This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. -- Rodhull andemu 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.

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)

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)

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. -- Rodhull andemu 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. -- Rodhull andemu 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. -- Rodhull andemu 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)

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. -- Rodhull andemu 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)

Knowledgeum requested my participation in this discussion. Having read this thread, the previous one, and the discussions linked in them, I find myself in agreement with the editors suggesting that the material be omitted. My reasons are as follows:

• Per WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This indicates that publications are, in the first instance, not to be judged on an article-by-article basis, but on the strength of the publication as a whole. According to Wikipedia's article on NotW (which I'll take for granted is accurate here, though it isn't especially well-sourced itself), the paper was successfully sued for libel three times between April and July 2006. In each case, this was the result of the paper making defamatory allegations about public figures' private lives. This is an extraordinary record; there may not be another newspaper in the world that can match it. Besides this, the policy speaks about the publications' reputation; as an unscientific study, I did a little googling of the publication, and I am confident that the paper's reputation is for sensationalism and unreliability. I do not think it can be said that this newspaper has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", especially with regard to the private lives of public figures.
• This brings us to the various sources that have repeated the NotW allegation. Again per WP:RS, "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources." As noted, these other news sources are reporting allegations, not making them. Until the allegation is made by somebody reliable, using the articles proposed amounts to "reporting rumours", not "includ[ing] information verified by reliable sources."
• As indicated above, I don't believe that it is necessary to invoke WP:BLP to exclude this material; sufficient grounds to do so can be found in WP:RS. However, in the interests of thoroughness, I will also consider WP:BLP. This policy states "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true;" The only source presenting the material as true is the NotW, which I don't believe can be considered a reliable source. Accordingly, I believe that the material should be excluded on WP:BLP grounds as well.

I hope this was helpful. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It was, SarcasticIdealist. While I am loathe to utilize any British tabloid, I think you incorrectly assess the unreliability of the magazine (Enquirer and Star have all been successfully sued more often). Additionally, the initial source might be dodgy - and I am not saying it is, for even the tabloids get it right sometimes,a nd it was the picking up of the story - the picking up by other, far more reliable outlets (the Daily Mail also did a story, and they are certainly not classified as a tabloid) - ensures further vetting before seeing print in their publication. That nullifies the argument of a failure for 'fact-checking and accuracy'. And it bears further clarification that the initial accusation was made by a notable person - Sarah Symonds - and reported in NotW. Newspapers do in fact report allegations; they don't make them, as you incorrectly assessed.

BLP would be on point if the source of the allegation was only the one outlet and ignored by the subject - both stipulations shown to not be the case. RS isn't on point, either, since the fact-checking of news outlets that picked up the story are readily accepted as reliable sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick thoughts: If Symonds is 'notable', then why doesn't she have an article about her? 'the initial accusations were made by her and reported by NotW'? Isn't it *slightly* possible that NotW paid her to make those accusations, so they could then 'report' them? (though newspapers do sometimes make accusations themselves) That seems to be a typical MO of tabloids.
I also contend that 'picking up by other sources' in no way 'ensures further vetting' of a story; we have no guarantee that any of the other sources actually did any fact checking at all (regardless of them being RS's). Really, what most of them are saying is "we heard this story and its sensational, so we want to repeat it and add our own comments"; none of the repeat stories I've seen have mentioned anything about verification work (ie: "we talked to X and they corroborated fact Y"). Fact checking/reliability inherent in reliable sources (usually on their own material) doesn't magically 'transfer' when they repeat someone else's story. This is still all just gossip and rumors so far. DP76764 ( Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DP. you sound like a nice guy, and I don't want this next bit to upset you, but you just offered up a lot of uncited information, asking us to disregard a source because you think a person may have been paid to make up a story, and that it is an MO of tabloids. All of that is speculation. The assumption of fact-checking is inherent within reliable sources like the Daily Mail, or NBC. Sometimes it isn't warranted, but it is given nonetheless. They have fact-checking resources; if they choose not to avail themselves of them, we cannot be blamed for noting what they report.

