Talk:Robert Parker (wine critic)

Article name
Ending DOT in the name causes problems in interwiki links. Why not "%2E" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerdami (talk • contribs) 2007-07-10
 * If you want, create a redirect page with the name you prefer. -Amatulic (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV
I found the article here to be too much of a list of medals and awards. That part would better be presented as a list, and not "fake prose"

Agree. Justinc 16:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. WineDrinkerMe 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to have been placed by Parker's publicists. I was tempted to mark it for deletion on the grounds of self-promotion or advertising, but I suspect that would be harsh. Anybody want to take a look at a more balanced view? WineDrinkerMe 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact the article originated as a cut-and-paste job from Parker's web site, see comments below, hence it was as you say rather self-promoting. It is now much better, more NPOV. Paul Matthews 11:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the first paragraph to a more NPOV, according to my journalistic training, and reasonable international knowledge of the wine world, because it was somewhat platitudinal in vocab, and boosterish. Some subtle rearrangement and substitution. This should be acceptable both to his friends and his detractors. Happy to discuss. Richardhod (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible additions
I attended a Burgundy wine tasting recently and the vintner from France was fuming at various points about Robert Parker and I think he said there had been lawsuits. I searched and found this, but would be interested in more info if anybody has it:

"http://www.datamantic.com/joedressner/pageforward/9/ The Burgundy market has become confused since Robert Parker stopped visiting Burgundy. No one knows if they should believe Pierre Rovani, no one really believes Steve Tanzer other than crazy Burgundy geeks and me, who is Clive Coates anyhow(?), and the Wine Spectator will no doubt review the vintage either 3 months before they are available or 3 to 6 months after they are available. This leaves everyone bewildered. Distributors and merchants will actually have to make decisions unaided by enthusiastic publicity."

and in a Slate article

"http://slate.msn.com/id/2067055/ Parker's grip on the wine world may be starting to loosen, however. It used to be that only the Burgundians, who make minute quantities of highly coveted wines and therefore have little need to placate the press, had the courage not to kowtow to Parker (indeed, he is now a persona non grata in Burgundy and recently handed over coverage of the region to an assistant). But other winemakers are beginning to speak up. Last year, for instance, Parker was publicly slammed by the Mondavis, the first family of American wine. He had alleged, in print, that the Mondavi winery was slipping because it was not fashioning the kind of blockbuster Cabernets that are currently Napa Valley's stock in trade (and that Parker loves). The Mondavis pointedly replied that their aim is to craft elegant, food-friendly wines, not critic bait. More interestingly, the buzz at this year's annual Bordeaux barrel tastings was that several prominent winemakers known for turning out turbocharged wines have now renounced that approach and are embracing a more traditional style that emphasizes finesse over power."

also, information to be found here http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/shap01_.html

There have been more attacks recently (although the Burgundy stuff has been going on for a while). A lot of it came to a head after the release of Mondovino. Will try to write something up. Justinc 16:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biography source
I removed the notice of copywrite infringement and replaced it with a stub page.

I received permision from Mark Braunstein of eRobertParker.com to copy the page http://www.erobertparker.com/info/rparker.html for Wikipedia.

This is actually a pretty good biography, and very neutral for something from his own site. However, do we have permission to modify it? The influence of Parker's scores on the wine world is perhaps his most important impact, and it is not discussed at all. I would rather have a small article discussing Parker and the effect of scores than a large biography that overlooks that point. Also, the ad at the bottom for erobertparker.com (a fine site that I myself visit a few times a week) seems slighly inappropriate, although as a newbie I don't know what the rules are on that. Wnissen 19:32 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The acknowledgment on the page read:

"The above text was generously provided courtesy of eRobertParker.com, Robert Parker's website. Visit it for online access to a searchable database of wine tastings dating back over  a decade."

