Talk:Michelin Guide

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unofficial request fort comment

Is it a good idea to publish the follwing section in the article about the Michelin Guide

A request for advice is send to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. The Banner talk 20:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Michelin Guide#History, while the two instances of "tyre" are in the lead and Michelin Guide#Allegations of leniency with stars for Japanese cuisine. Should some of these spellings be changed? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

All instances should be "tire". I just tried to change one instance (it's the only one I saw at the time).

"Tyre" is NOT the correct spelling of the word. It's "tire". Jimv1983 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

I think that would be good and template similar to {{Michelinstar}} 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)

 Done Section added on Green stars. Template {{Michelin green star}} created and used in first article. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

That are mainly older Guides. Toronto and Turkey seem to be recent (2022). The Banner talk 08:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Would Category:Bib Gourmand restaurants be appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Bib Gourmand is not a recomendation. It's an assessment that the food is good and that it is also afordable, but there isn't anything defining to add places to such a category.

Something like Cat:Bib Gourmand restaurants in [City/Country (technically per guide)] could be a consideration if you're up for it, especially as they aren't listed in any specific lists, but personally I wouldn't do it. Alternatively (altough I'm not familiar with their rules so make your own research) it could be useful to add such restaurants to the Wikivoyage rather then here on the Wiki. Respublik (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A Bib Gourmand is not an award as it stand for "good food at a reasonable price". (reasonable price defined as under a certain price level depending on the location of the restaurant) Just having a Bib does not make a restaurant notable, so separating them in their own category is superfluous. The Banner talk 10:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thanks for creating Category:Michelin Guide Bib Gourmand restaurants. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I wasn't aware of this discussion before creating the category. I'm glad you thought a Bib Gourmand category made sense too and that I was able to help out! Cunard (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LunarWhisperer, Lynnllll (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lynnllll (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: Greetings! I'm not sure I entirely understand your reason for this removal, which was given in the edit summary as "this is a problem for the restaurants and its owners." Yes, these certainly are problems for restaurants, and they blame the Michelin judges for creating them. In some cases this is why chefs don't compete for Michelin stars, are unhappy when they are awarded, or don't want the Michelin guide to come to their city. It seems to me like a notable critique. -- Beland (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Blaming Michelin is just hiding the fact that it is the restaurant-business that is failing. It is not the Michelin stars that make the restaurant fail. The Banner talk 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a perfectly good opinion, but Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to filter out criticisms just because we disagree with them. If Michelin or any other party has responded to this criticism, we should definitely include their arguments, but its notability does not come from how much we do or don't agree with it. It comes from the fact that it was published in the New York Times, a newspaper of record for American public discourse. I did not see any response to these complaints in the NYT piece nor in any of the other coverage of chefs not wanting Michelin to come to their cities. -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So you say the source (NYT) alone makes this story true? The Banner talk 21:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I was asserting the NYT story as evidence of notability, not truth. But since you raise the question: The NYT is a reliable source, so we can be confident that the story is true in the sense that chefs are in fact making these criticisms. The story does not establish that the criticisms made are themselves true, though the NYT generally does a good job finding contrary public opinions if they exist. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia is not supposed to evaluate the merits of the arguments made in publicly expressed opinions and to pick a winning side. Our role is to relay notable opinions and relevant facts and let readers make up their own minds about whether any given criticism is warranted, or if the Michelin guide is good or bad, or who is to blame for various problems. -- Beland (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

But our role is also to provide reliable information that is valid for the whole work. When you change the text so far that it states that this problem is the case in New York, then we are already a step further. The Banner talk 22:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The text I added doesn't say that this was actually happening, only that chefs were complaining that this was happening. If that's not clear, I'm open to tweaking the wording. It made no mention of New York. -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

So you make clear that are not facts just talk. That does not belong in this article at all. The Banner talk 09:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

