Talk:Top Chef: Chicago

Richard Blais and Iron Chef

Anyone think the fact that Richard Blais has competed on Iron Chef America before this show is notable enough to add?

Reunion

Can we please have a summary added for the reunion. Why is it taking almost a day to add information for an episode that aired last night? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.239.183 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I Call for a lock on the page cause people keep editing it and it is getting annoying and also to the morons who are saying richard got 2nd runnerup well your wrong cause the JUDGES have to SAY he got 2nd runner up witch they did not, they did agree with him when they said he choked but they DID NOT say Richard got 2nd runner up so stop editing that part and STOP WASTING MINE AND EVERYONE ELSES TIME AND WIKIS SPACE CAUSE YOU ALL THINK THAT HE GOT 2ND RUNNER UP CAUSE HE DIDNT--Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351

2nd Place, Runner Up, Order

I personally missed the finale, but just checked it on Youtube. They did not say who was second place or not. I feel however that the runners up should be done in alphabetical order, since they were both runners up. Having Richard above Lisa makes it seem like that he did better than Lisa, in which nothing says he did or didn't. For me, it makes more sense to put it in alphabetical order, and make a note that says that it wasn't explictley (I know I spelled that wrong) said who, if any was second place. Thanks. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well I agree wth that cause if you look above i am getting tired with them talking about richard and lisa and should be placed after steph--Spiderman2351 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)spiderman2351
• agreed since no source can be found for saying either of them finished in 2'nd place we can't list them as such. They are both the runner up. harlock_jds (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree as well, this would be my preferred solution for all the reasons you said. Stardust8212 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is a FACT, as stated by User:Tinkleheimer above, that the judges never stated who came in 2nd place.

Having said that, I need to acknowledge that I have grown somewhat annoyed by a particular editor who has claimed the following in his or her edit summaries:

• Lisa finished in second place in the finale
• Lisa finished in 2nd place
• Lisa finished in 2nd place
• Lisa finished in 2nd place, Richard finished in 3rd place
• Lisa finished in 2nd place, not Richard
• Lisa finished in second place
• Richard ended up in third place due to the judges thinking he did the worst of the three in the finale
• Lisa was the first runner-up of the final elimination challenge

I went to the Top Chef website, in the assumption that this editor knew something that I did not. I could find nothing supporting this notion that Lisa came in second place. As far as I can tell, this editor has never offered any support for this idea, other than the naked assertion itself. If I had to guess, it would appear that this editor (who might well be Lisa herself, for all I know) thinks that we can be bullied into accepting as fact something that is not.

Now if no one officially came in 2nd, who do we place in that position? Alphabetical order is certainly one way to do it, but it is not sacred. As for myself, what I found quite surprising, as someone who saw probably only about half the episodes at most, is how miraculous it was that Lisa was in the finale at all. Look at the color-coded chart in the article:

• Lisa was on the "chopping block", that is, was included in the group of the worst chefs who were up for possible elimination, a total of six times. Richard found himself in that position only once.
• Richard was in the group of best performers a total of seven times, and actually won four of those times. Lisa was in the group of best performers only twice, with one win.

Now I know that it's an imperfect analogy, but to illustrate a point, consider this: In a sports league, like the NFL, every year teams get knocked out of the season/playoffs at the same time with neither of them officially coming in ahead of the other. For example, each year, twelve teams make the playoffs, and every year, four teams get knocked out during the first week of the playoffs. And it reasonable for fans of one team knocked out that first week to assert that their team did as well as each of the other three teams knocked out that first week. And there is some truth to this. But the NFL has to decide between them anyway, because the teams need to be ranked from 1 to 32 to determine draft order in April. And so what do they do? They go to win-loss records. And even though Team A and Team B may both have been knocked out of the playoffs the same week, the fact that Team A's record was 9 wins and 7 losses means that it is considered to have an inferior record to Team B, which—even though it was knocked out the same week—had a record of 10 wins and 6 losses.

