Talk:Gordon Ramsay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Traffic incident

I've had to repeatedly remove the entry on Ramsay's supposed traffic incident. It doesn't pop up in a simple Google search. The source provided by the anon editor does not make any mention of this incident either. It's basically a violation of WP:BLP unless the editor can provides sources to prove otherwise. --Madchester 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the one you're referring to?

http://showbiz.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1270136,00.html

Gordon's Car Crash

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay has been involved in a car accident.

It happened while filming for his show, The F-Word.

Gordon was rounding up a herd of buffalo with farmer Steven Mitchell in the Scottish region of Fife when the accident occurred.

The two were filming an episode on making buffalo mozzarella.

A spokeswoman issued this statement: "They went charging around in two 4x4s, and there was a point at which they met.

"Gordon wasn't hurt and the 4x4 wasn't too badly damaged."

The scene will be left out from the show.

Last Updated: 06:17 UK, Wednesday June 13, 2007

French / Belgian

The following is contradictory - if Jean Philippe Susilovic is Belgian, surely he should be left out altogether from a sentence talking about Ramsay mocking the French?: "Although Ramsay often mocks the French, three of his maître d's, Jean-Baptiste Requien (who works for Ramsay at Claridge's), Jean Philippe Susilovic (Petrus) and Jean-Claude Breton (Royal Hospital Road), are French (Jean Phillipe is from Belgium)." Have edited accordingly. Sorcha niri 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but actually, Jean-Baptiste Requien is also Belgian, not French as the article indicates. Ramsey may well mock the French accent/sterotypes but never personally attacks his staff nor the French themselves. He is in fact,a speaker of fluent French, and often converses with Requien in French on The F Word. SJ28 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stance on vegetarianism and removal of POV

I deleted the para quoted below, on the grounds that it's overly polemic and insufficiently disinterested in tone. There's a place for considering Ramsay's stance on vegetarianism, but it ought to be more balanced and at the very least provide an outline of counterarguments. Quoting solely from a vegetarian presssure group is not the way to demonstrate the required neutrality.

Lying about ingredients Ramsay has repeatedly lied about the ingredients in his dishes to trick people into eating foods which their religious or ethical beliefs forbid. In one incident, he admitted to telling a vegetarian party that their soup was made with vegetable stock although it actually contained chicken stock.. During the filming of the 2007 season of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, he tricked a vegetarian diner at La Lanterna in Letchworth, Hertfordshire, UK, into eating pork, then laughed at the patron as he ran out of the restaurant after being informed.[1] Chefs and food writers alike criticized this apparent disregard for the trust a diner puts in a chef. Added Tina Fox of the Vegetarian Society, "I am amazed that Gordon Ramsay can find the discomfort of a fellow human being so amusing. It can be deeply upsetting for vegetarians to find they have eaten any part of an animal in error. Would Gordon find it equally amusing if an anaphylactic customer died at the table due to eating nuts?"

Stockton 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you playing at, Madchester? Ramsay's nationality has already been settled. Read the talk page. That is not the dispute. Everyone agrees that he is Scottish. There is a consensus on that issue. The dispute is whether calling him Scottish is redundant, since his place of birth was in the main text. You are the only person who does not agree that he is Scottish, yet you have used your edit and protected the article. Seriously, what is your game? Instead of incessantly making edits, reply to me on the talk page. Clydey (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hello Stockton, how would you suggest we rework the above so that we can incorporate this information -- Ramsay has on two occasions, both well documented, lied about ingredients he's putting into the dishes he is serving people. He hasn't denied in fact he has confirmed doing this. I see this as something more than a "vegetarian" issue, as mentioned people have different reasons -- health, religious, ethical among them -- for excluding some foods from their diet. Do not agree it is noteworthy that this celebrated chef has delighted in disregarding personal needs/request when serving people food? RomaC 10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Stockton, but I think the point is that an encyclopedia article shouldn't include what reads as a condemnation of Ramsay, just a description of his actions (if they're relevant). CarlFink 21:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A whole section entitled "Lying about ingredients" just screams of violating WP:NPOV. The current paragraphs on Ramsay's food views are balanced and sufficient.

