Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Guy Fieri

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 16 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alanderson3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

Is his surname of Italian origin? Badagnani (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He is Italian. His nickname is "Guido".

How do you know this? And why is his father's surname "Ferry"? Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy this "Ferry" surname. The citation references a blog entry from a blog I don't recognize. Who knows if it's legit. I can't find any other source to corroborate this. I think someone's trying to imply something. That I don't know, but I wouldn't take this at face value.Gschrive87 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His parents are Jim and Penny Ferry. Says so in the linked article from his local newspaper. DFS (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that's not a blog: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/11/10/the-glenn-beck-of-food.html Karajanis (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source also documents a different pronunciation. Should it be changed as well? --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone knows IPA, please do. I unfortunately don't. Also maybe list both because otherwise I'd have no idea that Fieri is pronounced as "Fi-et-ti" and I've not heard it as "Fi-et-ti" elsewhere, really. Karajanis (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • * *

His real name isn't Guy Fieri. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy was not born in Riverside, New Jersey. He was born in Columbus, Ohio. I am not sure where this information came from. There are no public references to cite this for accuracy. I work for Guy and he has asked me to change this along with some other things. Tomn2002 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, he may be trying to re-create the surname of his paternal lineage prior to the stereotypical Ellis Island clerk's mangling of it in the official documentation. If that is the case, I wouldn't call it "only a stage-name". 76.92.138.240 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The top three don't work as of 75.146.224.18 (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All links work as of 08/2009 DFS (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section should include the Official Blog, Official YouTube Channel, the Official Facebook page, and the Official Twitter. Please do not remove these again. Zenergy Works is Guy's authorized SEO / SMO / SEM company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenergyWorks (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 December 2010

No, it shouldn't. Please review WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have reviewed the terms, and we believe that because these are Official sources and because that is verifible, and because Zenergy Works, an SEO company based in Santa Rosa, CA is the controlling interest in the online presence of Guy Fieri, that these links qualify as Official links and should be treated as such. They are in no way meant to promote Guy, but merely to offer fans of Guy Fieri more Official sources of information.

Quote: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds,

Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following

  • 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. (check, ZW is responsible for Guy Fieri's online presence.)
  • 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. (Sources are each Official sources for Guy Fieri's information, and online media presence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenergyWorks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up. I appreciate your not adding them back.
You're adding the links to promote Fieri. Please review WP:SPAM and WP:COI.
The links are redundant. The one link to his official site suffices - it links to all the others. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferndale and Piner High School Unsourced

The article says he "grew up in Ferndale, California (attending Piner High School),[2]" The article referenced is about him winning the Next Food Network Star and does not contain mention of either Ferndale or Piner High School. He very well may have grown up in Ferndale (judging from the picture of him as a child selling pretzels in a wooded area that looks like that part of Northern California), but the source is wrong. As well, there is a Piner High School in Santa Rosa (it's on Wikipedia, duh) but there isn't one in Ferndale that I know of. Point being this info needs to be properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauNacht (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Piner High School in Ferndale. The article makes it look like he grew up and went to Piner High School in Ferndale which would be impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.247.87 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He grew up in Ferndale, California. [1] He attended Ferndale High School [2]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Page article

I have restored the edit because the only reason they were removed was good faith but misapplied "per BLP - tabloid". I took pains to make sure the addition, which could be challenged or likely to be challenged without sourcing, was attributed to a reliable, published source using inline citation --exactly as per WP:BLP. My best guess is the assumption made in the removal is the City Pages somehow run afoul of a subjective opinion on what is "tabloid journalism" in the WP:BLP line "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." That completely misconstrues the paper, an alternative newspaper published in the tabloid format, and seems to not pay attention the very sources cite: it in takes its queue from two professionals that worked with Fieri for 11 years as well as his own reply. I tried to properly characterize the relationship of one of the individuals cited as being in conflict with Fieri, and anyone can read the source to make their own judgment. I also wrote out an edit summary that pointed out that more might be added as this develops (the story was published a few days ago, I saw it when I picked up the hard copy). Obviously, we can talk this out, but based on my assumption that there was a mistake on how to register City Pages, I restored for now. --Bobak (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my edit summary wasn't clear. BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "
The source is poor, demonstrating tabloid-style, sensationalist journalism. Page clearly has an axe to grind with Fieri, and City Pages is capitalizing on the situation by giving a venue for Page to sling mud.
If you feel the desire to restore the material again, please instead start a discussion at BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am a longtime reader and supporter of Wikipedia.

As such, it is my fervent hope that this section remain part of the article for all time. Please, in the name of all that is good on the internet, please refrain from editing this citation out of existence.