These are not facts we have found sources for that prove they are objectively true; they are disputed but plausible claims, about which people hold various opinions. In some cases they relay personal experiences we have no doubt are true, even if the cause of those experiences might be disputed. Why don't disputed facts and notable opinions about the Michelin Guide belong in an article about the Michelin Guide? We have plenty of those in say, Yelp § Controversy and litigation, which is considered a Good Article. -- Beland (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST But no matter what, you can not claim that Michelin stars are responsible for misbehaving restaurant-patrons. Some restaurant patrons are just bad or overwhelmed entrepreneurs, with or without Michelin stars. Nor are Michelin stars responsible for unrealistic expectations of customers. The Banner talk 16:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to WP:ASSERT facts, including facts about opinions. "Michelin makes the restaurant industry worse" is an opinion; we should not assert it. "Some chefs believe that Michelin makes the restaurant industry worse" is a fact about an opinion. We can include that.

It might be better if there were more than one source for this. I suspect that it would not be overly difficult to find more sources.

(Michelin stars probably are responsible for some unrealistic expectations. If "the best" reviewers said this restaurant was the best restaurant ever, then should I not have extremely high expectations for a perfect experience?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few:

"The Real Reason Why Some Famous Chefs Don't Want Michelin Stars"

"Why Chefs ‘Give Back’ Their Michelin Stars"

"Why great chefs reject Michelin stars" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That is just one part of the contested section. The section stated also that staff was underpaid or unpaid. The Banner talk 10:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that chefs are complaining about that is supported by the cited source. The Moskin NYT article reads in part:

Recent objections have focused on the elaborate, multicourse menus that draw Michelin stars. They have historically relied on long hours of low-paid (sometimes unpaid) labor, raising questions about the human cost of fine dining. René Redzepi, the chef of Noma, in Copenhagen, decided to close the restaurant soon after it finally won its third star, citing the unsustainability of the business model.

-- Beland (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they're talking about the Unpaid internship, called Staging (cooking), rather than simply not paying normal staff. The idea is that having already paid huge sums of money for years of training, if you can tell potential employers that you once spent a few months doing prep work at a three-star restaurant for no money, then they will be more interested in hiring you.

Read https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qpjb/begging-to-work-there-for-free-fine-dining-wouldnt-exist-without-unpaid-labour or https://www.ft.com/content/a62a96b8-2db2-44ec-ac80-67fcf83d86ef for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But is Michelin to blame for that? The Banner talk 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That could be argued either way. NPOV means Wikipedia's job is not to answer the question, but to document the controversy. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The controversy that some people blame Michelin for poor management? That so-called controversy is POV in itself and just shifting the blame. But if you have evidence from other countries where the same happened... The Banner talk 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

People are not blaming Michelin for poor management; they are blaming it for rewarding high-labor-cost fine dining. If you think Michelin-star fine-dining restaurants are going out of business because they are poorly managed, that certainly seems plausible, but we would need a citation to a reliable source.

I don't see anything in the cited source that says the complaints are limited to one country; examples are given from chefs in Copenhagen and Los Angeles.

The objection that "the controversy itself is POV" is a bit weird; controversies are contests between multiple points of view. Certainly treating a controversy with false equivalence (e.g. some say the world is flat, some say it's round) can introduce bias. The way we avoid that is to cover each point of view with due weight. I looked through the Moskin piece to get a sense for the weight of this POV, and she also writes this:

But most chefs said the opportunity Michelin offers for a steady supply of well-heeled diners, eager sous-chefs and endless publicity trumps any other concerns. And many say that having Michelin stars to strive for simply makes restaurants better.

Given that we seem to have two editors in favor of including this material, I will attempt a rewrite that incorporates the suggestions for improvement in this thread so far. -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should change the section title in "Blaming Michelin stars to hide poor entrepreneurship". And please make clear that Moskin is talking about American/New York chefs and not represents a worldwide issue. The Banner talk 20:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a serious suggestion, since it's obviously not neutral, but if you have a more neutral phrasing than the current title, I'm open to suggestions. You also haven't pointed to a reliable source to document that idea as being a notable part of the conversation around the Michelin Guide.

