Talk:Michelin Guide

message: It seems unlikely that the Guide was published continuously from its inception.  Does anyone know what years it wasn't published?  I'm assuming that say, in 1944, there wasn't a guide.  Yet I've seen reports of WWII soldiers using the guide.  Anyone have any knowledge on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisar (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. The Guide has been published every single year without discontinuity since 1900 included. Including during WWII. Although I think a little paragraph on the Fall of France in 1940 and Hitler visiting Paris is in order. This is an anglocentric page about France, so it's good to remind all readers of WWII and the cheese eating surrender monkeys opening their simian arms to Germans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.149.240 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "(It should be noted, however, that Tokyo is home to 160,000 restaurants, versus New York's 25,000 and Paris's 13,000 .[2])"
I fail to see how this is at all relevant, especially as probably well over half of those "restaurants" in Tokyo are ramen shops, donut shops, and the like.  Unless somebody can come up with a reason as to why the number of tokyo is an important factor here, other than as a feeble and unnecessary attempt to make Paris/Ny not look so bad by comparison, I strongly recommend this be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.244 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the information about how many stars each city has really relevant to this article?  Seems like a feeble and unnecessary attempt to stroke Tokyo's ego.  --Mugsywwiii (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Jean-Luc Naret, director of the Michelin guides, dismissed such criticisms as unfair, saying Tokyo received more stars simply because it has more restaurants. He said Michelin’s five undercover judges in Tokyo, two Japanese and three Europeans, spent a year and a half sampling 1,500 restaurants." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24guide.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin --Mugsywwiii (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Restaurants 

message: Shouldn't this be called "Michelin Red Guide"?  Michelin also make green guides, which are general tourist information.  Notinasnaid 12:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. The distinction was lost when this article was split from the main Michelin article. I have tried to fix. Notinasnaid 10:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The Red Guides are the fat, squat guides to hotels and restaurants, published annually.  The Green Guides are the thin, tall, narrow guides for travel and tourism, updated every few years.  Michelin now has other series of guides as well.  I don't know if any of those are blue colored, but none of them are called Blue Guides.  There is an English-language Blue Guide series published in the UK by A & C Black and an unrelated French-language Guide Bleu series published by Hachette in France.  I believe there was some editorial connection between the two of them many decades ago. --Macrakis 20:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides the traditional Red and Green Guides, Michelin has recently introduced several new series: Guide Voyager Pratique 'Le guide pour les voyages sur mesure'; Guide Gourmand, 'Une sélection de restaurants typiques et de boutiques de bonne bouche'; Guide Escapade, 'Pour partir quelques jours découvrir un pays ou une ville'; Guide Coup de Coeur, 'Des hôtels et maisons d’hôte sélectionnés pour leur charme et leur caractère original'.  I haven't seen them yet. --Macrakis 20:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please update the main Michelin article to remove redundant info about Red/Green/etc. guides and point to here. --Macrakis 22:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This tag was added: 
 
It is true that the article reflects a European point of view. However, it is also the case that until 2006 they only covered Europe. In 2006, New York was added, but it too early too say what the effect of this would be. However, I don't think it would really be debated that the rating system was "probably the most influential in the world". So I will remove the tag, ok? Notinasnaid 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not say it has influenced elsewhere, only that it is the most influential. Is there any restaurant guide anywhere in the world that is as influential in its locale? Still, a statement this broad should be sourced; I will see if a source can be found. Notinasnaid 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a word game. Correct by the letters but completely incorrect in spirit (in other words, misleading).66.171.76.138 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ΣΕ, I don't think the claim in the article is unreasonable.  The New York Times is more important in New York than Michelin is in New York.  But Michelin is more important in New York than the NYT is in Paris, for example.  Similarly, on Iron Chef, they will mention Michelin-starred kitchens that contestants have worked in, but I don't think there's a local Japanese system that would mean anything to French people.  Michelin is known around the world in a way that other guides aren't, even if it doesn't cover the whole world.  In other words, if you don't think it's the most influential in the world, you should be able to say what guide is the most influential in the world.  What's your pick?  (That said, there's probably WP:V issues with the claim, so I agree it should be sourced.) -- Coneslayer 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of logic is this?? If you can't name another guide that is the most influential in the world, then let's just pick one that you feel everyone has heard of?  That's like saying there is no world president so let's make the President of the United States the president of the world because every politician in the world has likely heard of him. The fact is that there is NO worldwide influential restaurant guide and to claim the Michelin is it is ridiculous.66.171.76.138 00:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point re world view 