With love and respect,

63.164.201.212 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Longtime Wikipedia Fan[reply]

I agree with the above user. The additions to the "Popular Culture" section that occurred today are parts of the webcomic "MS Paint Adventures", where a page from today states the "antichrist" and "supreme court" comments. The page in question can be found here. I see no reason why a "Popular Culture" area could not be placed on this page as they are true facts of his reputation with at least the MS Paint Adventures fanbase. --108.65.189.25 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to keep on the page for now to keep people from going crazy and vandalizing the article any further, but is it really all that relevant to Guy Fieri the person? (Disclaimer: I am a huge Homestuck fan.) Nongendered (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because "In Popular Culture" sections are usually trivia and unimportant information related to the subject, they are only kept if the uses of the subject in popular culture receive coverage from reliable sources. This Homestuck page has not received this coverage, so it is not included. Come back if the page does get mentioned by a news organization. SilverserenC 07:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Culture is something that is less structured and stable than history or many other bits of information. What you, or news resources deem as "popular culture" are not quite relevant to the meaning of the phrase. You'll be able to tell that the idea is popular, my guess is, by the number of people who are going to manipulate this page, or check previous history throughout the day. Since MS Paint Adventures is an online resource, Wikipedia really should be more open to providing coverage of the subject. It is one of the few resources that has the capacity to, and the silly "relevancy" complaints that I've heard over the years continue to be poorly attended to the medium.
As for your argument, Silver, the website that is directly causing the uproar should be reliable enough. You don't need to go to a news resource to determine if the thing that is getting referred to is openly accessible on the website of origination. Now, if that website referred to an event that happened outside of, in beyond the website, then that would be a different story. Since any person can go to the page referenced and determine that the event happened, it would be a reliable resource. 8472 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should be ashamed of your censorship and whitewashing. The popular culture edit holds to the standards set by any similar blurb on any other part of this website. You are abusing your power to protect a page to muzzle other users; a clear violation of the spirit of the entire Wikipedia project. 74.192.144.49 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Werty: Considering that Wikipedia as a whole is an encyclopedia that is based on secondary source coverage (like all other encyclopedias), what news sources say is actually of maximum importance. And the problem with trying to say what you or I think is popular is that it is subjective for every single person, which is why we instead base popularity on secondary news coverage of a subject. And I know that nothing I say is going to change your mind, since according to your userpage, you think that anything anyone says on the internet is notable.
@74.192: Comparing it to other articles is a non-starter argument. If other articles have popular culture sections that don't have proper secondary coverage, then they should also be removed. Just because they haven't been yet doesn't mean that they're allowed. SilverserenC 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silver, is your criticism valid, or just snarky? Even if I hadn't written that statement of position years ago, back in the dawning of Wikipedia, it is not a negative mark on a person to take a stance on a subject. You know that I'm already biased on the subject. That you're willing to discount my ability to accept new information and discussion on the subject lays on your flaw.
What I am saying on the subject is that Wikipedia has many capacities that lay outside of all other encyclopedias. The format allows for rapid generation of socially relevant articles. Because it doesn't take up physical print space, numerous articles that allow access to topics which have sub-cultural importance are possible. Because Wikipedia exists as an online entity, it expects certain audiences (namely ones that have the capacity to explore the internet) over others (audiences without internet accessibility, for instance). Because it has certain audiences, there is a certain necessity for it to offer insight to those audiences, to maintain its identity of an encyclopedia.
More on-topic, what I've explained is that your argument that "the article does not have a reliable source" is faulty. If you want to make another argument about the reasoning why this MS Paint Adventures content is not worthy of having a Popular Culture addition, please do that instead of resorting to Ad Hominem. Then I will reduce that argument down to rubble, and you can try again. 8472 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information needs a reliable secondary source covering it for it to be included. Otherwise, it lacks any importance. Anyone can make a website and comment on a subject. That doesn't mean we include all mentions of this nature. We only include ones that are discussed, even if it is discussed ephemerally, in reliable secondary sources. This is even more so needed in this situation, when we're talking about the usage of a living person that, even if meant humorously, can count as defamation. SilverserenC 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bam. Are you are using the royal 'we'? I hope you are not talking as though your personal opinions are to be considered the same as Wikipedia's. Your 'anyone can make a website' argument shows the faultiness of that statement. MSPA is an intensely popular webcomic with tens of thousands of readers. Just because a traditional news source doesn't recognize the website, does not make the website irrelevant. Secondly, we're talking about a living person, who when used humorously in context, is not defamation, and is at most parodied. It appears that you're not familiar with the use of Guy Fieri in this situation, so perhaps you should not play the objective person on what counts as acceptable mention in popular culture. 