As a journalist, you know full well that most of the best news stories arise out of "gossip and rumors". Watergate, Iran-Contra the ending of Gary Hart's political aspirations (as well as John Edwards'). Arguing that the primary source is shoddy because it has been sued successfully a few times would also exclude practically every news agency outsidw of TASS, Iran and certain banana republics (no, I do not mean the clothing store). We are on pretty solid ground in reporting the accusations, so long as they are sourced (or even double-sourced). We will be on equally solid ground when (or if) they are disproven. As it has affected Ramsay's HK filming schedule, and he has made statements about it, it has expanded the notability of the original story. It should be integrated into the personal section, perhaps below the completely unsourced statements about his fear of dancing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, as there has been numerous citations of the affair by credible news outlets ( 0. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), all of which meet our RS, V and NOTE criteria, I would like to open a discussion as to how it should be phrased. I was considering the following:

In late November 2008, British tabloid News of the World published a news story wherein Sarah Symonds, author of the book Having An Affair? A Handbook For The Other Woman claimed to have been involved in a secret affair with Ramsay for a period of seven to ten years. ^{[1] [2]}. Symonds further notes that there were at least two others Ramsay had been involved with, as well. Amidst the allegations, the family put off a holiday vacation in Mauritius ^[3], and Ramsay, initially ignoring the allegations, denied them on a BBC television cooking program, Good Food Show. ^{[4] [5]} An Australian woman has also made similar claims, while Ramsay denies even knowing the woman. ^{[6] [7] [8] [9]}

The Daily Telegraph points out that the chef's Gordon Ramsay Holdings restaurant empire (whose business partner is his father-in-law Christopher Hutcheson ^[10]) could be damaged by the allegations. Richard Harden, co-publisher of the Harden's Restaurant Guide, speaking to the Evening Standard, concurs. "It must damage the package". ^[11], though publicist Max Clifford disagrees, noting that while the allegations might cause "a lot of aggravation" at home, it wouldn't impact his image and popularity "at all". ^[12]

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Editing suggestion on one word of your text. "Reported" implies that the affair is a matter of "fact" and has been proven, which is most certainly not the case (had to restructure the sentence a little too). DP76764 ( Talk) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that implication, Dp; in the spirit of compromise, I restructured the sentence to note that it was a news story. The newspaper isn't claiming anything; Symonds is, and if it turns out to be a hoax or a PR stunt, Symonds will be the one holding the bag. I also removed the 'Mr' bit from the sentence. Howzat look? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks clean and professional =) And I will bet you $5 that this turns out to be a PR stunt. ;) DP76764 ( Talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If it does, I will pay some Dutchman to set fire to Lord Snowden (kudos, if you know where the reference). Also considered is to fly to London, book a table at one of his restautants, eat dinner. Drink a bottle of Ipecac syrup, and projectile vomit all over the place. Then publicly sue. Of course I think that might be a wee bit illegal. And, of course, disgusting.

I'll be adding the statements now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Section looks alright, now that Ramsay has made an official statement regarding the allegations. -- Madchester ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He had spoken about it before I reinitiated discussion, but I had wanted to wait a while to get other input before taking the time to whip something up for the article. I am glad I did, since this solution seems to be 'coloring within the lines' while still working off of everyone's input. Thanks for the good interaction, fellow editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone update the page about Marcus Wareing and the Berkeley? Marcus is not working for Ramsay anymore and the Restaurant is leased directly to Marcus Wareing as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.99.93 ( talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Got a source for that?? DP76764 ( Talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In an episode of Hell's Kitchen (I believe last season but it might have been earlier), Ramsay was heard to claim (while lambasting a contestant) that he has knowledge of 3000 recipes. It's an interesting bit of information that would be worth adding. If anyone can cite the episode, that would be good, or if it's been mentioned in an article or a book. 23skidoo ( talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• You'll want a 3rd party source for something like that, methinks. A book or news article would be a better source, imho. DP76764 ( Talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was season four, I believe episode 1. He lambasted the guys for not knowing the menu by heart, and said that he has 3000 recipes between his ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.102.37 ( talk) 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that he has lied in interviews regarding his football "career", particularily regarding playing for Glasgow Rangers? ROxBo ( talk) 03:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this was added earlier this evening; the evidence seems to suggest that he was a "trialist" rather than a player for Rangers, and I think is covered adequately, unless he subsequently successfully sues the News of the World. -- Rodhull andemu 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its worth a mention. When someone lies about their background and then it exposed in the national media then it becomes an important componant of their notability - undue weight aint breached.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 11:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with the edit, though it seems all these recent exposes have been News of the World "exclusives". -- Madchester ( talk) 21:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As an add-on, I think we need to deal with the recent NOTW football allegations the same way as the tabloid's infidelity allegations per WP:BLP. If it were to be expanded any further, it needs some response from Ramsay and/or further reporting from more credible sources. -- Madchester ( talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the News of the World do seem to have been rather thorough here and interviewed credible sources rather than just random people. Additionally, the Daily Mail are also running the story now, so it is unlikely they would repeat untruthful allegations. I realise we have to be conservative, but there's being conservative and then there's completely ignoring the story, and it it's current form the article is too near to the latter in my opinion. I honestly read it and didn't believe the issue had been covered at all! Also they've asked Ramsey for a response and he's refused, so it's not as if he hasn't had a chance. Anyway I'll see if I can find further sources, but I'm sure we can expand it now that Daily Mail are reporting on the issue.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources (incl. the Daily Mail) are just repeating the NOTW report - they haven't provided their own investigations to the story. This was similar to the early media coverage of Ramsay's infidelity; NOTW made the allegations and the rest of the British media merely repeated NOTW's allegations. Per WP:BLP, we waited for more reliable reporting and an official response from Ramsay before devoting an entire section to his infidelity.

