Talk:Marcel Vigneron

Needs Update

This article needs an update. Marcel recently gave an interview (after the Top Chef Finale Part 2 had aired), in which he disclosed he had just gotten a promotion to another of Robuchon's restaurants.FirthFan1 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Article still needs an update. He had a show "Marcel's Quantum Kitchen" with the SyFy channel on catering with molecular gastronomy around 2010, 2011. UC232 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) comment edited because status could not be confirmed. UC232 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcel's chow.com interview with Joyce Satan and Meredith Arthur is where this originates from. He said he is still at The Mansion, but just got a new job in the "Alchemy Kitchen." He's really revved about it because it is the exact opposite of Robuchon and provides the opportunity to work with several master sommeliers. Any more info on whether this is a restaurant-within-a-restaurant, an associated restaurant or cafe on the same premises, a division of The Mansion's kitchen, or what? http://www.chow.com/stories/10435 FirthFan1 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Description never realized

The article currently states: "Marcel dreams up a theme and cuisine for the event, which range from a fairytale graduation party and a Goth-rock fashion show to a birthday dinner held on a platform suspended in mid-air." I have watched the entire first season, the official SyFy websites indicates only one season, and the wiki article for his TV show also indicates only one season (along with episode descriptions). None of these examples ever occurred. I will try to imagine some better ones. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Top Chef and "Hair-gate"

I, an anonymous editor, have been adding information to this article as of late in regards to Mr. Vigneron's experience on Top Chef. Specifically, I've been adding information regarding the so-called "hair-gate" episode in which some Top Chef participants attempt to shave Marcel's head without his consent.

Another editor has been admirably vigilant in his attempts to make sure that this article stays relevant and compliant whilst I make my edits, and has lent me his opinion regarding relevancy and compliance a few times with some judicious reverting. I, the ever-eager-to-please anonymous editor have been putting in the required elbow grease to make sure my compatriot Wikipedian feels that his concerns are listened to, and are properly addressed.

The latest concern being raised is related to the use of blogs as sources. As we all know, blogs are NOT reliable sources. WP:SELFSOURCE is very clear about this. However, it also states that there is an exception to the rule:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I've included a statement regarding activity in the blogosphere about this episode of Top Chef; fans of the show blogged about discrepancies in the editing, which caught the attention of entertainment news outlets. I've included reliable sources on the subject (one article from MSNBC, and an interview with Marcel himself with the Gothamist), but have also referenced a few blogs as well to provide evidence regarding activities in these blogs.

My fellow Wikipedian has reverted my latest edits, stating "Blogs are not reliable sources (please read that link). Also read up on blogs specifically here. If these blogs were notable themselves (i.e., had their own Wikipedia articles) then we could possibly include what they said about "hairgate" (or whatever it is they called it) but until that happens they do not belong in this article."

It is my opinion that the effort to prevent the inclusion of my latest edit is perhaps a bit misguided; the information I have added is about activity in the blogosphere. Citing blogs to ground claims about activity on said blogs is a clear example of using a self-published and questionable source as a source on itself.

The article need not be about "hair-gate" to warrant its mention, nor does the article need to be about blogging in order to justify including information about activity in the blogosphere, particularly since it was activity in the blogosphere that brought this particular coverup to light.174.17.36.233 (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully you noticed that I did not remove the part of your edit that cited MSNBC and Gothamist. That was well-written and those are reliable sources (apparently -- I am unfamiliar with the Gothamist). What I did remove were the claims that quoted what appear to be non-notable blogs.

So let's look at the exception criteria. The first problem is that these blogs are not being used in articles about themselves. They are being used in an article about someone else and the very point of not allowing blogs as sources is this very thing. Further, the blogs are about someone other than themselves which violates point 2.

What it comes down to is that the MSNBC article established that the blogosphere responded in the way you indicated and that's all that's required. In order to include any specific responses we would need a secondary reliable source to discuss those specifics. But even if these blogs were notable themselves (recognized experts in the field and having their own Wikipedia articles) the information is of questionable value. The article is about Marcel and not about the hair-shaving incident. From a purely compositional point of view going into the details of what the blogs actually said and speculated about (which is problematical in itself!) is giving too much weight to what is a fairly insignificant event in the subject's life (see WP:UNDUE for some thoughts on that). That it happened might be worth mentioning, going on about how bloggers responded is tangential.

So in the end we have two issues, one is that using blogs like this in this situation goes against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And then as a matter of style it really does not belong.

Try to imagine what would happen to Wikipedia if we allowed blogs to be used in other situations similar to this. Take Star Wars, I'm guessing there are thousands upon thousands of blog posts from bloggers who hated the new trilogy. If we were to allow those blog posts in the Star Wars articles the Wikipedia servers would literally blow up from the weight of all those trillions of bits. Wikipedia is not here to report what blogs state but is here to provide summaries of what reliable secondary independent sources tell us. SQGibbon (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that there are two issues here. While I still disagree with you regarding the compliance of referencing blogs in this context, your argument that the blog references are unnecessary in light of the NBC reference was well made. My disagreement is academic; I've removed the blog references from the text.

In case you are curious, I'll share my opinion here regarding the blog citations, despite its lack of consequence.

Point #2 of "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" was made to prevent instances where an editor would use a blog reference to sneak in information about an unrelated subject / person / entity / etc. The reason why my citation of blogs was not in violation of this rule was because it was only made to indicate that blogging activity on the subject was significant. And you're right that the other citations are sufficient in this case.174.17.36.233 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcel Vigneron. 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/20160530093139/http://gothamist.com/2007/01/31/marcel_vigneron.php to http://gothamist.com/2007/01/31/marcel_vigneron.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)