drmargi and whoever. That's been going on for years on this and other drmargi-"owned" pages. Last time she got into one of these flamewars on this page, late last year, she took the whole talkpage and stuck it into an archive so people wouldn't see it any more without making a special effort. But because her way of interacting in editorial matters has not changed, it's building right up again identically here, like a huge rock of crystallized venom. I always wonder why no one on wikiedpia ever really disciplines her. 173.77.205.66 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmagi, there's nothing to discuss here. MOS:ICON obviously and clearly applies here. There is no need to gain consensus to apply guidelines. First off, this isn't even a competition, it's a TV show. Second, the people are in no way representing their countries. Third, the nationality of the contestants is not relevant. You can argue all you like, but the place you need to argue is at WT:MOS, not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is what I said, albeit your explanation is much more succinct. And as Drmargi knows about this, this can be closed absent any actual rebuttal. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Guarnaschelli's Specialty
First, I would like to note a message I received from Dr. Margi:

Drmargi thanked you for your edit on Iron Chef America. "→‎Iron Chef statistics: Fixed AG's specialty to something which actually exists, adjusted Zakarian's to be more accurate (he referes to himself as a French chef repeatedly on NIC and ICA"

I've no idea why she "thanked" me, since she then proceeded to revert my edit. I can do without the snide disingenuous faux-thanks, thank you.

However, I am not really here to to discuss backhanded thank-yous but Chef Alex Guarnaschelli's specialty. Whoever put "American market garden" as the specialty is simply incorrect. And it comes from no, to my knowledge, verifiable source. Margi reverted my edit on the basis of Chef G's ICA Bio.

Let us look at the bio, then: http://www.foodnetwork.com/chefs/alexandra-guarnaschelli/index.html

Those who care to read it will note that nowhere in it is the phrase "American market garden" used. The most the bio says is that her cuisine, at one of her her two restaurants, is "eclectic American and green market-inspired." Someone simply jumbled two of those words and added a third completely out of the aether. You will note, nowhere on the page at all is the word "garden" even used.

In addition, "market" is not a descriptor of a cuisine specialty. Farmer's market, the article to which it was hyperlinked, or otherwise. A farmer's market is simply a place to purchase ingredients. It is akin to saying one's cuisine specialty is convenience store.

There is a somewhat consistent format to the page, though having some chefs be "American" and others "New American" and yet others "Modern American" etc when they all mean the same thing is a bit confusing, and adding yet another, an incorrect one based on one Wikipedian's personal interpretation / rearranging of some words, certainly doesn't make the page any better. Were we simply to refer to AG as American it would be absolutely accurate and unarguable. Until someone provides some kind of attribution for "American market garden" (which I would still argue is incorrect, as neither "market" nor "garden" are cuisine styles) we should avoid edit warring on this one. "American" or "Modern American" everyone can agree is correct, yes? A Screaming Comes Across The Sky (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Win-Loss?
Can it be "Win-lose-draw"? OccultZone (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

End-Note numbering
I see, after looking through the Talk Archives, that this is not the first time this has happened, but the end-note numbering is all kinds of crazy. The end-note reference shown at the text level, for most of the page, is 10 higher than the end-note it is referencing at the end of each "season" section. But then when you get down to season 13, they match again, although the text level numbers overlap some of the numbers from above it. Is there no way this can be done automatically, so someone doesn't have to continuously fix it manually? &rarr;ClarkCTTalk @ 03:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)