Right now, the biggest tabloid/entertainment story in the US is the Rihanna/Chris Brown domestic abuse case. The details are still allegations at best, and there's only one sentence of coverage in Rihanna's article per WP:BLP and also WP:UNDUE. These NOTW allegations are also allegations at best - and we shouldn't give undue coverage at this stage. -- Madchester ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramsey has now responded and said that "any inaccuracies are due to the passing of time". He hasn't questioned any of the claims whatsoever so pretty clear we can add the information now. Here's the info http://www.teletext.co.uk/entertainment/news/73c64dabceff6de2bcde5cd97b7fafae/Ramsay+football+statement.aspx-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also broadsheets now covering the story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4902309/Gordon-Ramsays-Rangers-claims-questioned.html-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also strongly question your comparison with the Rihanna case. Domestic violence is notoriously hard to prove as it is usually one persons' word against the other. With football there is extensive record keeping and countless witnesses and it is much, much easier to prove whether someone played in a game or in fact whether or not a fixture even took place! This story is essentially the antithesis of the Rihanna case.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you leaf through the Rangers' personnel quotations from the other sources, they're simply reprinted verbatim from the NOTW allegations. Other reliable sources haven't advanced NOTW's claims. With the Ramsay infidelity case it was the same issue at the outset, with other sources merely reprinting/paraphrasing NOTW's allegations. It was only after some time that Ramsay spoke with the media that we expanded those details in his Wiki article.

The reference to the Rhianna case shows that Wiki's BLP takes defamation allegations very seriously. There's a misconception that we're news and that anything printed in the media can automatically be reproduced on Wiki. Our policies give us the flexibility to see how the story unfolds before we expand on it here. -- Madchester ( talk) 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My point about Rhianna is that the stories are so different in terms of evidence that it wasn't an especially useful example. Also, you said you wanted to hear from Ramsay, he's had his say and hasn't denied or disputed any of it so more information can clearly be added now.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160312/Struggling-Ramsay-sells-flagship-Hollywood-restaurant.html) that GR has sold his West Hollywood establishment and that others are being closed. Apart from removing restaurants that GR/GR Holdings does not own anymore, would it be interesting to have a section on this topic ? Possibly also a note on the closed restaurants (Petrus etc). Bigmouth strikes ( talk) 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well sourced, hopefully, so as to avoid original research. DP76764 ( Talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is admittedly a minor point but, since it is an article subject to WP:BLP, I feel the need to bring it up. I'm not quite sure how reliable this reference is when reporting on Ramsay's shoe size. Contactmusic.com's Wikipedia article claims that the company now has "12 fulltime staff" which strikes me as an awfully low number of people to ensure proper fact-checking and accuracy as per the requirements of WP:RS. Some evidence of RS short-commings may lie in the fact that the above article contains some quotation marks that are positioned in an ortographically unorthodox way and which are less likely to be found in most reliable publications. The claim of "requiring" custom-built shoes seems somewhat exaggerated for someone who wears size 15 shoes. I have a size 16 foot and have only minor problems when trying to find proper shoes even though I have to buy them on a "middle-class" salary rather than with a budget from a net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Would anyone object to the shoe size quip being removed if more solid references cannot be located to back up the claim? Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to remove that claim. Indeed, the cited source doesn't appear to be stellar (my company firewall blocks a lot of their site; better known sites have little/nothing blocked; i know that's not a great test, but thought it was an interesting observation). DP76764 ( Talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

