Talk:Gordon Ramsay/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Chin

I want to know what's going on with his chin... and why he has such pronounced wrinkles on his forehead.

Look to me like he has a somewhat half-round scar on it!
Apparently he was in a car accident and went through the windshield. Here's a link: http://www.toptvchefs.com/how-gordon-ramsay-got-those-scars-on-his-chin/ Kangarugh22 03:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
He doesnt mention this in his biography though --Coheed56 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

History

I was under the impression, from seeing Ramsey interviewed, that he had spent time with Marco Pierre White before joining Aubergene. Additionally wasnt his first place in Chelsea called 'Gordon Ramsey' Adam777 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally wasnt his first place in Chelsea called 'Gordon Ramsey'--Well there you go....any day in which you learn something is not totally wasted. Adam777 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ramsay's profligacy and the TV show's decadence

Inclusion of mention of the guy's profligacy and the show's decadence would be appreciated. --Amit 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which show in particular and can you expand on 'decadence'? Adam777 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the entire Hell's Kitchen (US) TV series can be characterized as having low morals, and the same can probably be said for all of his other series. Since when did it become acceptable to swear and yell constantly at employees, and be so very rude to customers. It matters because it is a reality show, so it is automatically perceived as being more acceptable than say a fictional crime movie. Its depraving influence spreads far and wide. --Amit 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well your assumptions are wrong then. Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares earned a BAFTA during its first run and has been highly praised for its behind the scenes examination of the food services industry. At the same time, Ramsay has maintained his three Michelin stars despite his new commercial endevaours in television and print.
As your stated, this is in your opinion, and this fails WP:NPOV policy, regardless of the fact that you formed an opinion without familiarity with all his projects. --Madchester 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is strictly with regards to his Hell's Kitchen (US) TV series only, and it is meant to express a POV. Please go back and read my original statement. Moreover, who's to say that his expressions are representative of the entire food services industry. --Amit 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
HI Amit. As has been pointed out above your opinion that Ramseys TV work shows low morals is at this time an opinion and has no place on Wikipedia. However his use of vulgarity is well known, as are his high standard and his success as one of the worlds only three michelin star chefs. If you source some neutral citations to enter a paragraph about his working practices and word it NPOV then great. Adam777 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no way to entirely remove all bias from certain critical statements. I will try to be NPOV as I can possibly be about his behavior, but if that fails you, you or Madchester can feel free to use the cited references to edit for more NPOV. If instead Madchester just goes on deleting whatever he doesn't like without providing adequate explanation, another admin will probably have to be requested. --Amit 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Amit's talk page. But if you look at the articles on the likes of Colin Farrell, it doesn't place undue weight on his (well-publicized) swearing. The man is an actor first and foremost, and that article only mentions the "controversial" elements of his personal life well after the main section on his film career. Ramsay has had his share of controversy on television, and these have been appropriately mentioned (and refrenced) on the articles on those television shows. See The F-Word for details. --Madchester 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion away from our talk pages, and focus it here. I don't give a fuck about Colin Farrell, or about what you think about him or his article. I also don't give a fuck about what the F-word has to say. I want to write about him, not about his TV shows. You're not an authority over where stuff gets posted. --Amit 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
First please keep your cool and refrain [WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. Second, all of your comments about Ramsay would be better suited to Hell's Kitchen (US TV series). Controversy about Ramsay's actions on The F-Word only appear in that television article. Likewise, any controversies about Hell's Kitchen should belong in that article. Thanks. --Madchester 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll stick with the generic criticisms here for the most part. If any of them is "POV in your opinion", you may modify it to remove the POV, but if you delete the statement entirely without adequate explanation, well then you would have just started an edit war. --Amit 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I personally find it very troubling that you're making an agenda out of highlighting Ramsay's controversial moments. If it's one or two instances, fine, but with all your recent edits being biased against the individual, it's really in violation of WP:NPOV. --Madchester 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You find it troubling because you're probably a fan of his, and I'm not. I have every right to highlight information, and if you find a POV in it, you can EDIT IT instead of deleting it. I really don't think I'm presenting any info from a POV, I'm just bringing to light what has been reported in the news; it's you who are trying to suppress it completely. --Amit 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Amit, speaking as another editor but non-admin, I think you're diverging from the primary Wikipedia goal of creating an encyclopedia. If you want mention that Ramsay is controversial, no one could object (provided you cite a reference). Saying his shows are immoral is not NPOV. Saying that many people think so (with, again, a reference) might be fine. CarlFink 18:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed Footballer & Profanity