message: Found on  http://www.beyond.fr/food/michelin-guide.html
"By 1920, the dining part had become so popular, Michelin established a team of anonymous inspectors, and started a new 3-category rating system for the restaurants. They took advertising out of the guide and began charging 7 francs for it. (Wikipedia says that a 1-star mark for good cooking was added in 1926, and the 3-category system began in the early 1930s."
Has anyone a source for the wiki version of the origin?  --82.22.139.25 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the rating system 

message: I do believe that Tokyo is the city with the most stars in the guide, but I'm afraid I don't have a citation for this. Does anyone else? Is this relevant to include in the article, or just trivia? (I'd argue it's not trivia, as it's a symbol of changing attitudes towards which cities in the world are the tops in cuisine - Tokyo has more stars than Paris? Rome? New York? - and of the continuing rise in prominence of East Asia as a whole in the world.) LordAmeth (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24guide.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
NYT article above details some reservations of Japanese chefs and media about the Michelin Guide. --Madchester (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese critique

message: Does anyone besides me see a fair amount of bias in the controversy section? In particular, the incident with the chef who committed suicide. Why is it Michelin's fault that he committed suicide? Especially when the rumours proved to be false. And the part about the guide only publishing the best restaurants is clearly biased. Wouldn't it obviously do that because this is a guide to fine restaurants? The entire section should be editted for non-POV.(Myscrnnm (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the bit about the suicide does not really feel like it belongs in a "controversy" section.  I would instead recommend that it be put into a larger section on the cultural impact of the Michelin Guides and Michelin Stars, noting that it is taken so seriously that downgrades have been blamed for suicides, etc.  --8.11.254.188 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Loiseau suicide bit is irrelevant, since apparently Michelin wasn't even the reason he did it. I've removed it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It is, however, mentioned as relevant in the source -- we editors aren't supposed to make assertions on what is or is not relevant; only sources do that -- and this source seems to think it's relevant.  Content should not be removed based on the subjective judgment of one editor; gain consensus, please. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: It would be interesting to know the basis for hotel ratings as well as restaurant ratings. During a trip to France in 1987, I discovered that a hotel could go from one to two stars (or maybe from two to three) by having a bathroom in every room: many modest hotels "upgraded" their rooms by carving a corner off a small room to build a tiny bathroom—an improvement some guests would find dubious. (I think most Americans considered a private bath necessary, and some Europeans were less picky about plumbing.) On this trip, I used the Red and Green Michelin Guides, and I found the ratings clear and unambiguous. I don't still have these guides and am not planning any foreign trips in the immediate future. I haven't found comparable information on the Web recently. WP explains the criteria for restaurants, as well as stating that one Vegas hotel has five stars, but does give the criteria for one, two, three, four, or five stars for a hotel, or particulars for hotels that were not exceptional. This would be useful, particular for travelers planning a trip in advance. Some people need certain amenities (such as a private bath, a gym, or high-speed Internet access) and others consider them mere luxuries.Donfbreed (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hotel-ratings are, as far as I know, mainly based on "hardware"-demands. Size of the room, bathrooms, availability of a restaurant and/or swimmingpool. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  stars for hotels 

message: The section begins with: "Because of their reputation, the Michelin Guides have been subject to scrutiny and criticism." I'm not sure one can assume that the guides are criticized "because of their reputation". Seems like an arbitrary conclusion to me.71.174.192.79 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If people weren't concerned with the Michelin Guide's ratings, why would they bother to accuse it of bias, or of lax standards? It carries weight; the reviews it gives are important to a restaurant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.229.239 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" Wording 

message: The article says the cover was blue before 1931 --- right next to a picture of a red one from 1929. I also did a Google image search and found the first one, from 1900, which was red. Where does this blue cover stuff come in? Orlando098 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted!  The color of the cover is trivia anyway -- and stating (without a source) that it was blue, as an accompanying photo makes a lie of that statement, makes us look stupid -- so I'm going to take out the "blue" reference.  If anybody has a source, feel free to put it back, with the correct year (since 1931 is obviously incorrect). DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue cover originally? 