Now before you tell me that Top Chef is not the NFL, or that this analogy is inapplicable for some reason or another, let me just say, yeah, yeah, I know. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but as I said, it does illustrate a point, namely, the fact that Richard blew Lisa out of the water. Lisa beat Richard in Week 5. Richard beat Lisa in Week 1, Week 4, Week 7, Week 8, Week 9, Week 10, Week 11, Week 12, and Week 13. He beat her nine weeks and she beat him only once! So did Richard actually "beat" Lisa in the finale? No, he did not; as best as I have been able to determine, the judges did not clue us in. But the evidence establishes quite firmly that he was consistently better across the season, and that that is every bit as good a reason for placing him in the 2nd place position as anything else.

Now while I know that this is not sufficient reason to assert categorically that Richard belongs in 2nd place, I at least have respected my fellow editors enough to provide my reasoning (which I did the first time I visited this article and began to edit it. Contrast this with these categorical and unsupported assertions of Lisa's ostensible 2nd place finish. Frankly, I might be able to accept alphabetical ordering, but before I let go of this I want Lisa's Booster Club to either a) acknowledge that there is no foundation for Lisa being listed as the 2nd place finisher, or b) provide evidence thereof. I mean, if there is something out there that I missed, then I want to see it, because, above all, I want the article to be as accurate as we can get it. But I have asked for the reasoning behind this assertion, and this editor has continued to edit while ignoring my questions. Until Lisa's fans choose to discuss, instead of bully, I feel that the current version should stay. Unschool (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that looking at it on paper (or on screen), Richard did beat Lisa throughout the series. But for the finale, the final dish(or was it dishes...probably dishes) determined the winner. I did not see the judges deliberations, but from the sounds of it, Lisa provided a better finale than Richard did. But, as said, there is no way we can say Richard or Lisa got second place. The judges only said that Lisa provided a better finale, not that she did better throughout the series. Ehh...I just lost my train of thought...

But it seems like we all have consensus now, I will go ahead and make the proper edits (if needed). Any other problems, lets discuss here. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not see the judges deliberations, but from the sounds of it, Lisa provided a better finale than Richard did. This is the sort of statement that is really getting under my skin. Where did you get this impression? From what statement made by a judge did Lisa do better? I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that I want to see some evidence. I've provided evidence—not just my feelings or opinions—for my preference. What does this mean, "from the sounds of it"? From the sounds of what? I'm reverting this, not because I am closed to it ending up in this order, but because I want the record clear: Is there any evidence that the judges preferred Lisa over Richard in the finale? What did they say that indicated this? I don't remember it; share with me some dialogue, or a YouTube link, or something. Please help me join you in a consensus. Unschool (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean for that comment to be taken like that. But I was saying from what I've seen, from both parties on both sides, apparently the judges liked Lisa's a lot more. But there is no way we can put that she is second place, the judges never said she was second place. They also never said Richard was second place. So the only logical way I can see is Alphabetical Order with note, like I had before. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tinkleheimer, I did not see your comment here before I responded below; I only saw Stardust's comment. I apologize for coming across as intemperate. Unschool (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see the finale and as I recall the judges felt that of the four courses Lisa won two of them and Stephanie won two and they eventually decided that Stephanie had done the best overall, of course they did not name a second or third place finisher which is what leads to all this nonsense. Unfortunately overall performance is not what the judges use to determine who wins an individual challenge which is why Lisa who did poorly in many challenges was still in the finale, she just never happened to be the worst. Because of this we cannot assume that the overall score throughout the series has any bearing in the final finish. So we don't know who finished second and we must come up with an unbiased way of listing the contestants, alphabetical order is the best we've come up with, if you have a different order that you think is unbiased then please suggest it. Also note that your opinion does not trump consensus so please do not revert just because you don't like it. Stardust8212 11:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I recognize that my rationale for placing Richard higher was insufficient grounds for insisting upon his placement in 2nd place; I said so quite explicitly. Besides, though no one (to my amazement) pointed it out, to accept the argument that Richard should be listed in 2nd place because he whipped Lisa's ass week in and week out would constitute a clear violation of WP:OR. My bone of contention was with seeing editors write over and over that Lisa took 2nd place as a statement of fact, which it is not. Time after time certain editor(s), in complete violation of WP:V, insisted on not only placing Lisa in second place, but stating that she was awarded 2nd place. This too, was a violation of WP:OR, though more grevious than mine, because no one showed enough respect to proffer any rationale for this argument.

