Talk:Gordon Ramsay

entrepreneur?

I don't think refering to him as a entrepreneur is correct so I changed it to fine dining restauranter. I beleive it best describe's his current line of work.--Theoneintraining (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Even the BBC get this wrong. The word is "restaurateur". --Rodhullandemu 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Note to all parties involved in this ridiculous nationalist edit warring right now: please stop it immediately. Leave it as it is for a while until this calms down. I've left a note on the main instigator's talk page regarding the current status and future of the situation. Once he's had his way for a day the consensus version can be restored and this will end; if he continues to revert then appropriate action can be taken. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point, as I have been asked for an opinion. There is no consensus at WP:MOSBIO as to specifying nationalities of people born in the British Isles, so it's a matter of consensus and, dare I say it, common sense here. The analogy to Nigeria is attractive, and if Ramsay was born in Scotland to Scottish parents I'd say that makes him Scottish. However, since we say in the lead where he was born, this is implicit and does not need repetition in a clumsy construct that will annoy readers (remember them?). Even if we say he's a Scottish chef, that does not imply he cooks Scottish food. As for "fine dining", I don't know if that adds very much as I would assume that most top chefs would cook at that level. I too would urge some consensus and concern for the reader to emerge because frankly, I've seen this type of argument on many occasions and it's largely unproductive to push a POV. --Rodhullandemu 12:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My main argument is that calling him a Scottish chef is consistent with the majority of wikipedia, where British personalities are concerned. Rather than changing the pages of all other British chefs, it makes sense to make Ramsay's consistent with the pages of other British chefs. I don't know if the problem is the perceived implication that "Scottish chef" means he cooks Scottish food. Indeed, that is dealt with in the infobox. It says he specialises in French/Italian cuisine. Clydey (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency between articles would be great, but is not mandatory. There's an example here but it shouldn't be regarded as a precedent since that is only an essay citing an opinion of other editors on a different set of articles. It's up to the editors here to achieve consensus, and that type of argument may be persuasive, but no higher than that. And having said that he was born in Scotland, and we later say to Scottish parents, underlining that by repetition would seem to be unnecessary, but that, too, is only my opinion. --Rodhullandemu 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose adding "to Scottish parents". Referring to him as simply "a Scottish chef" is sufficient. The "born in Scotland" part could be removed, since his place of birth is already in the infobox. Having it in the main text is perhaps redundant, anyway. Clydey (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This rather begs the question of whether explicit nationalist labels are important enough to be attached as a matter of course to the lead sentences of biographies anyway. In cases of personalities whose country of birth matches their nationality and is itself given in the introduction, I don't believe it is. The inclusion of such things causes endless edit warring in cases of potential ambiguity (see the annals of Talk:Nikola Tesla for the archetypal example), and we'd be better off discouraging it rather than simply assuming it's mandatory. In future I'll be stripping it in such situations where I can in an effort to reduce this problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, someone's nationality is part of their identity. Can you imagine Sean Connery not being described as Scottish or Bruce Springsteen not being described as American? Like I said above, I would remove his place of birth from the main text. It's already in the infobox. Clydey (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, we should be following WP:BLP which states that biographic details need to be written conservatively, and with privacy. Since there's ambiguity in his nationality, the safest course of action is to simply list his birthplace, and call it a day. Individual readers can form their opinions about his nationality(-ies); we shouldn't be doing that when it compromises WP:NPOV which is a major pillar of WP:BLP.

As an aside, I believe WP:OSE only applies to entire articles, not the content within articles. --Madchester (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no more ambiguity in this article than there is in any other. The discussion has moved past that stage. We are discussing whether calling him Scottish is redundant, since his birth place is listed. I think it's more sensible to remove his place of birth from the main text because it is already listed in the infobox. That way he isn't essentially being called Scottish twice within about 5 words. Clydey (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have a Scottish accent, doesn't live there, and doesn't cook Scottish food, so how much of him is really Scottish? Not a lot.--212.241.64.236 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the article for a week to resolve this content dispute. Per WP:BLP, I've removed any indication of Ramsay's nationality from the lead paragraph for the time being, since the policy requires editors to add biographical information conservatively. At this time, we don't have any reliable sources indicating his "allegiance" to any particular country. His website bio simply states, Scottish by birth, Gordon was brought up in England; it makes no actual claims to his current or preferred nationality. I have a copy of Humble Pie and I'll give it a quick scan over the weekend. But I personally don't recall Ramsay making any statements indicating his national identity.

I've watched over similar nationality debates, for example the Steve Nash case on whether he's Canadian or South African/Canadian. The editors followed Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph and it was decided that he was Canadian since A) he played for the Canadian national team and B) made his name as a player coming out of Canada. With this article, it's a bit more complicated, since:

1. The guideline has no consensus on how to deal with the nationality of individuals from the United Kingdom.
2. The guideline also states that In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ramsay first gained notability when working in London. He's a "British citizen" regardless, but since London is part of England... I don't know how to incorporate that into his "nationality".

I strongly advise editors to refer to WP:BLP and WP:MOSBIO as you try to reach consensus. Arguments based on existing policies/guidelines carry more weight than those based on personal observation or "gut instinct". Cheers, --Madchester (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you playing at, Madchester? Ramsay's nationality has already been settled. Read the talk page. That is not the dispute. The dispute is whether calling him Scottish is redundant. There is a consensus on his nationality, so either you haven't kept up to date or you are ignoring the consensus. Could you please stick to the issue? I removed his place of birth from the main text, since it is already in the infobox. You also seem to be under the illusion that it is still possible for Ramsay to be English. Are you seriously suggesting that Ramsay can be described as English because he became famous while living there? If Nash played for Canada, that is a clear statement of allegiance. Ramsay has, apparently, made no concrete statement. And even if he did, it's not really relevant. He was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. There is no ambiguity. Clydey (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, keep your cool. No one is "playing" any games here. I have seen similar nationality debates where certain editors lost their cool.

Second, no consensus has been reached. Reviewing both article and user talk pages and the article edit history nothing has been agreed upon yet; you even made the statement A compromise has not been reached on your talk page. Again, I suggest that this issue is properly discussed, with adherence to existing Wiki policies/guidelines before reaching a consensus. --Madchester (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A compromise hasn't been reached. You completely misunderstood the issue to which we were referring. There had been no compromise on the opening paragraph, not his nationality. The issue wasn't whether or not he was Scottsh, but whether or not callng him Scottish was redundant, since his place of birth was also in the opening paragraph. That is why I removed his place of birth and replaced it with "Scottish chef". His place of birth is listed in the infobox.

Theoneintraining and I are on opposing sides in this debate, yet he recognises that Ramsay is Scottish. He said the following:

"I have no doubt in my mind that Gordon is Scottish I know he is, however the question is 'is Gordon a scottish chef" or "is Gordon Ramsay a chef'..."

Chris Cunningham agrees that Ramsay is Scottish. He said the following on my talk page:

"I agree with calling him Scottish. I changed the damn thing back myself."

RodHull agrees that Ramsay is Scottish. He said the following:

"The analogy to Nigeria is attractive, and if Ramsay was born in Scotland to Scottish parents I'd say that makes him Scottish. However, since we say in the lead where he was born, this is implicit and does not need repetition in a clumsy construct that will annoy readers (remember them?)."

Finally, I obviously agree that he is Scottish. Do you still think there's no consensus on his nationality? His nationality is not the issue. It is the redundancy of having his place of birth and his nationality in the same sentence. Therefore, I removed the place of birth, since it's in the infobox already, and I kept his nationality in the main text. Clydey (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this video clip. About nine minutes in, he says something that could be considered relevant. I don't want to say how much I read into it, since it's an off the cuff comment. Let me know what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTlZHg1cUfw

It's not conclusive, but the evidence is mounting up regarding his nationality. Clydey (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already said you don't think what he considers himself matters. Why are you trying to find a source where he calls himself Scottish? As for that specific video with him making a light hearted, jokey comment referring to his genetics - yes, he has Scottish blood as far as I know but that is not all that matters.

The main dispute I've had is not whether he is Scottish, but whether it's better to call him British, which he also is. Calling him British is more accurate and takes into account his connection to Scotland which is his parents and the fact he was born there, as well as his connection to England, which is the fact he has lived there since the age of 10 (perhaps earlier?), he started his business there, among other things. Refusing to admit any connection to England, being uncompromising and only willing to call him Scottish just screams of the type of nationalism we don't need on these articles, to me. Bloodloss (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is denying that he lived in England (it's in the main text). It's simply irrelevant, that's all. It has no bearing on his nationality. That is just a fact. He is 100% Scottish. It's not like he has one English parent. He simply lives in England. It is irrelevant. There's really no other way to put it. That's why J.K. Rowling can never be considered Scottish, even though she thinks of it as her spiritual home, it is where she lives, and is where she was inspired to write her books.

And it's not that what he considers himself matters to me. It seems to matter to other people on here, so I'm providing proof that he does consider himself Scottish. It seems certain people want him to state explicitly, "I am Scottish" before they will accept it as fact. And yes, blood and place of birth are all that matters (unless someone gets citizenship). Like I said, an Englishman can't live in Nigeria for 30 years and be considered Nigerian. The same applies to Scotland and England. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. Clydey (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems certain people want him to state explicitly, "I am Scottish" before they will accept it as fact.

That's how Wiki works. Any edit you make needs to be back up by a reliable source/citation per WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor who claims Ramsay is Scottish/British/Martian/whatever. Any unverifiable info (especially info about a living person) has to removed ASAP. --Madchester (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We're in grave danger of dancing ourselves round a decreasingly small issue here. Our own article Scottish people says in its lead "In modern use "Scottish people" or "Scots" refers to anyone born or living in Scotland."; although it's unsourced and I haven't looked at the talk page of that article yet. Assuming this is correct, Ramsay is Scottish, but, er, so is J. K. Rowling. Legally, he is British per lex soli under the various British Nationality Acts, which don't recognise a separate nationality as "Scottish". I see WP:V as being more important than WP:BLP here; since the whole premise of the latter is "do no harm", I fail to see what harm we do to Ramsay by saying he's either British or Scottish. Clearly, he makes no big thing of it, as Stanley Baxter did in Very Important Person (film). However, we would arguably need a reference to Ramsay having Scottish nationality, although I'm prepared to accept that being born in Scotland confers that status despite Scotland not being a separate nation in a legal sense. --Rodhullandemu 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That example would be a good comparison if Nigeria and England were in the same country. Last time I checked though, they weren't.

Scotland and England are both in the same country - the United Kingdom. As a result, the connection one has to one of the constituent countries actually matters in this case. Forget the Nigeria thing - I'm not saying he should be called English. He can be called both British and Scottish, both are correct. However, British refers to the United Kingdom and not just 1 constituent country within it. Since he has a big connection to more than 1 of the constituent countries, I believe the term British to be more accurate here... not to mention the fact he doesn't have Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/English citizenship, he has British citizenship, making it more accurate in the first place.

As for what he considers himself - Erm, yes. Is wanting to see him actually say 'I am of X nationality' before you say he is of X nationality actually that unreasonable? Or do we have to settle for Youtube videos of him slapping his belly and making light-hearted jokes as our references? Bloodloss (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely unreasonable. He has Scottish parents and he was born in Scotland, yet you won't accept it unless he explicitly says that he's Scottish. It's a bit silly, to be honest. If someone is Scottish, they are automatically British. The reverse isn't true. So by saying he is Scottish, you are still saying he's British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Again making things up. I have stated many times that he is Scottish (as well as British; a more accurate, compromising term). What I, and surely others, won't accept is that *he considers* himself *solely* Scottish with no connection to England until he says it. Which is entirely reasonable. Things like 'This American contestant once said he was Scottish when asked what region he was from' or 'On an Australian chat show he once slapped his belly and said 'Pure Scottish!' in reference to his genetics' isn't really good enough for me. As of now, no solid evidence has been given as to what he considers himself.

Yes - by being Scottish you are automatically British. Calling him Scottish isn't necessary when it even says his birthplace, not to mention uncompromising when he clearly has strong connections to England. Bloodloss (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going around in circles here. The fact is the majority on here have accepted that he is Scottish, so it's a non-issue just now. The opening sentence is the issue. Clydey (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Again WP:BLP. We write conservatively about the details of an individual. When said individual has made no definitive claim about his nationality, we as editors sure can't jump to conclusions about it.

The Alexander Graham Bell precedent works great. There's no indication of his nationality in the lead sentence. Satisfies WP:BLP perfectly. --Madchester (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell took out American citizenship. That is why the lead sentence does not mention his nationality. There are two separate, valid claims to the man. No such claim can be made about Ramsay. He is 100% Scottish. Clydey (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Am I supposed to edit after which comment I'm referring to or just add after the newest comment?

@Clydey: Yes, it's unfortunate you can't seem to understand that I have never claimed he isn't Scottish. He's also British, which takes into account his connection to England and is a more fair term to use. What I've been saying is under the assumption it's eventually going to be settled as having his nationality in the first sentence, though - and as for that, I think it should, but say 'British' and not 'Scottish' or 'English.' Bloodloss (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It should say Scottish. You disagree. You're outnumbered on the nationality issue, as only you and Madchester claim his connection to England is relevant.Clydey (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaching consensus is not about which side has more supporters. It's about reaching a mutually-agreeable result. As other editors have mentioned, it's not necessary to place "nationality labels" within the lead sentence; as you said the infobox already states his place of birth.

I think a simple lead sentence with no nationalistic hints would be the best resolution to this dispute. i.e., Gordon James Ramsay, OBE, (born November 8, 1966) is a chef, television personality and restaurateur. The accompanying infobox displays his place of birth, while the bulk of the article describes his childhood and career development in both Scotland and England. --Madchester (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How many people in total agree that it is completely irrelevant? I don't think a good argument should be ignored because a few more people disagree.

I'll quote what I wrote under the 'nationality' section which you haven't replied to:

How can you possibly not have a connection with the place you've lived in for the majority of your life? To the place where you've had most of your life experiences - where you met your best friends, your girlfriends, people who've changed your life, etc. How can you not have a connection to the place you were educated? To where you first started to become a chef? To where your business started and a significant amount of it is still located? To the country where you met your wife, who is also English? To where you're raising your kids? To your home. I can see why you would say he has more connection to Scotland, but to outright deny any connection to England is utterly ridiculous. Bloodloss (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What a load of complete rubbish. See Sean Connery. Regardless of my position on Clydey's absolutism, your position is groundless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. care to make some proper points instead of just vaguely saying "See Sean Connery"? I'm saying it's ridiculous to state that Gordon Ramsay has no connection whatsoever to England. I don't see a problem with this, nor do I see what Sean Connery has to do with it. Bloodloss (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Where is the link to where he replied, "Scottish pig"? That would be a good reference if it exists. Clydey (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it's my own recollection but it is a hoot of a film and a brilliant example of insisting on a national identity even against one's own interests. It turns up on TV from time to time. --Rodhullandemu 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the film, if you can recall the name? I wouldn't mind seeing that. Can you reference documentaries? Clydey (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Linked above: Very Important Person (film). Nothing on Goggle. --Rodhullandemu 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Current lead sentence

Is the current lead sentence a good compromise for all parties? Namely:

Gordon James Ramsay, OBE, (born November 8, 1966) is a chef, television personality and restaurateur.

It complies with existing Wiki policies and doesn't label Ramsay with any particular nationality, which is something other editors have suggested. Since no one can agree on how Scottish or British he is (and Ramsay makes no claim himself) it's a good halfway point for both sides. --Madchester (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since no one can agree on how Scottish or British he is (and Ramsay makes no claim himself) it's a good halfway point for both sides." I beg to differ: there is a recent STV interview with Gordon Ramsay on You Tube where he quite clearly identifies with being Scottish (in the context of supporting the Scottish national football team during the Euro 2008 qualifying matches). Iainidc (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt seem to make a very good argument, I support the Montreal Canadiens, but I'm neither from Montreal or from Quebec, nor does it mean I support anything about either other than I like the team. Knowledgeum :  Talk  00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

During this year's British Grand Prix, Ramsay was interviewed by ITV's Martin Brundle on the grid. He identified himself as being British when predicting a Lewis Hamilton victory on home soil. So again, Ramsay makes no definitive claim of his nationality - neither should wiki-editors, in order to satify WP:BLP. It's not so much about nationality, but veracity on Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Ramsay does make a claim to be Scottish. Unfortunately, you'll insist on a reference for what is obvious. I'm inclined to believe RodHull, but if you want a reference, there's not much I can do. Clydey (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that adding back his birthplace is fine. It hints at his nationality without being nationalist. Nobody has disagreed with the inclusion on such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree, but if people want a reference to him stating that he is Scottish, I can't find one that will be satisfactory. Clydey (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, people tend to like claims to be backed up with something solid. Madness! I don't really want to get into this again but it's not clear in any way that he considers himself solely Scottish.

I think the opening sentence as it stands is fine. I also think it'd be fine if you added his birthplace in it, but since it says it in the infobox it's a bit unnecessary. Bloodloss (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's rare that someone has to tell people their national identity, particlarly when it's blatantly obvious. Your sarcasm is sorely misplaced. Born in Scotland to Scottish parents, but his Scottishness needs a reference. Words fail me. I'm sure you're thankful for that. Clydey (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to add his place of birth back in once the article is unprotected? Clydey (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't rare at all. He's no doubt been called British a large amount of times whilst in America, if he persistently went 'Actually no, I'm Scottish.' I'm sure he would've been shown saying it on camera, been quoted on saying it in a newspaper, etc. But you can't find a single time when this has happened, nothing like it at all. Instead, you come up with weak references like that former contestant.

Your bias is getting a bit ridiculous now. It's clearly not 'blatantly obvious' in any way. There is a big difference from one vehemently considering themselves to only have ties to Scotland, completely rejecting a connection to England and the term 'British,' and one believing they have strong ties to both England and Scotland and thus British being a more accurate term. No one has claimed he isn't Scottish - he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, this isn't what needs referencing. What needs referencing is him considering himself solely Scottish, of which there has been nothing of the sort.

Of course, the fact he's lived in England for the vast majority of his life, has British citizenship (England and Scotland are in the same country!), has an English wife, has most of his UK-based restaurants in England and started his first one there should be enough to convince anyone that he has significant ties to more than 1 part of the UK and as a result this should not be ignored when considering whether to use the (both accurate) terms 'Scottish' and 'British.' Bloodloss (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having an English wife is mot relevant to HIS nationality. This is ridiculous. There are two options: Scottish or British. Being British has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that being Scotiish also makes you British. Hypothetical question. If Scotland became independent, would you argue that you shouldn't call him Scottish? Clydey (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not talking about his nationality. That's sorted. Always has been. It's just the term we're going to (or not, with how it is now) use in the lead sentence; British or Scottish. His wife's nationality doesn't have an effect on his nationality, but it does have an effect on his ties to a certain place (where he met her, the fact she's now part of his family and so are her family, etc) and as a result it has a place in a discussion on whether to call him British or Scottish, of which both are correct.

If Scotland became independent then I may in fact support calling him Scottish in this article. It depends on how it would happen really - would he still have British citizenship as well as well as his new Scottish citizenship? If that were the case then I guess it would be better calling him a British-Scot, an Anglo-Scot, a Scottish-Briton, or etc. I don't know really. If he only had Scottish citizenship then it wouldn't change his strong connections to the UK/England and I would think that should be noted in some way, but it would probably be better to call him Scottish - perhaps having '[...] is a Scottish-born, English(or British)-raised chef' or something (which would be fine for now, actually). Mischa Barton would be an example of someone who was born in England, to an English father but I don't properly consider English at all (and she only got naturalized American citizenship in 2006). A few more examples, though not as relevant, would be Dominic Purcell and Wentworth Miller. I realise they don't have British parentage, but it is an example of how birth location, at least, can have little if any relevance. Or how about Keanu Reeves? Surely you wouldn't ever call him Lebanese? He also has an English mother but clearly isn't English at all, either. This is all hypothetical and a bit off-topic though, considering no-one is disagreeing on Ramsay's nationality. Bloodloss (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The examples you gave are nothing like Ramsay's though. He was not only born in Scotland, but both his parents are Scottish. Should Scotland become independent (which I don't necessarily support), there really is only one thing you can call him, unless he became an English citizen. I was just curious to see how you view his nationality. You still insist that he should perhaps be described as "Scottish-born" if Scotland became independent, even though where he was raised has no bearing on his nationality, officially or unofficially. Clydey (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire topic of nationality isn't really relevant any more considering no-one's disputing it, I was just attempting to discuss nationality in general and how it relates to Wikipedia articles. But this isn't a forum so I'll stop now. If Scotland was independent, just calling him 'Scottish' would be fine, but I'd still think his connection to England would be important enough to warrant having it in the lead sentence. Perhaps not 'Scottish-born, British-raised chef' but just 'Scottish, British-raised chef' or something.

As for my examples - I think the Mischa Barton one is alright as she was born in England to an Irish Mother and an English father, and I find the Keanu Reeves example interesting since he was born in and has different parentage to the nationality he and everyone else considers him. Personally I'd still call them American/Canadian even if they didn't have citizenship, but even though they do now, I think it's a good example of how birth location and parentage isn't all that matters.

Since Gordon Ramsay was born in a location within the UK, and then moved to and grew up in another location inside the UK, I think things that would be meaningless for someone with connections to two entirely different countries (France and Nigeria) actually matter with someone with connections to two locations in the same country (England and Scotland) when deciding whether to call them British or Scottish. A /bit/ like someone being born in Texas to parents who were born there, and then moving to live in California at a young age. When deciding which one he considers himself closer to - things like where he met his wife would matter and both 'Californian' and 'Texan' would both be correct. Obviously quite a bit different but it's difficult finding comparisons to this unique case with the UK.

Either way, it seems sorted now. It was nice, err, arguing with you Clydey. I hope we don't find each other on Wikipedia again :P --Bloodloss (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Height Validation

On the recent episode of The F Word while doing a segment with supermodel Erin O'Connor Ramsay was measured with his height being 6 foot 2 and a half inches. Is there a way to incorperate this information (or atleast include as a source) into the article. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite episode}} would seem to fit the bill here, with {{convert}} to make sure the height is correct in metres. --Rodhullandemu 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have added the informations in and the appropriate refs. Only thing I did was the article previously had feet/inches and cm, so I used the convert to do cm and not meteres, but that could easily be changed. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is fine. There was another F Word citation explaining his stance on vegetarianism. --Madchester (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From memory, I don't think the clip gives any indication of whether he is wearing shoes at the time.

Near Death Experience edit summary

I'm about to make some edits to the "Near death experience" section on the article, and one line isn't enough to explain everything in the "edit summary" line, so... The article as it now stands says that he fell "85m" to the water. That's an almost certainly fatal height (see the Golden Gate Bridge article, where the drop is less than 85m), so I thought something must be off. I checked the references and found that most of them say that he fell while descending an 85m cliff, not that he fell from that height. The one reference which does make the claim that he fell that far was erroneously summarizing a primary source which again only gave 85m as the total height of the cliff. So I am:

• Fixing the "85m fall" claim.
• Removing the erroneous reference and replacing it with a reference to the primary source.

And while I'm there:

• Splitting apart two quotes that had been erroneously merged into one in a way that had left the second half confusing because of the unsignaled context shift, and
• Adding a meaningful lead-in to the second half of the aforementioned quote.

--Ichneumon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

- can you explain more about a puffin hunt? He wasn't planning to cook them was he? I thought they were endangered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.224.155 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

--- Sure can Puffins are not endangered however you do require a licence to catch them. Ramsay had a licence for I think to catch 1000 but he only caught five the first one he released and he caught two and so did his guide. Here is a youtube link to watch the puffin hunting segment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihsLbML1Qo and yes he did cook them and he also ate a raw Puffin heart.--Theoneintraining (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tana Ramsay merge?!

I left a note about this on the discussion page of her redirect, but she has, in my opinion, done enough to warrant a page of her own on here! I mean, her book even outsold her husband's! Anyone agree? Sky83 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

protection

i have semi-protected this page die to presistant vandalism. If you will request me to remove it, please explain why. Gopal81 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You havent actually protected anything, all you have done is placed a tag on the article that will be removed because the page isnt protected, only admins can protect pages. Knowledgeum :  Talk  00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, and the page does not need protecting at present. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Tokyo: Michelin Star

http://www.ftnnews.com/content/view/4051/26/lang,english/ Is this a good source for the article? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Affair With Wife

On November 23, 2008 the European tabloid, "News of the World", reported that Gordon Ramsey has been having an affair. Since it's a well-known tabloid that's known for it's outrageous and ridiculous sex scandal stories, anything it reports should be taken with a grain of salt. On November 22, 2008 the wiki entry for Gordon Ramsey was edited, and someone added an entry mentioning his affair in the News of the World magazine a whole day before the story broke, which leads me to believe that an employee of the magazine added it prematurely, to coincide with the tabloid's release. Pretty shady if you ask me, to try to ruin someone's life like that. Ubergeek14 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything from any dubious source about any living person should not be included in wikipedia, especialy if the addition is damaging. The addition of the information before the publishing is complete rubbish and it should not be reincluded in the article. If this becomes a recurring issue we should seek the page to be locked as sofar only anon editors have readded it. Knowledgeum :  Talk  03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be on here at the moment, but I wanted to add that if it does get included, he had to cancel an appearance on The Paul O'Grady Show today because he apparently can't get out of his house due to the press camped outside. Someone could include that snippet if they want. Sky83 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's now at FoxNews and the New York Post, and his publicist has made a statement concerning it, so is it now ready for the Article page, or are we going to play games that is doesn't exist? Naaaanaaanaaa I can't hear you, my fingers are in my ears! Honestly folks, it's a sad day when Wikipedia skews an article even when established respectable news outlets are publishing stories about it. Sad day indeed. Proxy User (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if FN (or others) is only repeating the original story (as news outlets are want to do), then how does that improve the reliability of the story? Indeed, FN is merely commenting that Hell's Kitchen has been delayed, theoretically because of "sex scandal rumors". Hardly a reinforcement of the item. The Post article also has very little relevance to this article. Regardless, take a look through WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies ..." DP76764 (Talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Reliably-sourced, it's fine. It's just that nobody, including yourself, has yet provided such a source. --Rodhullandemu 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, much like the recent Clay Aiken developments, the Gordon Ramsey protectors will stop at nothing to repress the facts until there is simply no getting around them due the shear weight. Simply amazing how "reliable sources" are only "reliable" if they support your POV, yet if they speak of facts you find objectionable, they are all the sudden not "reliable" anymore. You make a mockery of Wikipedia NPOV standards. Proxy User (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Facts, we have no problem with. Improperly-sourced rumours, we do not tolerate. There are about 50,000,000,000 other websites out there besides this one; perhaps one of them will meet your standards, but otherwise, ours prevail. --Rodhullandemu 21:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• From WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." DP76764 (Talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

With Clay Aiken, his sexual orientation was confirmed after his official People interview/story. Only then was his LGBT status added to his Wiki article. Same deal with Ramsay's affair. Per WP:BLP we can only reproduce the story on Wiki if it's been officially confirmed; right now they're only allegations at best. --Madchester (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the definitions of verifiability, not truth outlined above (which is a well established Wikipedia standard), the story at Fox News and the New York Post most certainly do qualify for inclusion in this Wikipedia article. You all can't have it both ways without making absolute and blindingly obvious POV nonsense. Guys, this is a losing battle for you, it WILL be included sooner or later. Accept reality now and avoid the BS. Proxy User (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) did you actually *read* those articles? They do NOT confirm the story. They are merely commenting on the original report by News of the World (a well known tabloid that is NOT a reliable source). There is no official confirmation of this story, in fact, there is only *1* source (an unreliable source at that) alleging it to be true. Wikipedia is not a place to spread rumors. DP76764 (Talk) 05:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No? Perhaps not. But they do contain content that is perfectly acceptable for inclusion in this article. Which in due course, I will include. For the sake of honesty and above-boardness, please confirm that you do not violate any of the provisions of WP:COI? I only ask because such strong feelings on matters such as this tend to be held by Public Relations Wonks associated with the article subject. Please do not take offense, none is intended. Proxy User (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse other editors of acting in bad faith without evidence. Disagreeing with you is not evidence. "Such strong feelings on matters such as this" should be held by anyone who has read and understood our policy on the biographies of living persons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, using wp coi to try and discredit others is actualy against policy. If others disagree with you you should not have to resort to trying to discredit them to make your opinion carry more weight. As per WP:BLP the inclusion of damaging, defamatory or degrading information that only has one unreliable source and is just being copied by others does not qualify. Perhpas when something like the sun runs its expose front page "we have confirmed with rock hard proof he cheated" would there be a reliable source. Until then collection links on whos mentioning the story without doing any deeper investigation is just hearsay, and goes against policy. Anything damaging to a persons reputation that hasnt been properly sourced is to be removed immediately from the article, otherwise wikipedia would be one big giant gossip rag. Knowledgeum :  Talk  10:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramsay's infidelity

Is it our patch to note this, or the Sarah Symonds affair accusations? It seems to meet our criteria for notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's still all based solely on the NotW's article (the only source making the accusation, I might add). See the above discussion too. And bear in mind that we must adhere to WP:BLP and be extremely cautious about adding defamatory material. DP76764 (Talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It fails on sources and on blp. The article has no sources of its own and just repeats what the tabloid has said. There is nothing new in it not previously discussed here. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there are far more reputable sources that report the claims by Symonds. As per BLP, we simply need to source reliably the accusations, which are public and widely reported through credible news outlets. Examples of such would be here, here, here and here. Here are a few more:(1, 2 3, 4).

We may not like certain news agencies, but they are citable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, News of the World certainly isn't a reliable source. And they are still the only source reporting this; just because other media are regurgitating their story, doesn't make it any more reliable. All these other sources are quoting from NotW's articles. DP76764 (Talk) 19:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, could you point out what part of WP:RS News of the World fails? If it were utter crap, as you infer, the other news organs wouldn't "regurgitate" it; they would point out how the newspaper had made the claim. As I said before, you may not personally like the source, but I am pretty sure it meets our verifiability criteria for inclusion, and provides appropriate citation for the statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• NotW is a tabloid. Check this discussion on RS's [1]. They aren't discussing it specifically, but the phrase "wont turn into a NotW" certainly implies that it is not an acceptable source. And if you read carefully though the sources you listed, most of them indeed do mention that they are getting their material from NotW. If that's not good enough for you, we could post a query on that Noticeboard specifically about NotW? DP76764 (Talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I posted last time, but held off in the interest of giving it one more shot. In respect to the link (thanks for that, btw), they were discussing the more lurid fringe stories (Alien Elvises, etc). This is a different matter altogether. Its pretty much a seal of reliability (not to mention notability) when major news organs pick up a story. We cannot blame everything on lazy journalism or a slow news cycle. Do you want to file on the RSN, or shall I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if the original source passed reliable source it fails in blp in many, many areas. There is no part of this that passes it. Per wp:blp:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

As NotW is the only source, it is a tabloid with a poor track record and numerous libel rulings against them (see their wiki page). That automatically makes everything they say non reliable. Other news agencies dragging up their article does not make them more reliable, it just makes the other paper lazy. As discussed already on this talk page, unless another more reliable paper comes out with its own proof, not just spewing out what notw says without doing any fact checking there are no reliable sources for this and the blp issue remains. Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) 2 more postings discussing NotW. Consensus seems to be that they are unreliable.[2][3] I would not agree that major news repeating their story is a 'seal of reliability'. Feel free to post on WP:RSN; I have a feeling that the response will be negative (I won't participate in that posting since I've already participated here).

Okay, I will post there, even though I feel at least one of the linked conversations point out that the evil tabloid actually got it right on more than one occasion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Knowledgeum, it should be pointed out that your assessment of NotW is not citable, and has little in the way of weight here. I could cite nearly as many times that any news outlet has been sued. Are they the best game in town? Clearly not, but then, most British news in print isn't fit to line the bottom of a birdcage (yes, that's a personal assessment, and note how I am withholding my own opinion to weigh a source based upon reliability of both the source and the reliability of those outlets who picked it up). NotW is enough of a source to utilize all by its lonesome. I am sure that some enterprising soul might be able to find a news source where Symonds blabbed outside the pages of NotW. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• hehe, a broken clock is correct twice a day. ;) DP76764 (Talk) 21:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not the sole criterion on which BLP issues are addressed. If this has only been mentioned in a single tabloid then the obvious question for me is why the rest aren't biting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, Thunperwad/Chris - the rest did bite, picking up and printing the news stories in a variety of media, including Extra (10) and MomLogic (11). And these are news outlets that have far stricter inclusion requirements than anything one will find in the British fish-wrapping. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just worried that it's going to be discovered that NotW 'made up' the story and meanwhile we'll have had (defamatory) material here. We could probably talk about the accusation, since it's been well reported, but it's an uncomfortable topic for an article I think. Does anyone know if/how other articles deal with this topic? Maybe looking at an example would provide some guidance? DP76764 (Talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Talk:Michael Jackson for a similar discussion in relation to Jackson's supposed conversion to Islam. The Sun printed this, since when the world and his wife have copied it, and editors think that because it's in multiple places, it must be correct. Consensus is strongly that, er, it isn't until Jackson confirms it. --Rodhullandemu 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Look at Gina Gershon, and prolly Gary Hart, John Edwards, as well. If it turns out that the material is false, we are still protected, and can not only note how the allegations were proved false, but Ramsay's side of matters as well. So long as we cite a number of reliable sources (I am not sure on protocol, but I always like to double up, citation-wise, on controversial material), we are on solid ground. How would you like to see it worded, Dp76764? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And Rod, while MJ's reputed conversion to Islam wasn't in itself notable, how widely the source was reported makes it more notable (as more people hear the rumor, they wonder why it isn't noted, etc.). Additionally, when MJ responded to the allegations, it became immediately notable. The same situation applies here. While NotW (like virtually all of UK newspapers) is dodgy, if the story is credible, it can get picked up by more responsible outlets and further investigated; which is essentially what happened with Edwards. When Ramsay commented on it, it added weight to the notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• RE: Rodhullandemu: That's exactly my thought as well: even if other sources are regurgitating it, and they have better standards, the story is still only based off of *1* source of research (and of dubious quality at that). Now if another paper does their own interviews/research, that would be a different story.
• RE: Arcayne: Well, Gary Hart and John Edwards have both been officially confirmed. Any idea how their articles dealt with the item BEFORE the confirmation (obviously not Hart's though)? Allegations like these, especially from tabloids, are pretty commonplace in regards to celebrities (and I doubt they have a high percentage of being right); I would like to know if there is a WP policy specifically about this (though I'm guessing BLP covers it). My main problem is that this is all stemming from a tabloid and not a reputable journal. DP76764 (Talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(↔indent) see my comments above. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does cover all of this, being notable or sourced doesnt automaticly override blp policies. No matter how many newspapers rehash the same notw article doesnt add credance to it, only when they actualy do some leg work, uncover things for themselves instead of using only 1 source would this even be properly sourced. Using a tabloid as a primary is never going to pass blp. Using the concept of "well if we're wrong we're still protected" is more along the lines of thought of a rag magazine than a online encyclopedia focused on fact, not trash. Also to Arcayne do not edit other peoples comments[4] on talk pages. Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to open yet another inquiry on BLP. As far as we have yet discovered, the source is fine, so long as it attributed properly and noted that the accusation has been made, not that the subject has actually admitted to such. BLP does not - I repeat, does not - prohibit using this source. Your statement: "Using a tabloid as a primary is never going to pass blp" is, of course, wrong. You are welcome to disagree on the reliability of the source. It does not, however, make it so, and expressing your opinion as policy isn't very helpful in this discussion. The litmus for inclusion in this online encyclopedia is verifiabilty, not truth. We can verify the accusation. It is covered in a number of media outlets - reliable news outlets. The subject of the article has responded to these allegations. Precisely what part of BLP are you under the misapprehension that it violates? Saying bad stuff? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)