message: I propose to delete the section "Allegations of lax inspection standards" from the part "Controversy". The writer of the book is an ex-employee with a clear grudge (= POV) against his former employer. The big part here gives clearly undue weight to the story. It should be removed or significantly reduced. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of lax inspection standards 

message: i don't have the full numbers, but there's some recent guides which are not covered here, chicago now has only one 3-star restaurant, france 25 instead of 26 (which makes japan the one with most 3-stars!!!!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.251.6 (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new statistics 

message: This article seems to indicate that Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants, not to individuals. Anyone familiar with the many cooking reality shows (Hell's Kitchen, Masterchef, Kitchen Nightmares, etc.) has heard of chefs "having" or losing Michelin stars. Presumably they were simply the head chef at a restaurant that had been awarded Michelin stars? Recently on Masterchef, celebrity chefs were described as having 20+ Michelin stars, and the article on Gordon Ramsay apparently once stated that "Ramsay currently ranks 3rd in the world in terms of Michelin Stars behind Joël Robuchon and Alain Ducasse". Since a restaurant can only have three stars, and it's unlikely that anyone is the head chef at 6 or more restaurants, these people are presumably counting all of the Michelin stars awarded to restaurants that they own?
Properly or improperly, people are clearly being described in popular culture as having Michelin stars for running and/or owning restaurants with Michelin stars (assuming that Michelin does not award stars to individuals). It definitely seems like there should be a section about this phenomenon in the article, or a new article. A list of "holders" of the most Michelin stars may also be appropriate. DOSGuy (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct that it is a silly media affectation. The reference in fact is to the total number of stars awarded to multiple restaurant owners, such as Ramsey. As to your last question, they've been doing this since circa 1900 when they first produced their travel guide.~©Djathinkimacowboy 05:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelin stars applied to individuals 