8472 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using we in the sense of being someone who understands what the rules are regarding reliable sources and speaking to you, someone who edits rather infrequently and seems to not know what these rules are. Furthermore, I know exactly what MSPA is, I have read Homestuck, Problem Sleuth, Bardquest (sad it wasn't finished), and Jailbreak, and i've loved all of them. However, that doesn't change the fact that MSPA is not a news organization or of enough note to include a random fact from what will be only 3-4 pages in a 4000+ page comic into a Wikipedia article about a living person, especially when the random fact usage in the comic is fairly derogatory, regardless of whether it is parody or not. SilverserenC 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're using 'we' in the sense that you're trying to infer that your recency in posting entitles you to a purer understanding of the logic of your argument. Dismissing my argument that you are not familiar with the comic, we're still left with the issue of your understanding of the Popular Culture subsection. Let's look at the practice of different Popular Culture sections on Wikipedia: The Hindenburg Disaster, Oberon, The Columbine High School Massacre, and a good deal of the listings on the Wiki about Adolf Hitler are placed without citation. This is not due to poor recording. Items placed within Popular Culture, Historical References, and Modern Culture sections are self-evident. They are factual, as displayed by their placement within the existence of the medium, and not necessarily accurate representations of the person, object, or event as they stand.
Where much of the encyclopedia relies on a truth built, not on hearsay, but on an accumulation of facts which, when held against a certain standard, have a certain value of "truth", as per the perception of society at large, Popular Culture sections are different. Take this issue of Guy Fieri. Now, you're suggesting that some "secondary reliable source" needs to exist to post data. This is not so. Say that the personal website, Twitter account, or some form of direct communication with the actual Guy Fieri made a specific, self-evident statement. Let's pretend Guy Fieri said on his personal blog that his real name was "Man Fieri". While you might not be able to alter certain parts of the post (such as the "born as" name) without further data, you could certainly update the Wiki to include that he publicly announced that his real name as "Man Fieri" without having some "secondary reliable source".
This is an issue involving perception layers. If Guy Fieri made a statement about himself, that statement is self-evident, and can directly influence the encyclopedic dialogue involving his personal perception about himself, and the way he directly addresses it. In Popular Culture sections, it is no longer taking a view from Guy Fieri, and looking outward. Instead the perception revolves around external entities and their perception of Guy Fieri. The things that can directly affect this perception layer are facts which are self-evident. In this case, the issue is that MSPA has factually used Guy Fieri, albeit absurdly, as character in the Homestuck universe. The direct sentiment is that some external entity (the author of MSPA) has perceived the topic element (Guy Fieri) in an abstract way, and the artistic representation that come from that perception is as described in the medium of the external entity (the comic, Homestuck). The fact that this happened is self-evident. Re-stated simply: The inclusion of Guy Fieri by the artist Andrew Hussie in the MSPA Comic: Homestuck is factual, evidenced by the direct link to the comic. This is a relevant statement for a Popular Culture subsection. 8472 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it out. It's trivia, recentism, and poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: while popularity is subjective, some things are popular enough that their popularity is clear no matter the subjectivity. MSPA has more than 600,000 views every single day; it's hard to argue that something with that many interested people isn't popular. Documentation of something on an internet website should also be different than documentation of real-life things or things not specific to a certain website. Reliable sources for real-life events are necessary because it is impossible for anyone to click on a link and be teleported back in time to the event. If specific information on a specific page of a website is referred to, that page is a reliable source because it is indisputable evidence that the website contains the mentioned content on that page. --72.74.134.38 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MSPA might be popular, but that doesn't mean their mention of Fieri is remotely as popular. Nor does it mean that even the most popular content on MSPA deserves mention anywhere in Wikipedia without secondary sources, especially without secondary sources that demonstrate it's somehow worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me refer you to the arguments listed in my previous responses about use of secondary sources, sources, and the use of Popular Culture subsections. As for your comment about the worthiness for MSPA content deserving mention without secondary sources, I believe that this is exemplary of some Wikipedia writers' incapacity to accept new media as notable. Major news organizations are simply not going to be cognizant of successful online subcultures, not because they're irrelevant, but because major news organizations do not share the same niche. 8472 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let wikipedia have its fun guys. We have outlets like TVTropes and MSPAWiki to include information that is relevant to our interests and without having to deal with moderators that won't listen to reason. Everyone knows the edits were done to troll, and most know that Wikipedia is irrelevant when it comes to internet culture regardless - JG