I reverted the edit by user GWP that catagorised Ramsey as a Failed Footballer and claimed he is better known for his bad language than his cooking. The first is POV and reads like a subtle personal attack and the second can not be verified. Adam777 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As per [1], his rise to fame has been as much about his colourful language as the quality of his cooking. I have removed the POV and readded the statement about his expletive usage, also with a reference link. --Amit 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Madchester has removed my statement: "Also famous for his extensive use of expletives in the television show Hell's Kitchen [2], he" calling it a POV. I fail to see what's POV about it. Without adequate further explanation, I will be putting it back in shortly. --Amit 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now readded a modified version of this statement at the bottom of the first paragraph. --Amit 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a subtle dig, he is a failed footballer - there are many online references which back this up. And given his recent participation in Soccer Aid I'd say its a valid comment! GWP 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not a 'fair' comment if it is worded as an attack, which that expression usually is interpreted as. Do we refer to Donald Trump as a Failed Airline Owner. As for Ramsey's failure to make a career in professional football it is already dealt with in the article and doesnt need to be included twice. Adam777 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From one point of view, Ramsay's football career can be described as extremely successful. Describing him as a "failed footballer" is therefore most definitely a POV statement. If a reliable source has described him as a "failed footballer" then you can state reliable-source-X has described Gordon Ramsay as a "failed footballer" but you absolutely cannot state an opinion as a fact. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't understand the recent surge in anti-Ramsay bias in the article. There's no problem in presenting a few instances of his controversial behaviour or past failures. However, when the article is given undue or excess weight to these faults, then it presents a clearly POV tone that is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. I've seen similar situations in an article like Steve Nash where one or two editors tried to place too much emphasis on an individual's weakness or faults. --Madchester 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)prop


Please don't add edits that misquote or misrepresent the source material provided. Thanks. --Madchester 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the edit you (User:Madchester) removed was a good edit. His primary "hook" (how he's garnered popularity) is because of his rude and often excessive behaviour. I think it satisfies NPOV quite nicely in that the removed section simply explains how his behaviour has not only helped him succeed, but has earned him a bit of controversy (there's no denying that he is a controversial chef). It's sourced rather nicely, as well. I also disagree with the notion that the removal was of excess weight or in any way undue. I think we should discuss the matter further in order to establish consensus as to whether or not the removed bit should stay. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The profanity should definitely be mentioned in the opening paragraph - his swearing is what he is most famous for. And as for his being a failed football, that's exactly what he is, so it is NPOV. GWP 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should the profanity be mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is a criticisms section of the article, if you want to critique his language do it there. He is famous for being a world class chef not for having bad language. If he was a welder would he be famous for bad language? Of course he wouldnt, that argument is not valid. I swear like a trouper and Im not famous.
The expression 'Failed XXXXXX' is in my experience used to denigrate somebody or something. His short lived footballing career was brought to an end by injury. If you want to call him a 'Former Footballer' it would be NPOV, 'Failed Footballer' is POV as it insinuates that Ramsey did something negative to end his football career. Adam777 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I will make some quick comments, since I'm actually on my wikibreak.
The introduction to any biographical article should bring up the main reason for an individual's notability. Ramsay is most noted for being a celebrity chef. His swearing could also be mentioned in the intro (with the appropriate NPOV references), although it should be noted that many individuals in the food services industry tend to swear. However, mentioned of his football career is not notable enough for an introduction. If he had found success in both cooking and sports then include it in the introduction, by all means. But Ramsay had a very brief athletic career, and ultimately he's best known as a chef and that's what should be included in the introduction.
We have to be careful not to include too much sensationalism into the article. For example, the introduction to the Zinedine Zidane article mentions his national and club football career. All the media hoopla about his headbutt is only mentioned in its own section, not in the introduction. And even in that section, the tone does belittle Zidane's act. It provides multiple POV commentaries on the headbutt. I think something similar can be done to describe Ramsay's fiery temperament. --Madchester 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Both Adam777 and Madchester say that Ramsay is most noted for being a celebrity chef. However, in opposition to your unreferenced claims, as per [3], his rise to fame has been as much about his colourful language as the quality of his cooking. Therefore, it is reasonable to adequately mention that in the opening paragraph, and it will not be a POV violation to do so, as also agreed to upon by hoopydink and another administrator that I have consulted. I propose the following relatively short and desensitized sentence at the end of the opening paragraph:
He is known for his fiery temperament [4], and for extensive use of expletives in the television show Hell's Kitchen. [5]
If you object to this, please raise your objection now with a valid reason, rather than uncvilly deleting it from the article. A final note to Madchester: other administrators have objected to your acts of deleting content rather than editing it further to make it more NPOV to your liking, so please refrain from doing so. --Amit 20:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Again, no personal attacks towards other editors please. Per WP:NPA comment on content, not the individual.