message: That was myself not logged-in who re-added the update about the chef who commited suicide. That item was part of the article for a very long time. Also, see "further reading"-"life and death of a perfectionist chef". I agree with what you say that Michelin was not really involved, but since they are still writing books about it ten years later, it is part of the Guide's story in my opinion and I was surprized to see the information missing-that's why I added it.Housewifehader (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Michelin has no responsibility or involvement in that case. That rumours say otherwise to such an extent that Michelin comes with a statement, still does not give Michelin any responsibility. The source fails WP:RS and I consider it not more than a blame game and conspiracy theory. The Banner talk 16:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more sources which document the allegations but that one was provided because it had an update ten years after the fact. Why do you say that it fails RS?Housewifehader (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Also see:Controversy section above. It was asked that consensus be reached before removing this information and it was not. Also. again, see: "Further Reading"-a source in the article itself. And there is a new book out unless that is the one that they are talking about.Housewifehader (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, from the Eater website which I linked as a source, " this week French newspaper L'Express published some previously unseen documents that suggest a Michelin official did indeed meet with the chef to discuss his concerns about the "lack of soul" at Le Relais Bernard Loiseau."................I did not put that in the article, but since you say they were not involved at all, there are "documents", (in French), that may suggest that they communicated with him more than was previously known? Why be so eager to remove this?Housewifehader (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no proof that they are involved at all. Did you actually read Bernard_Loiseau#Death? Especially the sentenve He was by this time deeply in debt, and suffered from bouts of increasingly severe clinical depression. seems important to me! The Banner talk 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Just for the record i have no complaint about changing whatever is used to describe the incident, but I do think that mention should be included under the section:Controversy. (where it held the top mention from when the category was created 'till it was deleted w/o consensus even though consensus was requested and a protest at the deletion.) As far as i know, there is no rule about "controversy"-sections in general, regarding whether or not allegations included in controversies must be proven true or not. I have seen mention of rumors and other such incidents included in articles, and this particular one has lasted over a decade. Housewifehader (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It just has te be proven with WP:RS, something this sections does not in my opinion. The Banner talk 01:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: What has to be proven? That the chef commited suicide because of the idea that he could lose a star? I cannot believe that is even an issue! That would never be proven! You still have not said why you think that the Eater website is not a rs? There are many many other sites that talked about the incident over the years but I picked that one specifically because IT had some good reference-work done, and an UPDATE. Again, the incident doesn't even need another RS on the page because the Further reading section lists a book about it. Just for the record, I have no intention of trying to imply that Michelin had anything to do with the chef's death, just a mention on the page that at the time that the chef commited suicide, there was much made, (at least one book and numerous sourced articles)-about the fact that the chef was a three star chef who commited suicide, and that some questioned whether or not the possibility of losing a star, combined with many other personal pressures was what drove him over the edge. I really thought that what I posted was fair to Michelin since they had a good point that the restaurant still has three stars, and i thought that was noteworthy in itself, that they would comment. I don't care how the info. is posted, I am only concerned that it is part of the Michelin guide star history and I expected to see it there when I was reading the article and the only reason that I added it, (again to my surprize)--was because of that, the article was lacking imo.You really are not being clear about what is so problematic about this. The source? There are others. The notability? I disagree. The fact that they had nothing to do with the chef's death really does not matter since even they made several on-the-record remarks about it.Housewifehader (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just irrelevant because Michelin has nothing to do with it. At that opinion was also voiced in June 2009, when the Loiseau-affair was removed as explained in Talk:Michelin Guide#Controversy section. The standing consensus is to leave it out, so I want to see consensus before it going in again. The Banner talk 08:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The funny thing is that I have concluded the exact opposite of what you have as far as consensus! I saw that deletion as an appeal to re-insert the info. and a final plea to gain consensus, but nothing was said after that. There are four editor's opinions there with the only one which could be a definitive, "delete", is the  editor who deleted the info. The other three in my opinion are all keep. Asking to change something so that it is non-biased is not the same as asking that the entire incident be removed.Housewifehader (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: And you are exasperating me when you stand on The Michelin Guide "not being involved". If you would finish the sentence, or clarify what you mean, which I think is that they were not involved with the suicide, that could give us some common ground here because I agree with you. 
But as far as "being involved" in the "story"/"controversy"--This is part of Michelin's history and they have made numerous public statements, such as, "They tried to call us murderers.", and they participated in investigating the allegations. I don't care how it is worded, most readers can decide for themselves when they see they word, "suicide"--what that means is that someone took their own life. Why hide this info.? Housewifehader (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just plain blahblah, finger pointing and blame game. Rumours here and rumours there. And completely ignoring of the mental state of Loiseau. The Banner talk 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, because it is not really about the chef at all, except that he was a "three star" chef. It is about the Michelin Guide and the fact that they were drawn in to the controversy, and that they responded to it.Housewifehader (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chef Suicide 

message: In the section "Allegations of lax inspection standards and bias", there are conflicting claims that Rémy was fired in 2004 and 2003. Which was it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.10.19 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your remark. After carefully checking the sources it turned out that he was fired in December 2003 and that a court case about it was in early 2004 (May?). I have corrected the mistakes. The Banner talk 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Pascal Rémy fired? 