The Moskin piece (which it seems you have not read?) says it is based on interviews with "dozens of restaurateurs, chefs and officials across the country", so it's not just New York. But I'll note that certain comments only supported by this article can only be said to reflect American attitudes. (Other articles support the fine dining complaints primarily speaking to people in Denmark and the Netherlands.) -- Beland (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The mistake you make is that you seem to think that the issues are Michelin-related while they are not. The issues are far wider. But it is easier to shoot at well known restaurants then your local diner. The Banner talk 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a position on the question; if you have a disagreement, it's with the chefs who don't want Michelin to come to their city or the workers who are relaying bad personal or co-worker experiences and are making that connection. You're certainly right that there are also non-fine-dining restaurants where managers or owners sexually and physically abuse their workers, withhold their pay, etc. (The Stash's Pizza trial is making headlines here in Boston at the moment, for example.) And I'm sure the same problem would exist at some level in fine dining restaurants without the Michelin Guide. The claim being made by critics of the Guide is that what the judges choose to reward and the fame and fortune brought by Michelin stars makes these pervasive problems worse. Maybe that's right, maybe it's not; I've never worked in a restaurant so I have no personal experience by which to judge such a claim. Maybe that's an unfair critique, because the guide has also awarded Michelin stars to non-fine-dining food stalls. That doesn't mean the criticism hasn't been made or that it's not worth mentioning.

The opinion that the Michelin guide is not worsening these problems should also be reflected in the article, to the degree that people hold it. The article does now explicitly point out that many chefs see the competition for Michelin stars as improving restaurant quality. It's unclear to if that includes customer experience only, or also working conditions. I have not seen any press coverage specifically saying this criticism is unwarranted on the grounds that it is unrelated to the Michelin Guide. If you want the article to say that specifically, we would need a reliable source we can cite to attribute it to someone with knowledge of the industry, because Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing its editors' personal opinions, however apt they might be. -- Beland (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(outdent)

TheBanner, I don't feel like you're quite grasping this. I agree that it's not entirely Michelin's fault, but they are not a neutral, impassive player in this industry problem.

The chefs in these sources are telling us that the idea of fine dining that Michelin promotes is not something that works in practice, regardless of your business acumen. There are only so many people in the world who can spend $500 or $1000 per person for dinner, and even at those eye-watering prices, there's a decent chance that someone is being unfairly exploited to make it happen. There is a limit to how high they can raise their prices. If every person were fairly paid, then that $1000-per-person meal might cost $1500 per person, and the lack of people who are willing to pay that price would result in the restaurant closing.

The chefs are telling that this exploitation happens at Michelin-favored restaurants because of Michelin's preferred style. Michelin is not directly saying that they want people to be exploited, but they are saying that they want their dinners to require many hours of skilled labor and their table service to require a substantial fraction of an employee's time. If Michelin happened to prefer dishes that could be prepared with low labor costs, and if they happened to prefer a service style that did not require so much hands-on effort from the staff, then Michelin restaurants would not have so much exploited staff. But they don't: they happen to prefer dishes that require someone to hand-mince apples into perfectly even 2mm cubes, measuring as they go, times 20 other meticulously prepared ingredients, so they can all be cooked together into something that the Michelin reviewer will eat three bites of, and all the other diners wonder if that three-bite dish was actually worth the $39 charged for it (plus sales tax and tip if you're in the US). The sources say that Michelin is only part of the problem, but they are part of the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty Michelin starred restaurants with healthy staff treatment. And plenty run-of-the-mill restaurants with unhealthy staff treatment.

