Talk:Keith Floyd

Intro Paragraph

Keith Floyd was intelligent, articulate, humane, fascinating and remains a demigod in the world of cuisine. His presentations were accessible to all, were a delight for all to watch, were magical to behold, and his enjoyment or passion was so readily understood and well conveyed that nobody could resist it.

However, in bleak contrast, your introductory paragraph reads "On television, Floyd was noted for his haphazard presenting style which included frequent consumption of wine, beer and local alcoholic beverages."

Yes it was noted by many that his enjoyment of life embraced all kinds of pleasures, including the consumption of local wines while cooking to local styles, but your presentation of this fact does less than justice to it. Indeed, it is almost insulting. Keith Floyd was for me, and many, a rare and royal figure, and his passing has left me, and many others, with a feeling of genuine loss and grief. This insulting introductory paragraph belittles the figure and betrays the truth, and, ultimately, diminishes this public encyclopaedia.

I suggest sincerely that this unfortunate paragraph be somehow corrected. 83.208.165.249 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Food cooked

Interestingly, many of the things he cooked as a TV chef are things he refused to cook when he was working as a real chef.

This is indeed interesting - it would be even more so if we knew which things he refused to cook.

Fair use rationale for Image:Stranglers - Waltzinblack excerpt.ogg

Image:Stranglers - Waltzinblack excerpt.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mirror as a source

I don't think the Daily Mirror is a reliable source when it comes to allegations of celebrity scandal. Newspapers such as the Mirror and the Sun have a history of concocting stories of this sort out of next to nothing. The business about £36,000 on drinks sounds phony to me. Just because he's an alcoholic doesn't mean that every bit of booze-related gossip is true. The Mirror article repeatedly talks about "friends" without naming anybody. Even if that rag really did speak to some "friends" of the Floyds, what kind of friends are they? 154.20.80.235 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. I'm Ireneshusband (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the issue; see Verifiability not Truth. Wiki doesn't assert whether the allegations are true or false, simply whether the the allegation can be reliably sourced. The Mirror may be scandal-mongers or otherwise but if the article can be reliably sourced to the paper and is referenced neutrally (as in "This ia what the article reported." not "This ia true/false because X says so.") then there is no problem. If, however, you know of other sources of a reliable nature that contradict this assertion, then it is fine to add those as references as well. 86.3.150.116 (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mirror a reliable source? The red-tops report loads of false and exaggerated info, often claiming 'friends' of the subject said something, when it is often the case that one or more of the following is the case: a) the person didn't say that; b) the person the paper spoke to was not a friend of the subject; c) the paper made it up, they didn't speak to anyone. Should dubious info from The Mirror, The Sun, The Star etc be on an encyclopedia biography? WP improver (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can't think of a better way to say it than 86.3.150.116 did. Perhaps "You can't believe all you read in the papers", but then in my opinion you can't believe all you read in the Bible, which does not stop it being a reliable source for Bible stories (though of course numerous scholars may argue about interpretation, translation etc). Verifiablity, not truth, as long as we allow readers to make up their own minds (by indicating clearly the source and not repeating it as some absolute truth, as if anything is). SimonTrew (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not tremendously scandalous if he went bankrupt because he couldn't pay the suppliers to his pub, is it? I don't think it's suggested that he drank £36,000 of booze himself. It's unfortunately fairly common for pubs to be in financial difficulties. Nick (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Career section

This section includes info about his personal life which is not about his career. Should a Personal life section be created, and the relevant info moved there? WP improver (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it already has been. But since the two are somewhat intertwined, I imagine things may move about between sections. SimonTrew (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

C4 reference

I removed the Channel 4 reference since my opinion was it failed WP:V, as it will not be available for very long (I think). User:Daytona2 does not like this, and left an edit summary of "please refer to the relevant noticeboard", which I assume means this talk page, but find nothing here. Since I have been augmenting references all day since the news broke just before 9am, I don't think I can be accused of bad faith here; in fact I added a reference from The Guardian to the C4 programme, and made the first link on this page to Channel 4 today.

I did not, for example, remove what many would see as an obscenity from the article, nor removed the text; I simply removed the reference to a source I think is WP:V and replaced it with {{cn}}. I suggest someone finds a better source for the actual statements made, not simply links to the entire programme, and not even a Web link at that, simply "[[Channel 4]] When Keith meets Kieth" (sic) where that information was already in the article and so added nothing.

I won't "clean up my mess" since I have not made any; and I think both User:Daytona and I could fall easily foul of WP:3RR though I am sure both acting in good faith. Repeat: I did not remove the statements, simply removed what I felt was not WP:V.

Daytona2, you are right to take this to discussion. I was going to propose that myself, but ran out of space on the edit summary.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, refer to the relevent noticeboard means ask on the reliable sources and/or verifiability noticeboard, which you should have done before removing [1] such an important reference (a television biographical interview) which was used multiple times and then marking the unreferenced text with a citation tag. You've created the mess; please clear it up and abide by Wikipedia's policies. Here's the programme details [2] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That important reference did not exist before today. Thus, there were no references to it before today. I am simply not going to "clean up the mess" when I don't believe I have made one; I think we need to achieve consensus. Besides, as I have said, I am not going to inadvertently catch 3RR on a technicality.