page shows two different years of birth. which is correct? Torpanna ( talk) 04:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1966 Thedarxide ( talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An IP changed the birth year in the infobox; at the time I checked a few refs to confirm/reject, but couldn't see anything supporting either 1966 or 1967. This should really be cited (and the two years should, of course, be the same) - do you have a reference for 1966? (I seem to recall that it is 1966, but unfortunately I can't cite my vague recollection ;-) ) Cheers, This flag once was red ^propaganda _deeds 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Loads! How's this one? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/may/28/realitytv.broadcasting

Ramsay's Expression In The Photo Does Not Represent Him As Well As Him Angry, That Is How Most People See Him And Would Be More Relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to watch some of his material that isn't on Fox; he is actually a human being, believe it or not. DP76764 ( Talk) 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about I agree with the person who responded to this tripe. Watch his stuff on BBC and when he's not dealing with incompetent amateurs in the kitchen. He's pretty caring and goofy as all getout. 76.31.155.94 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

I have tried, and failed, to add an external link to the Gordon Ramsay page to a website http://www.garydoesgordon.com which aims to replicate all the dishes from Gordon's 3 star chef cookbook. I feel this is a worthy addition to the article in much the same way as similar links have already been placed under the 'French Laundry' and 'Thomas Keller' articles. Such websites showcase the food that the respective chef's have built their reputations on and in my opinion is a worthy addition to an already comprehensive article.

Any thoughts? -- Geebster ( talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's link spam and advertising. Thanks for bringing those other pages to my attention, I've removed those as well. Thedarxide ( talk) 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is unsuited to be linked. Please review the policy on external links, specifically that part on what is not appropriate. DP76764 ( Talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed something in the introductory paragraph that says that Gordon Ramsay is 4th in the World in terms of Michelin Stars, behind Bobby Flay. Last time I checked, Bobby Flay doesn't have any Michelin Stars, so this is probably very wrong (unless he's raked up more than sixteen in the past two years.) I'm not sure where he's ranked nor who "Bobby Flay" really should be, so I've not edited it, could someone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.0.182 ( talk) 06:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we take off the OBE. I mean, that a current practice for Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.52.200 ( talk) 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Did he actually hire that inmate later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.232 ( talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Frozen 'ready meal' controversy" section has a repeated quote. 68.56.16.211 ( talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the shorter version. Thedarxide ( talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} there is now a fourth 3 michelin starred restaurant in the UK, Alain Ducasse at the Dorchester in London.

86.46.25.111 ( talk) 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised, Ducasse cooks good scran, but you need to provide a source before this can be added. Rodhull andemu 00:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Darkwind ( talk) 03:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This article states that the ejection caused A.A. Gill to write the "second-rate human being"-bit. The wikipedia article on A.A. Gill says that the "second-rate human being"-bit had been written before, and was the reason for the ejection. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.12.243 ( talk) 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In this section it is stated

"he worked as a commis chef at the Wroxton House Hotel, then ran the kitchen and 60-seat dining room at the Wickham Arms"