And when you look at the article itself: it is clear that it is the expectation of the public to have a formal setting and complex food. (See: Unwanted stars, Petersham Nurseries Café (London) and 't Huis van Lede (Belgium). In principle, Michelin awards the food, not the setting. The Banner talk 07:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

These arguments are defending two different sides in a controversy already documented in the article. Our job is not to figure out which side is "right" by arguing amongst ourselves, but to present both sides and let readers make up their own minds. Unless someone is proposing a change to the article, we don't need to keep discussing this. -- Beland (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE The Banner talk 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You posted a link to a policy and nothing else; not sure if that was a mistake, or if not, what you meant by it. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It was on purpose and i was hoping that you would read that and assess the issue at hand. To my opinion, you are giving the issue - while indeed existing - more attention than it deserves. As by and large it is not a Michelin-related issue but an industry-related issue. And unrealistic expectations are also not Michelin-related. The Banner talk 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I already linked to this essay above in my comment of 19:49, 29 May 2024. Given that the two subsections in question only take up about 10% of the article, and given that they are describing the most important objections to expansion of the Michelin Guide, they seem pretty proportionate to me. The question of whether to expand the guide has become a topic of public policy because government money is being used to do so; it seems like readers should get all the details on a controversy they might have to form an opinion about.

You keep making the claim that Michelin isn't at fault and the problems are industry-wide; do you have any citation to support that claim? If that claim does not appear in reliable sources, then the "due weight" rule means it won't appear in the article. If we can find such a claim, the "due weight" rule means we'd need to add it to the article, rather than pretend that neither POV was ever expressed, which would under-weight both.

The citation to documents that Sky Gyngell explicitly blames her Michelin star for creating a mismatch between her service and customer expectations, saying customers complained: "People have certain expectations of a Michelin restaurant but we don’t have cloths on the tables and her service isn’t very formal." She might be wrong, but NPOV means that Wikipedia editors thinking an opinion is wrong isn't a reason for Wikipedia to drop a prominent POV from coverage of an economic and cultural controversy. The fact that it has gotten a lot of press attention and is representative of opposition to Michelin Guide expansion makes it notable. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The citation to The World given by WhatamIdoing above quotes chef Fredrick Dhooghe on why he gave back our star, making another explicit connection to Michelin:

The customers expect a parade of appetizers when the gastronomic menu starts, in a setting that, according to them, also deserves one star. Take a shrimp croquette. People expect a starred chef to give his own interpretation of that dish. I just want to make a really good shrimp croquette

I don't see how anyone could argue that Gyngell and Dhooghe considered their problems to be unrelated to the Michelin Guide. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If a vegan goes to a steak house and expect to be able to eat there a vegan meal, that is an unrealistic expectation unrelated to any Michelin stars.

But for the other issues that you refuse to believe: UK names Tesco and Pizza Hut for biggest breaches of minimum wage law, Chef says she was harassed by restaurant owner, WRC hears, https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0403/1441386-wrc-migrant/ Migrant worker awarded €143,000 for 'multiple labour law breaches' at WRC, Door corona kan Amerikaans horeca-personeel eindelijk eisen stellen (in Dutch). Just a few links... The Banner talk 08:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct; neither the article nor any of the sources cited say anything about vegans expecting to be able to eat at steak houses based on Michelin Guide recommendations.

I don't know why you're trying to prove to me that abuses happen when I already said above "You're certainly right that there are also non-fine-dining restaurants where managers or owners sexually and physically abuse their workers, withhold their pay, etc." and gave you a local example.

I also don't know why you're making original arguments to me, rather than finding sources that make these arguments which could be added to the article. I cannot do anything with your arguments even if I 100% agree with them. -- Beland (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make clear that the issues are far wider than just Michelin restaurants. And therefore that just blaming Michelin restaurants is WP:UNDUE. The Banner talk 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Michelin Guide

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCRIT — the section is excessive and, if the content is due, it should be included within the relevant sections of the article. Most of the criticism is also from the past few years about a guide that has existed for 100+ years failing WP:RECENTISM. It is clearly WP:UNDUE in its present form. 136.52.138.38 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree. You are welcome to disperse some of the material to fit it into the larger narrative, but simply blanking the entire section, and then doing it a couple more times, that's not OK. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It's tidy to have controversies under their own heading.

Information about recent notable occurrences doesn't always imply recentism.

I hope that clears it up.

s Augmented Seventh (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)