Perhaps you also have asked on one of those noticeboards before adding it back? But I can imagine the response: First discuss it on article talk and try to achieve consensus.

If you want to take it to one of those noticeboards, or already have, please be kind enough to let me know. I think my edit history over the course of today will bear me out that I have taken WP:AGF.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as reliable sources and verifiability have been made up of community consensus which overrides your opinion. Stop breaking WP policy. I added the reference to support the statements added today, which you have now been marking with citation tags. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding back a reference in the text to a non-existent reference, you have broken the article. When you added the reference back, you could have easily added it back in full, rather than a dangling reference (the actual ref text was only <ref>[[Channel 4]] When Keith meets Keith</ref>). I don't see why you added back a named reference that you knew did not exist in the article. SimonTrew (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to clear up your mess. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to C4 was deleted by this this change, and the statement it referenced deleted also. SimonTrew (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"The evenings television biography" needs to be "the biography which was shown on television on the day of his death". I know this information is in a previous section, but readers don't necessarily read all the sections, or read them in the right order, in which case it's a difficult phrase to understand. Also it needs an apostrophe (if you don't want to change the phrase), and put the bit about the chefs with the kind words being the same ones he had called "cunts" back in, please, I liked it. 81.131.65.164 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the "cunts", I just removed the reference. The actual change where it was removed, with a blank edit summary, is here.

I agree "this evening's" is bad, will change it. SimonTrew (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Was already done. SimonTrew (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, wasn't: it had been changed in a way that, at least to me, suggested that the programme of the 14th was an obituary. Earlier versions of the article (and the references) made clear that at the time it was broadcast it was not known that Floyd had died at the time of the broadcast. I have recast it so that it does not say "that evening's television obituaries", but says instead "the next day". I think that since the paragraph starts with the date, it is not that far away for people to realise which day is meant, but if the full date is desired, I've no great objection.

Incidentally, I already added the apostrophe into "evenings" on an earlier edit, but it must have got changed later. SimonTrew (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Death

Is 'His death was nothing to do with liver failure', in the Career section, necessary? Articles don't usually say what a person did not died of, unless there are persistent false reports / claims to that effect. I don't believe many people claim that his death was caused by liver disease. What would be relevant is whether his death had anything to do with his bowel cancer. Article improving (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it on the basis of irrelevancy since the article clearly says he died from a heart attack. He had just had 5 operations to remove cancerous tissue, followed by chemotherapy. Along with the intensive care the year before and being a stroke survivor. It's not trivial to recover from all that.JG17 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The c-word

If we're going to have the quote in the article, then the c-word needs to appear in full - see Wikipedia:Profanity. Please don't change it to include asterisks or other characters. If someone wants to re-write that sentence to not use the quote (or even remove it completely), then feel free. —David Johnson [T|C] 11:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. The quote had no context whatsoever. ie Why did he call them names? In fact he later made it clear he thought they were all very good cooks who were just "seduced by television". He then said the cooks (not chefs) were not to blame for trivializing cookery; it was really the TV producers.JG17 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It had context when I added it. Now you've just got quotes from those he described as cunts, without any word of KFs criticism, which is not balanced. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The balanced context is that they promoted themselves more than the food.JG17 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's so unspecific as to be almost meaningless. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What's meaningful about "they're all cunts"? If you can make any more sense out of his ramblings then change it. Yes we all use the word but sticking it in an encyclopedia is juvenile and frankly it demeans him just as much as that crap documentary did.JG17 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Context: On Anthony Worral Thomson's show Floyd said that "celebrity cooks are so up their own bottoms that they do not realise that food should be fun, not a station waiting for a train to arrive to take them to a destination to learn how to cook." That's what he meant! From his blog at: http://keithfloyduncorked.blogspot.com/JG17 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC food Youtube channel

Would it be ok to add this BBC food channel which contains many videos of Keith Floyd programming into the links section? http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0FE5C97A2CDBA9FA Poonerpoob (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Floyd. 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/20080927042026/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20070603/ai_n19201122 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20070603/ai_n19201122

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) 20:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Floyd. 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/20091017060802/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/TV-chef-Keith-Floyd-dies-heart-attack/article-1339257-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/TV-chef-Keith-Floyd-dies-heart-attack/article-1339257-detail/article.html

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) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Floyd. 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/20100225090554/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Keith-Floyd-funeral-latest/article-1380466-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Keith-Floyd-funeral-latest/article-1380466-detail/article.html

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) 00:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Floyd. 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/20090922183339/http://food.zibb.com/profile/floyd's+beach+bistro+restaurant/th/suratthani/ko+samui/84320/26389235 to http://food.zibb.com/profile/floyd%27s+beach+bistro+restaurant/th/suratthani/ko+samui/84320/26389235

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) 10:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Chandos Road?

"With the help of loans from friends, he opened another restaurant in Chandos Road" - no town/city mentioned; where is this? Bristol? Little grape (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning drinking while cooking

It is mentioned several times that he was holding a glass of wine while cooking for television, up to a point where it becomes boring. I think this should be edited in a way that it is mentioned in the introduction only once, and in the remainder of the text also only once. Every other mention of it would be superfluous, I guess.  Wikiklaas  22:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)