This was principally added with this edit. The first establishment was amended from "Roxbury House Hotel" to "Wroxton House Hotel" with this edit, which I believe to be correct: Wroxton, where the Wroxton House Hotel is located, is quite near Banbury. I'd like the second one to be checked as well: I believe that it should be Wykham Arms, which is situated at Sibford Gower, also near Banbury. In the Banbury area, "Wykham" is pronounced "wickem". -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Readers of GQ voted Ramsay "Prick of the year" in 2008 [5]. Wikipedia covers all points of view in life, and this is backed up with a source. It represents (some of the) public opinion on Mr. Ramsay. It's not a "joke" as one editor claimed, it is an award like any other the public vote for. 92.20.63.131 ( talk) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The "award" is merely the opinion of a handful of editors/writers at GQ. Just like we would not cite a single specific person (even if that person were editing a newspaper) saying "Joe Schmoe is a total wanker," we shouldn't cite this here. WP:DUE says that we only include opinions in due relation to the importance of that opinion in the real world. Even more appropriate WP:BLP says we must be extremely careful reporting negative or contentious information about people, insisting upon only information that is truly notable and in highly reliable publications. GQ's opinion about Ramsay in 2008 simply isn't important enough to go in the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we add a section about him having taken plastic surgery? http://www.cosmeticsurgerytoday.co.uk/news_article/view/10564/gordon-ramsay-admits-to-having-plastic-surgery/ . I've heard it from "people" and from this link, I bet there are more, so I guess its true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.229.23 ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone reads this at this point, it doesn't seem notable enough to list, even if it is true. Drake11111 ( talk) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please verify the source of the 69% stake holding and the Value of the company. There is no mention of said amounts in the source provided. Please remove if no source found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.83.143 ( talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Before this becomes the umpteenth edit conflict on this topic, please review sections 2-5 of the talk page. Per WP:BLP, we write conservatively about a living subject. Ramsay has never made a definitive statement of his nationality; his website bio skirts around any preferences by stating " Scottish by birth, Gordon was brought up in Stratford-upon-Avon, England, from the age of five." The current lead sentence was created as a compromise for the endless Scottish/English/British debates. Ramsay presents himself without any defined nationality; for us to label him as X/Y/Z would be in vio of WP:BLP, if not WP:SYN. Thanks. -- Madchester ( talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So, why not just say he is a `British` chef-unless there has been some huge shakeup that i, a Scot havnt noticed, Scotland is still part of Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.101.113 ( talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scottish, English, etc, is an ethnicity, British is a nationality. Roger ( talk) 09:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a hidden note to the lead in an attempt to stabilise this issue. Roger ( talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've stayed at the Hilton Old Town in Prague five times in the past three years, and there is not a Gordon Ramsay restaurant on the premises. Curt1222 ( talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, looks like it closed/he left in 2009 [6]. DP76764 ( Talk) 16:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep punctuation marks inside quotation marks, it is rather unprofessional otherwise and distracts from proper reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.201.157 ( talk • contribs)

Sorry, but Wikipedia uses what is called logical punctuation, which is basically the British style: punctuation marks go outside of quotation marks. It was a big change for me, too, because I was used to MLA, where they almost always go inside. You can see details at MOS:PUNC. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay never called Tracy Grimshaw a lesbian, even she herself has admitted that. He didn't even call her a pig, he insinuated it and a member from the audience yelled out her name where he went, "Oh don't shout that out." Please somebody fix it. Here's the entire video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOs-p6Pd5fs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.107.68 ( talk) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the legal proceedings subsection headers on the grounds that the proposed subsections are single paragraphs and still fairly easy to understand. Any thoughts? Hasteur ( talk) 17:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a cite supporting his cooking style as "French/Italian/British~? I'm pretty sure this sounds a bit too generalising. -- OfTheGreen ( talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am curious to know why there is no mention of his half sister, Sharon Donnachie (who has a son and daughter) who he first met a few years back. I used to live in the same close as her, and TBH, you couldn't mistake some sort of family resemblance. (The way I did till after I found out...d'oh) 2.125.67.39 ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

There is no mention because nobody has added it. However we cannot rely on personal anecdotes, all material; must have a reliable source. Roger ( talk) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is to the oil giant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.109.160 ( talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What link? The word "mobil" or "Mobil" does not occur anywhere in the current - 07:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - version of this article. Roger ( talk) 07:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Powerscourt restaurant missing from this section or I overlooked it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.168.100 ( talk) 09:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a strange choice of description, when 'British' is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.243.155 ( talk) 10:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The result of conflicting POV pushers coming up with an ugly compromise that pleases no-one and confuses the reader. Scottish-Born English is a over convoluted, when the much more straight-forward "British" says everything that needs to be said in the lead. The rest of his birth place, parentage and up-bringing is amply explained later on. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Other stars (the one that comes to mind right now is Bob Hope, who is described on Wikipedia as an "English-born American") have similar descriptions. Ramsey himself on several of his shows (MasterChef being one that immediately springs to mind) refers to himself as "scottish". I would change to "Scottish-born British chef". Vyselink ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we remain mindful of WP:BLPSOURCES; we cannot use tabloid sources on articles on living people. Do not add or restore such sources to this article, please. -- John ( talk) 08:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)