Please focus on content.
See WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CBALL. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way that parties and artists external to the topic, view and represent the topic is a relevant piece of the complicated issue of any topic. No object, person, event, etc. lays outside the universe which regards it, and represents it in their own kind. The fact that some guy got some network to make some show about him is about as notable as some guy writing some comic which includes some other guy in it.

P.S.: Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia 8472 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@8472: How far does your line of argument go? Should mentions of references in Homestuck appear on the Wikipedia page for Betty Crocker? For Fruit Gushers? For Bing Crosby? Should a mention of Dave's iShades appear on the Apple Inc. page? Should the page for Martha Stewart mention this Sexy Losers strip? 74.79.22.82 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@74.79.22.82: Not very far, clearly. My argument here is weaker than in other places. I think that Guy Fieri is about as notable, or less than the comic Homestuck. Of course, notability is not able to be measured in absolutes... Which is why I think there should be some sort of discussion about the legitimate idea that Homestuck is a notable popular culture mention, as opposed to a single/small number of Wikipedia elites simply saying that it is not notable, deleting mentions, and then rejecting argumentation based on their status as an editor (even going so far as trying to change the rules to succeed in this argument).
That slippery slope goes both ways. I saw a similar argument over notability of a mention over at the Dante Basco page. As I argued about 10 years ago, I am still arguing- Wikipedia does not take into account the notability of new media, and has archaic methods of determining notability for smaller subjects which Wikipedia could clearly cover. P.S.: I think it'd explain to the people at Betty Crocker why some people randomly asserted in tweets and e-mails about something about a "batterwitch". 8472 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the food reality

This "As Not Seen on TV, Restaurant Review: Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar in Times Square" by the New York Times just knocks the hype down so perfectly. Why isn't this in the article?86.167.185.32 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 15:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the review, I can see why Guy reacted the way he did. Not living within 1000 miles of NYC, it's not practical for me to go there and see for myself. I presume, however, that the restaurant is still open because the article doesn't mention that it closed. In either event, was there any legal action taken? If so, it belongs in the article; if not, it's an excellent example of objective, neutral reporting. JDZeff (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant closed at the end of 2017 https://ny.eater.com/2017/12/28/16827086/guys-american-kitchen-bar-closing-nyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskalexander (talk • contribs) 08:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS in Hotel Management from UNLV? Is this BS in itself?

I have a feeling Fieri does not know what He studied or graduated with. In one episode of Triple D I saw last year on Food Network, he mentioned that when He went to UNLV, he studied PoliSci. Is there any chance we can find out what is right, please? I am aware he's on UNLV's alumni page as '90 BS Hotel Management, but that's from an article in Premier Magazine. I think it would be a good idea to actually contact UNLV and verify that what is published in that source is absolutely correct. If the man himself says he studied PoliSci, who the hell are we to argue with him? :) CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His website says "hospitality management", as does the Humboldt Beacon. Since the latter is a reliable third-party source, I'll use that. Huon (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Garlic’s

Guy Fieri has sold his interest in his first restaurant Johnny Garlic’s. https://www.eater.com/2016/4/6/11379656/guy-fieri-sells-johnny-garlics-tex-wasabis

Only 2 locations remain, in Brentwood and Bakersfield, CA. http://johnnygarlics.com/locations/ Chriskalexander (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His restaurant list needs to be updated because he is adding a new one in Boston early next year, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/05/lifestyle/when-beantown-meets-flavortown/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnow24 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Feiri's last name actually enunciated as Feiti (Fee-et-tee) by his restaurant employees.

Guy Feiri's last name is actually enunciated as Feiti (Fee-et-tee) by employees of his famous national restaurants. 173.235.218.29 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That matches the pronunciation of his name given in the lead Calidum 19:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He "received criticism" for taking a photo with an American president? Keep vapid politics out of editing, please. Nobody cares.

Criticism from who? A few people on Twitter? A random celebrity nobody has ever heard of? Somebody please remove this ridiculous line. 2603:8081:6440:FC:858B:1109:7A9B:1DE1 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Completely irrelevant. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

Can someone update the Guy Fieri#Filmography section to reflect the fact that Fieri has been hosting the television competition show Tournament of Champions (TV series) since 2020 (i.e. change "2020" to "2020–present") since the airing of season 5 just started earlier this week? 206.246.131.209 (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 03 March 2024

Can someone update the Guy Fieri#Filmography section to reflect the fact that the series Guy's Ranch Kitchen is still being filmed? According to IMDb, the sixth episode of season seven recently aired on 16 December 2023 and there is no evidence that the series has been canceled. 96.69.249.93 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --TheImaCow (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 04 March 2024

Can someone update the Guy Fieri#Filmography section to reflect the fact that the series Tournament of Champions (TV series) is currently airing on the Food Network? Since there is no evidence that the Food Network has plans to cancel this popular show, I suggest replacing "2024" with "present". 96.69.249.93 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – per MOS:DATED "present" should usually be avoided. If/when another season is released after this year it can be updated then, and so forth. ― novov (t c) 05:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for his Daytime Emmy Award

A list of winners can be found here: [3]https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/tv/la-et-40th-daytime-emmy-awards-complete-list-20130616-story.html

Note that it lists the show name as “Guy’s Family Reunion”, omitting his last name. Stevedonohue (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fieri