Now Stardust comes along and finally does what no one else would take the time to do: She explained what she saw that made her feel this way--that the judges listed their favorites for each of the courses, and it appeared that Stephanie and Lisa were the favorites on 2 courses each. And guess what? Now I do remember this. I remember watching the finale and thinking that it was between Lisa and Stephanie; I just didn't remember it until Stardust shared that. So yeah, I feel a bit stupid, making a big deal about it and all, but the fact is, I consistently asked for someone to explain their rationale for placing Lisa in 2nd, and I got consistently ignored. Thank you, Stardust, for jogging my memory.

Having said that, as we've said all along, there is no second place finisher. Despite the fact that the judges appeared to be split between the two women, it would still be OR to use this to place Lisa in 2nd. So I guess we are left with alphabetical order, and I have no more points of contention. I only wanted to make it clear why I am agreeing to this, and that I still consider some of the behaviour exhibited in this article's history to be an attempt at bullying, and I will still fight against any attempt to elevate Lisa to 2nd place status. I also disagree that it has been established that there is consensus yet on this issue; the consensus may appear to exist on the talk page (and I am now part of that emerging consensus), but those bullying reverts were reverting many different editors, if memory serves. Don't be surprised if it continues to be changed again by others. But when it does, don't try to shut them up by saying, "Lisa came in 2nd"—tell them to read this talk page and get edjamacated.

I'm out. Unschool (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument is getting really stupid. The judges said nothing of second place, therefore, we cannot assume anything about second place. Lisa and Richard are both runners-up. End of story. --MASEM 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

um just put it in aphalbetical order and lets be done with it and also put a lock on the page so we can stop vandals --Spiderman2351 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351

I know this is already decided but since I am talked about in here, not by name but by my actions I thought I would respond. I felt this was similar to last year's chart where Richard (Casey) was thought to have done the worst of the final three and that it was down to Stephanie and Lisa (Hung and Dale.)

As for the edit summaries posted, they are not entirely correct because all but two of those were actually reverts of edits made by anonymous editors without an edit summary. I always have something in my edit summary so other editors know why I made the edit. After making the reverts, the anonymous editors would never make another edit here or discuss it on the talk page, which leads me to believe they did not feel that strong in their position. And even since the consensus was reached here, we had yet another anonymous editor making the change without an edit summary.

As for me being Lisa, I only wish I could cook that well. Being accused of being Lisa is so funny that I will have to tell my sister and her husband since they went to culinary school with and are friends with Stephanie, which is who I was rooting for the entire time. Aspects (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

it's wrong on the Top Chef Season 3 page because the show didn't award '2'nd runner up' they were both just runner up. (I'm not going to screw with the ordering there because i just don't care about that but i did remove the bogus title).harlock_jds (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate time to remind everyone that in the future when you find yourself reverting the same thing over and over it is appropriate to bring it to the talk page and not expect people to just figure out what you're trying to say from the edit summary. This goes for everyone involved, we seem to have worked out most of the issue here in such a short period of time once we started discussing, it's ridiculous that it went on as long as it did. Stardust8212 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Unschool (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Color coding gender for seasons 4, 7 and 8

For reasons that aren't clear, an editor has arbitrarily color coded the contestants for seasons 4, 7 and 8 by gender, which adds nothing to the article, and makes the already complicated color scheme even more complicated. I see no reason for it; the contestants' names are all easily discernible by virtue of their names alone. I've reverted once, received a cryptic note on my talk page informing me not to revert again because the article is better, and reverted again, reminding the editor of BRD. I can't see the point of the gender color coding, particularly given it's only done for three of eight season. Drmargi (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)