This really shouldn't be part of the page contents, as it discourages people from updating it, and sounds like an advertisement. --Eloquence 19:18 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I altered a similar comment in the source code to reflect that, while the article may have originated with such text, it is no longer solely composed of such text. Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Is there a reason why the immense amount of controversy over (and in some areas, rage about) Parker's influence on the wine industry is only barely touched upon? --Charlene.vickers 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree, the page is too pro Parker, especially the first section which is just lifted from his own website. I may add some more on controversy, as that seems to be the general view? 128.243.220.41 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Points system
The section on his ranking system for wines implies that this is a universally accepted standard - living in the UK I've never heard of him until reading this article, let alone his points system for wines. It certainly is not used on store shelves in this country or anywhere else in Europe as far as I know - I don't know enough background to make the edit myself, but strongly suspect this should all be qualified with 'in the USA...' --195.212.29.83 12:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - except I'd suggest in 'in North America... ' as he's popular in Canada too. WineDrinkerMe 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, you can edit wikipedia pages you know! I have removed the 'impossible to miss' phrase and inserted 'in North America' as you suggest. Paul Matthews 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, well aware I can edit, but if I know that I don't know enough about a subject (I came here, surprisingly enough, because I wanted to know who this 'Parker' guy was, rather than because I'm a domain expert...) then I'll just politely suggest the article may be flawed and move on. And I'm not a big 'wikipedian' - I came back to see how well the 'discussion' process works and I'm impressed, other than by the attitude :)  Anyway, cheers for the good work.  Maybe some day I'll sign up for a user account...--195.212.29.83 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Bertrand77 for finding a link to justify the statement about "some critics" disagreeing with the 100-point system. I've reworded that sentence based upon the cited reference. Macwhiz (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement about Parker's affinity for "brettanomyces and volatile acidity" has no basis in fact and is contrary to everything I know about Robery M. Parker. Please cite references or delete. netjunkie9 10:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Books
I cleared up the publcity section into a more readable and useful list. If anyone can be bothered to add ISBN's please do! WineDrinkerMe 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

81?
In this paragraph:

Because of his powerful influence, his experiences have ranged from having two chateau owners offer him the sexual favours of their daughters to receiving death threats. On one occasion the manager of Chateau Cheval Blanc, Jacques Hebrard, was outraged at Parker's evaluation of his 81 vintage barrel samples and asked Parker to retaste. Upon arriving, Parker was attacked by Hebrard's dog as the manager stood idly by and watched. When Parker asked for a bandage to stop the bleeding from his leg, Parker says Hebrard instead gave him a copy of the offending newsletter. Hebrard denies that Parker was bleeding. (McCoy, pages 159-160)

I can't figure out if the number 81 refers to the year 1981, a wine with a rating of 81, or maybe even (though I doubt it) 81 samples of the said wine. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself clarify this and edit the page accordingly? Thanks.Brian8710 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

=
================ "81 vintage" refers to the year the wine was made, 1981 RR- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.252.61 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wine Parkerization

 * Support the merge. I really can't see that article becoming more then a stub and Robert Parker is obviously the only context that one would would use the phrase Wine Parkerization. AgneCheese/Wine 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ◄ scharks ►  07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Action - merged I've sort of merged the text, the whole article could do with a general cleanup from a copyediting and citation POV.FlagSteward 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to Emile Peynaud who (according to Agostini and Guichard) seems to have been the one who initiated the change in winemaking that became later to be known as the "Parkerisation of wines". Alex Zivoder (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Points systems outside North America
I see Fmh1964's edit of 30 May 2007 tries to imply that British wine writers use points in a similar way to Parker, just out of 20. I'd disagree. The "20-pointers' seem to use points more for internal use just within a particular tasting, or at most within a particular class of wine, rather than as an absolute scale that stands for all time. Clive Coates has a good article on his website about this, how he could give 20 out of 20 to a Beaujolais or house claret or Midi Chardonnary, even though the latter was in no way as good as a 17/20 Montrachet. And in his books he avoids the use of points, he just talks about 'good', 'very fine' etc. From what I can work out, Jancis uses a similar system - you don't see point scores on her mainstream articles in the Financial Times (eg [here http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/20070604] or [here http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/20070530_2]), it tends to be only in fairly specialist tastings.  I think there are some major philosophical differences on the use of points on either side of the Atlantic, but I'm not quite sure how to fit them into the article - perhaps someone with more experience of marketing on both sides of the Atlantic could contribute to the article? FlagSteward 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Recognitions
I added the two awards Parker received in 2002 and 2005. Alex Zivoder (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chateau Pavie 2003
The purpose of this section is not very clear. An introduction and/or a conclusion is missing. Alex Zivoder (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read Agostini and Guichard's account of the 2003 Pavie (in French unfortunately), it seems to me that Parker's positive comments were not enough to keep the price up. This is why I preferred to delete the initial text with citations as it gave a different impression. Feel free to correct. Alex Zivoder (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong source
In the section "Impact on the supply: the "Parkerization" of wine" the following statement is made: "This point of view is presented in the 2004 documentary, Mondovino, which claims that Parker is "a man whose tastes are irrevocably changing the way some French wines are made" ". A link to a BBC article is given as a source. The BBC article does not mention the movie "Mondovino", though. Also, no such statement is made in the movie. I also do not see how that movie itself could "claim" anything - it consists entirely of interviews, so only the people being interviewed can make claims. Let me know if I misunderstood the sentence - but I really think it should be changed (delete the reference to the movie? or someone has to rewatch it and check, who is actually making this claim ;) ) Xtothel (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation should reference the person being interviewed, not just the movie. I'd say remove this if it adds no value.
 * What remains is a claim that misrepresents the cited source. Either the claim should be restated to match the source, or deleted entirely. -Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I changed the sentence and took out the reference to the movie. In the source it is stated, that the BBC correspondent in Paris made the cited ::statement. She is not in the movie - so I don't know how the movie got mixed up with that source. Xtothel (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Under "The 100 point system," the claim is made that Parker can tell everything about a wine in five seconds. A reference to an episode of 60 Minutes is given. That clip is available online—I've added a reference with the link—and I cannot find anything in the interview to justify this claim. Perhaps the claim was not made on 60 Minutes? Macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since that's pretty much exactly the contention and you have verified that it just isn't so, it would appear you've unveiled something untrue that should be removed. M URGH   talk  20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually found two other sources to back the claim, one of which is the Los Angeles Times. So the claim was correct, but the citation was not.  However, I think the article may still be misleading.  It seems like holding the wine in your mouth for five seconds and then spitting it out is a very common tasting practice, according to a Google search.  Are there citable sources to say otherwise, or to say that this technique was not common before Parker? Macwhiz (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very common and not at all something attributable to Parker. He would never say so either, but if he is quoted to say "I can tell everything about a wine.." then it's obviously controversial and needs exact sourcing. It seems unlikely he would say this too. Just that he tends to give 5-10 secs per wine when doing large tastings isn't particularly necessary to the article since it's so widely practiced. M URGH   talk  22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this article's been kicking my butt all afternoon, so I'm going to leave it to others to chase down more hard references to his exact claim and phrasing. It sounds like it certainly needs to be flagged for verification, and I've done so. Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts
OK, before making some comments let me state that I am (a) partially involved in the wine industry and (b) more or less despise Parker and everything he stands for. So with that negative bias acknowledged, let me make some observations of my own before making any changes to the article. Basically I feel that the article is too positive and too kind. He is without a doubt the most important wine critic in the world, but he is far more controversial than this article seems to imply.


 * The article repeatedly insists that Parker is "pro-consumer", whereas many in the wine industry feel he is completely beholden to his pet wineries, as evidenced by his frequent refusal to do blind tastings. (This latter point is one I have heard many Australian winemakers complain bitterly about, and I shall endeavour to find an independent resource for it. Parker's website claims the contrary, so I can't write otherwise until I have something more than anecdotal evidence).
 * The subheading "the first independent and impartial pro-consumer wine critic" has no place in Wikipedia as it constitutes a highly controversial statement and one that is unverified.
 * The subheading "2.2 A new tool for the consumer: Parker's 100-point rating system" seems to imply that rating systems only came about with Parker, which is completely untrue. Parker has popularised the 100 point system, but the European 20 point system has been around for a LONG time (I am investigating the actual details of this).

Any comments? I don't want to start editing without some form of consensus, partticularly given my obvious dislike of the subject.Manning (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can chip in some form of consensus. Quite a bit of work is needed for this article to achieve NPOV. M URGH   disc.  03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article does not seem neutral enough. Would be great if you found some good solid sources and edit. Xtothel (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 3 of you. However the only serious sources I found to-date are McCoy (2005) and Agostini and Guichard (2007, in French), the latter being very critical of Parker. I have tried to take the best pieces of Agostini and Guichard to make this article closer to a NPOV but as I can see a lot still needs to be done.

Btw I have nothing to do with wine: I am just a consumer. Alex Zivoder (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like there may be a new source: Wine Politics by Tyler Colman. See reference 1.  I admit I cheated and went from the "Search inside this book" feature on Amazon when adding that link... Macwhiz (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that some of the parts you quote seem like pro-Parker POV. But the section "Parker's flexible ethical standards" on the other hand contains fairly anti-Parker POV, and we're writing an encyclopedia rather than a review of, or discussion board on, Parker or Parkerized wines. In general, at all editing Wikipedia articles about people you claim to "more or less despise" including "everything [they] stand[s] for" must be discouraged in strong terms! Please remember that articles about living people are much more sensitive to edit than other articles! Tomas e (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a wine consumer, and I found much truth in this article, especially his impact on wine quality, prices, and availability, both good and, now that he is famous and powerful, bad. I also find his objectivity and thus his value as a critic lessened since his early guides from the 1980's. Still to me section 3, critical of him, is gossipy and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article - it reads more like a tabloid or political attack. I am a scientist and used to objective writing and think section 3 should be deleted.mathwonk76.20.251.227 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As I copy-edited the article, I kept an eye out for bias. As it stands currently, I don't see any particularly obvious bias in the article, but then I'm not intimately familiar with the wine world. Perhaps everyone could take a look at it and see if we're ready to remove the POV/neutrality banner? Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifics
I'm sure many agree with the above. Until someone (preferably armed with the sources) is motivated to seize this problem, I'll point to some specifics: "McCoy reports [22] the positive article written by Parker in the second issue of The Baltimore/Washington Wine Advocate on McArthur Liquors and his manager Addy Bassin. However Parker did not mention that the same Addy Bassin gave Parker the first file of 600 customers who received for free the first issue of The Baltimore/Washington Wine Advocate." I don't know what the McCoy source states specifically, but the above phrase contradicts other sources that state Parker purchased the customer list and not gave as WP here states. Business Week (a Parker statement, but certainly this can be independently verified) "The second issue of The Baltimore/Washington Wine Advocate informs the reader that "Robert Parker has no interest, direct or indirect, financial or any other, in importing, distributing or selling wines" [24]. In the early 90’s, Parker invests with his brother-in-law, Michael Etzel, in an Oregon vineyard: les "Beaux-Frères".[25] Robert Kacher is in charge of distributing half of the production of the Beaux-Frères vineyard. Of course, Parker does not assess the wines of this property, for "obvious deontological reasons".[26]" Here it could be mentioned that aside from the regular disclaimer, when this situation arose "Parker informed his Advocate readers and promised never to review any wines produced there." Time Tempted to begin boldly hacking away at some things, but I don't have the necessary resources and the job seems a bit too big for my plate right now. M URGH  disc.  13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free to cut down the article's length to 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is now. The problem with the article isn't just that it lacks sources for some statements, it's that much of it is unencyclopedic and the article gives a "schizo-POV" impression: some parts celebrate him, other are likely on the border of being libelous. Adding more sources wouldn't solve this basic problem. I would very much prefer a significantly shorter article written in dry, academic prose. Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How does the POV look now? Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink 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) 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
The article currently states: "Parker has stated very clearly...the high ethical standards on which his advice stands...By abiding by them, Parker seeks to guarantee that his valuations..." To my reading, this paragraph simply parrots the definition of ethical standards, and seems to suggest that Parker abides by them, but provides no basis for that belief. All conmen seek to convince their victims that they abide by ethical standards; I'm not suggesting that Parker is a conman, simply that the article should not pretend to know whether Parker abides by ethical standards or not. Since it is a controversial topic, for now I'm making my suggestion here rather than changing the article directly. 71.190.66.244 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased this somewhat in copy-edit, in an attempt to address your concerns. Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit
Completed a major copy edit. Wow, that was a tough one. Updated a lot of the references, bringing them up to date with the style guide, and chasing down refs that were broken or incorrect. I added a bunch of new ones as I found them, too. Deleted one or two insupportable statements that have lacked references for years, or that were written in editorial language. As someone who occasionally buys wine for cooking, but doesn't drink the stuff, it was an interesting topic, and I hope I was able to bring a neutral outside viewpoint to the article. Macwhiz (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, for some of the existing references, I was able to add relevant quotations that appear in the References section. I think this helps address any POV issues—it makes it easier to see what the main article is paraphrasing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macwhiz (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for digging in where many of us others are too terrified. Cheers. M URGH   talk  23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert M. Parker Jr.. 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/20110519182406/http://www.finewinemag.com/docs/SteinbergerWineWriting.pdf to http://www.finewinemag.com/docs/SteinbergerWineWriting.pdf

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) 12:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Commas, oh my GOD THE COMMAS!
Firstly this is a great article; a lot of really good work here. But it is clear to me that most of it has been written/edited by a millennial or someone hostage to their habits of putting, commas EVERYWHERE. Take, for example, this sentence:

In other words, Parker accused Faiveley of cheating.

How in god's name does the comma add anything? Just let sentences run. With minimal stoppage. That is what sentences are for. Trying to read an entire article like this is the literary equivalent of trying to do John Cleece's Silly Walk. You are constantly stopping and jerking, interrupting your natural momentum.

Imagine a whole novel! I hate to think what an unedited novel by a 25 year old must read like. Crikey. 122.58.219.76 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The punctuation in your example is correct. The comma is necessary to separate the introductory clause from the main clause (Example). The corrections you actually made, on the other hand, were fine. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)