Second, that statement is factually incorrect. Ramsay has been known for his expeletives since Boiling Point in the late 90s. A focus on Hell's Kitchen would give a geographical bias (in violation of WP:NPOV#Bias) that undermines the programming that he does in the United Kingdom, which is still his home base. I think this is the reason for the POV bias prevalent. North American viewers are only familiar with Hell's Kitchen (US TV series) and assume that he is the devil incarnate. On the other hand, those who have seen his other programming (such as Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and The F-Word) still see the kicking and screaming but ultimately there's also a pedagogical side to his actions. He wants to instill a passion for cooking and desires perfection is his chefs; something which doesn't show up in Hell's Kitchen's editing.

For example,

  1. Off The Telly: Ramsay Kitchen Nightmares (Review): When things are genuinely going pear-shaped, Ramsay is actually quite composed, and clearly focused on getting things going, getting organised and getting the food out. The real bollockings do not come during service - and it is this lack of self-indulgence which highlights his professionalism. Ramsay is there first as a chef and successful restaurateur, and second as a TV personality.
  2. Slate.com:"Can the Brits save food TV?":Despite his theatrics—collapsing to the ground, for example, when one waiter can't get his mouth around the description of a haddock chowder—Ramsay's lessons are pretty level-headed.

Some food for thought. I think it's difficult to write a NPOV statement about his temperament without realizing the motivation for such actions, especially in light of his non-US programming and endeavours. --Madchester 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, no personal attacks were made. If you repeatedly perceive certain statements as being personal attacks, that is your POV. For more info, please review examples of what are personal attacks and examples of what are not personal attacks, or consult a more experienced administrator for guidance.
Second of all, your point that Ramsay has been known for "his expeletives [sic] since Boiling Point" does not negate the original statement in any way, and so it is only your assertion of incorrectness that is itself incorrect. If you see a geographical bias there, it is easy to remedy that by simply removing part of the statement: "in the television show Hell's Kitchen" or by changing that to "in his television shows". Jeez.
The statement by itself does not have not to be entirely NPOV, as long as the article as a whole is. Nevertheless, the point that there is some obscure ultimate role to his abusiveness is not disputed, and you may wish to make that part of the originial statement, in your attempt to justify his abusiveness. Here is an attempt at compromise, but it needs your input as noted below:
He is known for his fiery temperament [6], and for extensive use of expletives in his television shows [7], although his intention in doing so is to (...fill here with a sourced, correctly represented, point).
Note that if no compromising statement is provided, or if no further and sufficient explanation is provided, the statement will be included into the article, taking only the claimed "geographical bias" into account. --Amit 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well we are beginning to get to concensus. However amit can you please find a source other than the scotsman. It would go a long way to helping you establish that (your blatant POV) is actually NPOV. Lets all be adults here please, it isnt the end of the world if we paint one of the worlds best chefs as one of the worlds best chefs that happens to swear a lot. If you feel his behaviour is out of sorts then try working in a kitchen! Adam777 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
At this time, the statement above already has two sources, only one of which is The Scotsman. The other source is different; it is PR inside.
Yes, his behavior, the constancy of his temper is certainly out of line. How long do you think a chef like that could really last in a big American restaurant without making any offers of success? Not long at all; she would be sued for the rest of her life.
By Madchester's line of reasoning, it can also be reasoned that just mentioning his achievements exhibits a positive POV bias. Therefore, adding info about his abuses only serves to remove that bias, and actually balances the article. --Amit 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes, his behavior, the constancy of his temper is certainly out of line. How long do you think a chef like that could really last in a big American restaurant without making any offers of success? Not long at all; she would be sued for the rest of her life.