message: I have severe doubts about the section "Inflated or mismatching expectations from awarded restaurants". In my opinion, this section is about facts that have little of nothing to do with the Michelin Guide itself. You can not blame the Guide for wrong expectations of the guest of starred restaurants. It is hopelessly frustrating for the restaurants involved but the problem is entirely with the guests, not with the Guide.
So I propose removal of that section. The Banner talk 02:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR, this section has been reworded and retitled "Unwanted stars". I'm sure opinions vary a lot as to whether it's the Michelin Guide or the public or the restaurants who are to blame for any mismatch of expectations. Maybe the job of a restaurant guide should be to accurately document the restaurant experience and Michelin is just failing at that, or maybe diners should be expected to either do more research before showing up, or arrive with open minds. NPOV means Wikipedia doesn't take a side in this controversy, and also that editors do not protect the subject of an articles by removing criticism we personally disagree with. NPOV means presenting facts and multiple points of view, and letting readers decide for themselves. If Michelin has commented on this phenomenon, that definitely needs to be added to the article, but I didn't see anything to that effect in the coverage I read. It seems they often intentionally do not respond to such controversies. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflated or mismatching expectations from awarded restaurants 

message: There aren't just an isolated few, there are loads:
http://www.businessinsider.com/french-chef-jerome-brochot-gave-up-michelin-star-because-he-cant-afford-it-2017-12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42872201
https://www.eater.com/2017/9/21/16345242/chefs-give-back-michelin-stars
Can someone add those?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8310:5B80:DACB:8AFF:FEA7:FCDD (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More restaurants/chefs who didn't want their stars 

message: Anyone have the ability to update with new information in regards to this other Michelin mention type, called the Michelin Plate, and was introduced in 2018 to mention places that the auditors and inspectors found quality food at low prices, lower than Bib Gourmand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:A600:27:94A6:3726:E82F:C6D1 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, it has nothing to do with "quality food at low prices, lower than Bib Gourmand". Instead it is for restaurant with good food but to expensive for a Bib Gourmand. Maybe I am wrong, but I read this as that the plate is just a sign that the restaurant is mentioned in the Michelin Guide, not a specific award. The Banner talk 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelin Plate? 

message: In the history section, the first time restaurants are mentioned, it mentions changes "…notably listing restaurants by specific categories." But it never mentions when they began listing restaurants. At the start, it says the guide mentioned "maps, tire repair and replacement instructions, car mechanics listings, hotels, and petrol stations." Should that initial list include restaurants? Or did they start including restaurants later? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: When did they begin listing restaurants? 

message: Both "tyre" and "tire" are used in the article, and there have recently been two edits reverted regarding changing one of the instances (without the others). My understanding is that it's not a straight WP:ENGVAR issue there is a time period issue as well. All four instances of "tire" are in #History, while the two instances of "tyre" are in the lead and #Allegations of leniency with stars for Japanese cuisine. Should some of these spellings be changed? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tire is perhaps correct in American English, but as Michelin is a French company, British English should be used. The Banner talk 18:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:TIES (the "strong national ties" rule) only applies to English-speaking nations; the British English dialect is used for articles with ties to Britain. As France is of course a French-speaking country and has no standardized dialect of English, the relevant rule is MOS:RETAIN, meaning we use whichever variety was established first in the article. Peeking at the article as it was on 7 October 2010, it used both "favourite" and "tire", so an argument could be made either way. It's now tagged as British English, and it seems fine if it stays that way. -- Beland (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The Michelin Guide debuted a Green Star distinction for sustainable gastronomy. Currently only restaurants in Scandinavia and California have been awarded Green Stars but that is because they haven't reviewed any other location. Can we make a section about that?
(Hello23223 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be good and template similar to  to go with it.  21 restaurants in Spain have now been awarded the Green Star for sustainability according to this. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Section added on Green stars.  Template  created and used in first article.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Toddst1 Thoughts on a category specific to Green Star restaurants? See also Bib Gourmands below. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Star 

message: Certainly in the begin time of this article, the base of it were the actual paper books. But I am now confused about that principle. Do they bring out books about new areas, like Turkey or Toronto, or is it far more website driven? The Banner talk 01:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see a list of the hotel and restaurant guides here. I do not see anything about Toronto or Turkey. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That are mainly older Guides. Toronto and Turkey seem to be recent (2022). The Banner talk 08:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The books 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lynnllll (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop