Talk:Mystery Diners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scripted or reality[edit]

Is there any way to have a section on how the show is obviously fake? 71.178.57.22 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can reliably source that it's faked. The show has a disclaimer that some of what we see is re-enacted, but to suggest it's faked is completely different. The website everyone puts in doesn't understand the difference between the two, and is totally unreliable. --Drmargi (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted yet another edit claiming the show is not a reality show because it uses actors, etc. As always, it is sourced to a single website which is far from neutral and has a major axe to grind with the show; some edits are supported by discussion on a Chowhound blog which also fails RS. It is in no possible way a reliable source and the edits cannot be viewed as neutral as a result. I have no doubt the show uses re-enactments; there's a disclaimer to that effect at the end of the show, but this endless campaign to portray a minor TV show as some sort of fake or fraud has to stop. The last editor's comments that it is not "authentic" reality television is particularly troubling, as it suggests he/she is reserving the right to declare what reality TV is, something that should be based on what the network and consensus here agrees upon. --Drmargi (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted[edit]

The show is scripted. Numerous sources have reported on this fact, namely Radar Online -- which was dismissed and erroneously accused of 'having an axe to grind'. The show itself acknowledges that it uses 'reenactments'. The article needs to reflect this somewhere. Realnb (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article cobbles together second-hand claims and rumors from other websites. It does no fact checking, nor do its sources. Like this WP:SPA, it has an agenda! as do a group of sad souls who treat the show's re-enactments as some sort of conspiracy or fraud. --Drmargi (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against using the source is constantly changing. You originally denied that it even called it scripted, even though they used that specific word in the very first paragraph. You've just acknowledged that Mystery Diners does re-enactments. A reenactment is, by definition, a performance, as opposed to them documenting real experiences in the restaurant as they occur. If they are doing a reenactment, then it stands to reason they have a script, thus making it scripted. 'Scripted' is an accurate term for the show, and the words 'fraud' and 'conspiracy' are not part of my edit, nor are they part of the article, save a web address. Realnb (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not reliable. Period. Just because it's on some website doesn't make it true. We have standards for reliability of sources; see WP:RS. Moreover, the burden is on you to gain consensus to include content once it is challenged. Until then, the article remains at status quo, wit the content out. --Drmargi (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to you it's not. You gave no logical explanation for your 'challenge', and you actually reaffirmed the fact that it's a scripted show by acknowledging that it airs reenactments. Reenactments are scripted. Realnb (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying it's reliable, but don't provide any evidence as to what makes the website reliable. It's a little gossip site; that in itself doesn't do the job, and I've noted a number of reasons why. The burden is on you, here. You cannot add content once it's challenged, which I've done over and over, until you have WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDIT. STOP reverting and discuss to gain consensus. WIthout it, the content stays out. --Drmargi (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of the site is irrelevant, but Radar Online is by no means little. In fact, it has more traffic and notability than all other sites sourced. You acknowledged that it uses reenactments, which are scripted. You didn't challenge anything. Realnb (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble all you want, but bottom line: the burden is on you to gain consensus to add the content, and you don't have it. STOP trying to force the edit, STOP nitpicking my comments, read the policies I've cited and discuss to gain consensus. WIthout it, the content stays OUT. --Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being consistent is important. It's not 'nitpicking'. You've inadvertently acknowledged that the show is scripted through your use of the word 'reenactment'. Do you still maintain Mystery Diners uses reenactments? Realnb (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was scripted. They have a disclaimer, which you and the source claim they don't, acknowledging some parts are reenactments, as I noted. Does that mean it's scripted? I don't know that. Your source assumes that. You have no consensus to include it. Wikipedia policy backs me up all the way. It stays out. --Drmargi (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did, as a matter of fact. You stated Mystery Diners shows are reenactments, and reenactments -- to anyone with a basic grasp of English vocabulary -- involve a script. Does a show using reenactments mean it's scripted? Was this intended as a serious question or just jest? Realnb (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the reliable source for that information? Weegeerunner (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SF Weekly, Phoenix News Times, as well as Radar Online, have all reported on the show being scripted. The effort to mask any mention of the fact makes more sense for a fanpage, not an encyclopedia. Realnb (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't belive SF Weekley and Radar Online are reliable. I can't find any reliable proof that the show is scripted, only blogs and celebrity gossip sites. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SF Weekly, Radar Online, Phoenix News Times, and the Examiner have reported on the show being scripted. The show itself acknowledges it uses reenactments. Why is this information excluded when the show itself acknowledges it? Realnb (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources, they are just gossip sites. Please find a reliable source. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch this program but I have seen similar arguments - on both sides - at several television articles so, while Realnb and Drmargi are both blocked, I'd like to provide my thoughts on this. Many reliable sources can be unreliable at times. We've seen this recently with Top Gear, where sources have put their own spin on stories that are are then interpreted in their own way by readers/Wikipedia editors. In this case it seems that Radar online has cobbled together stories that it has found on other websites. It acknowledges this saying according to numerous online message boards, which is never a good sign. We don't class message boards as reliable sources, so a source that quotes what it found on message boards can't be classed as reliable either, even if what it says is partly true, especially when it doesn't state where it has found its "evidence". If you're going to admit using unreliable sources you have to explain when you do use reliable sources to offset that, and Radar Online didn't do that. As to the reality aspect, use of reenactments does not automatically make a series scripted. In all reality TV programs there is often content that is lost because it happened on the spur of the moment or out of camera shot. In order to recapture that and provide necessary context, producers use reenactments. Obviously, to be accurate a script is needed to ensure that the reenactment truly represents the "first take". This doesn't mean that the whole show is scripted so, if you're going to claim that a series is scripted, you need a strong source and Radar Online is not strong by any means. As I said, I don't watch this program so it may well be that it is scripted, but that doesn't negate the need for a source to say that it is. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, everything added to Wikipedia has to be verifiable so you need to source the scripted claim. Sources claiming that they've discovered proof are insufficient for this unless they state a pretty strong source for the proof. Until there is a strong source, it's all still speculation and, despite apparent understandings to the contrary, Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back in business. Several of you have touched on my major concern: the principle sources for the so-called "scripted" show are fan gripes on websites (one of which is dedicated to unmasking the show's alleged fakery) or some forum or another, rather than any sources that are fact-checked. RadarOnline is a gossip/rumor site, no more. What's more, the editor is drawing a direct line between reenactments, which are still reality and scripting, which is fiction, when we have no idea how this is actually handled on the show. It's absurd to think they wouldn't reenact at least some if it; I can't imagine some knucklehead who got caught with his hand in the restaurant cookie jar being willing to appear on camera. While the show is beyond silly at times, and plays like some of the situations must be made up to lend variety and/or publicize restaurants, I do know the place local to me that was featured this past season was dealing with exactly what's portrayed. So what's scripted and what's reality? It's not for us to decide. The source is lousy, and clearly cobbling together garbage information. Garbage in, garbage out. --Drmargi (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless whether its real or fake, would it be helpful and accurate to add that some segments are reenacted? 76.106.238.161 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep this debate going, but you might want to check out this very relevant article by this very credible local Phoenix newspaper. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewritestuffindy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is the correct link, the previous comment has a comma at the end of the URL for those who wish to actually look into the news article without having to search the site yourself, as it did not show up for me as a "did you mean?" listing of articles below the failed URL. Kalbintion (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some reception / comment from RS[edit]

Regardless of whether it's totally or partially scripted, some WP:RS comments on the show are needed, otherwise it's just an episode guide instead of an encyclopedia article. There's not much, because most news ignores it, but here's what I could find:

  • Phoenix New Times (June 29, 2012):"But here's my conclusion. Whether Mystery Diners is reality or fiction, it's still lousy TV." [3]
  • Salon.com: "where every week seems to feature a batch of fake employees who are actually actors hired by the production company."" [4]
  • The Guardian: "it’s easily the best show on television about how chefs definitely spit in your food." [5]

Adpete (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like to add a suitable mystery dining template we use in our restaurant, for all those in need :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthousecollections (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add: "contrived nonsense" In praise of 9Life, the calming waterfall of free-to-air TV channels (Rob Moran, SMH, 27-Nov-2016). Adpete (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mystery Diners. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mystery Diners. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery_Diners&oldid=1198324872"