In the article, his abuses in the Controversy section are rather sensationalized while his actual accomplishments (like his OBE and 3 Michelin stars) aren't really emphasized at all. I don't think that you should let your personal emotions about his character get in the way of the article. You may not want to work for him because of his temper, but the facts speak otherwise.

In 1998, Ramsay got into a dispute with the owners of Aubergine. After disputes with the owners (including their firing of Ramsay's protege Marcus Wareing), Ramsay and his entire kitchen brigade of 45 individuals walked out and 2 months later, Aubergine was forced to close down. [[8]][9]. Since starting his cooking career at Aubgerine, Ramsay's staff have remained loyal to him, with a 85% retention rate since 1993. [10] His best proteges like Wareing and Angela Hartnett have their own restaurants within the Ramsay chain: Petrus [11] and the Connaught [12] respectively. He also has 13+ restaurants and counting, including locations in the United States. [13]

Given the high employee turnover rate in the restaurant industry (often in the 80% range in the 1990s [14]), the fact that Ramsay can retain 85% of his employees for over a decade suggests that he's treating his staff right. So I don't understand your claim that a chef like him "would be sued for the rest of his life." The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. --Madchester 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if Ramsey has been much less abusive to his permanent staff and customers, than to those on his TV shows. That could explain it. I also speculate that suing over such matters may be a more common practice in the United States. So what I meant is "a chef like the one he has been on Hell's Kitchen...".
In any case, I am still waiting on a compromise statement as requested previously. --Amit 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Since no further compromising statement has been provided after a twenty-four hour wait, I will go ahead and add the following previously discussed statement:
He is known for his fiery temperament, [15] and for extensive use of expletives in his television shows. [16]
If any further modification with a deletionist bent have to be made to the above statement, please discuss it here first. --Amit 08:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Amit please check your sources. The first says NOTHING about a firey temprement and links to a drunk driving incident and the second doesnt use the word extensive which is your POV. Maybe you have used the wrong sources but that is either sloppy editing or blatant POV yet again. Adam777 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Adam, please read the actual text within the source. The drunk driving article does mention him being famous for his fiery (not firey) temperament. While it is true that the second source does not use the word "extensive", it uses the word "laden", which means "heavily loaded", which is precisely why I used the term extensive. To prevent ambiguation, I am quite willing to use the exact words used in the source. I therefore am updating the article with the following statement:
He is known for his fiery temperament, [17] and for the expletive-laden abuse he hands out on television. [18]
--Amit 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I just deleted "He is a vindictive, aggressive thug." from the trivia section. Definately not neutral, don't think this requires further discussion, but I'm sure someone will disagree.

Jmdustin 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That was definitely vandalism. --Madchester 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


why people don´t talk about his one-night stands???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.153.203 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy integration

Instead of a controversy section listing mostly sensationalized incidents, I would prefer that to integrate his "controversial" elements into the main body of the article. Paris Hilton's actions have been regularly questioned by the media, but the editors there have done a good job in embedding it into the article. We should simply be reporting events in Ramsay's life and career; it's up to the reader to determine their opinion of the individual.

I'd also be careful with the use of Wikipedia:Weasel words like "abuse". Cheers.

--Madchester 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "controversy" already implies a disagreement in opinion, without which it could easily have been labeled "criticisms" instead. Thus, even now it is up to the reader to determine their opinion. Still, I am open have "some of" the bulleted items integrated into the main article (but not into Trivia), as long as they are represented equally well or better. For now, I would then like to see two of the four existing points integrated, although I suspect that it may be difficult to do so for isolated events that do not naturally link well with the main body.
I'd be very careful about making edits to articles and removing their source URLs. Namely, the source URL [19] was removed from the article. --Amit 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Due to the recent addition of the Charity work section, I would also like to see an equal number of points from that section integrated into the main body, as a precondition to the above. --Amit 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A 'Precondition'? Any editor is free to do as he or she wishes within the confines set out for us, lets keep that in mind. However your point has merit. I personally feel that the article is now, once again, NPOV. If another editor wants to take on the task of a re-write then more power to them. However should the article veer off, once again, to a POV stance I would recomend we revert back. Adam777 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The precondition is solely to ensure NPOV and balance, which is also why I am not adding several more points to the Controversy section. --Amit 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Madchester, I know you are not finished updating the article at this time, but I just want to remind you that edits must not go haywire on balance, as discussed previously. --Amit 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Madchester, I agree with you that an entire section devoted to controversies or criticisms might be a bit much. I'd be fine with his controversial issues (such as the ones Amit brought to attention) being part of the main body, just so long as they are mentioned somewhere, as his rudeness is a very important part of the TV character he's cultivated. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I'd like to see this article get up to good article status. I'll be doing a number of edits tonight based on his autobiography (which FINALLY got here... England is really not THAT far away). Anyhow, was hoping that someone who lives in London could make at least a half-hearted attempt to get a free-use photo of him to add to the page. I'll be going to Claridge's in January, but the odds that he will be there and out of the kitchen when I'm there are extremely slim. Bonus points if you get one of him jogging or riding his bike home from one of his restaurants! Jmdustin 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Have started on the edits from his autobiography, know that I need to add in page numbers but can't figure out how to do it with the ref tags. Any suggestions? I've got it all written on this lovely piece of paper.. but that's not doing anyone else any good. Thanks! Jmdustin 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Good additions from the Humble Pie autobiography. The article is looking in better shape than my summer re-work. --Madchester 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Burley

Just removed the following bit of trivia. The addition of this is the only contribution to Wikipedia so far by User:Willgee447

  • Ramsay has a face double who is called Charlie Burley who is very often mistaken as Ramsay himself, but the main difference is that Burley, from Nottingham, has a slightly larger forehead.

Googling "Charlie Burley" Ramsey gives no results to confirm this unlikely bit of trivia. After all, who could possibly be a face double for Gordon? Those bizarre wrinkles of his must be unique. --Spondoolicks 11:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Michelin stars

I think Petrus now has two Michelin stars and la noisette has one: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/fascinating%20fact%202762_1020070

Quite right! I've added them. --Edokter (Talk) 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo

If Ramsay is 6'2", who is standing in the background of the photo attached to this article? Robert Wadlow?

Ramsay claims he is 6'2, he is probably 5'2 being a chef. Autobush (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
He used to be a footballer. (a) What height was he then, and (b) what height should be be now? --Rodhullandemu 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he has claimed 6ft [20] and 6ft 2" (celebrityheights.com,but hardly a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia tag

To make this article even better I've added a tag which will hopefully prompt somebody to intergrate the good trivia facts into the main body of the article. Most of the facts I expect are good but to make the article better it needs to be moved into the article. Thanks. Eagle Owl 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)