And the patron in that particular incident was not tricked by Ramsay. It was the Lanterna commi who slipped the meat in the "veggie pizza"; this was shown on the episode of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Ramsay was in no way involved with this particular incident and the commi did not have harmful or deceitful intentions in her actions. I'm not sure how the media twisted the incident in the source(s) provided above. --Madchester 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement with both CarlFink and Madchester. The current article, as I see it, pretty accurately reflects Ramsay's disdain for vegeterianism (and vegetarians), and the controversy that has prompted. I don't think there's any merit in a new section with the emotive title 'Lying about ingredients'. That is reinforced by two further concerns. First, the title suggests a systematic and repeated effort on Ramsay's part to falsify the ingredients he uses, and mislead his customers (a suggestion I think would be libellous). And second, the section relies almost exclusively on a quote from an interest group, without providing any referenced counter-argument (e.g. that Ramsay is engaging in lighthearted entertainment as a means of expresssing his view that there is no moral basis for vegetarianism and the culinary horizons of vegetarians ought to be extended). Stockton 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the comments. I did not know much about Ramsay before reading the story in the Telegraph, which I saw as significant because I half-expected the diner to sue Ramsay. Agreed the tone could be more encyclopedic, the Veggie group spokesperson's quote could be truncated and/or balanced with another reaction, and the section title changed.

But I believe this remains notable. It is willful deceit from a famous chef, and that alone surprised the hell out of me. Ok, extreme examples -- what if cubes of meat on a stick were called chicken when they were rat, or if pieces of pork were mixed into a Muslim's falafel for a cook's "lighthearted entertainment"? The argument here seems to be that this is different because vegetarians' rights are different, or am I missing something? Why not present the facts and let the reader judge that for themselves? RomaC 05:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which facts? Ramsey did not doctor the veggie pizza and although he has joked about "no vegetarians allowed" he has spoken and written about a change of heart towards vegetarianism User:Barliner^chat 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

appreciate your response Barliner, here is the source for the pizza: "Ramsay replies that the restaurant's chefs have prepared a vegetarian pizza and gives him one to try. After the volunteer - identified only as "Bob" - has eaten the pizza, Ramsay tells him: "Unfortunately, that pizza has got a lot of mozzarella and tomatoes, but underneath all that there is parma ham." The bit regarding Ramsay admitting he lied about chicken soup stock remains in the article. Again, I'm curious whether the view among some editors here is that vegetarians' dietary needs are not deserving of the same respect afforded those of, say Jews or Muslims or people with food allergies. RomaC 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still leave that out as Ramsay could have been lied to himself - the only point to the contra comes from a "guilty party". Unless the full incident is shown on the programme, which I am trying to find. His views seem to have changed from overt hostility to acceptance, but not encouragement that meatless meals are possible. As for the public's (and maybe other editors' views), the apparent overreaction of the customer probably bolsters this antipathy. Making vegetarians figure of fun is seen as ok because animal rights activists are vegetarians there all vegetarians are animal rights activists and deserve it. A fallacy, but that's humans for you. User:Barliner^chat 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you, a vegetarian who realizes he has been tricked into eating pork, his negative response is an "overreaction"? If he is a vegetarian for religious reasons (Hindu, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist), would that be different? Is there a Wiki policy on this?RomaC 10:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that that is correct but that, unfortunately, many people see it as OK. Having seen the incident it has been blown out of proportion. The customer did not complain vehemently, in fact he complained somewhat jokingly and seemed to accept that Ramsay had not part. He certainly never "ran out of the restaurant looking very sick and pale". As the incident was accidental I don't see any need to mention it.-- Barliner  talk  18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your input Barliner, but the reportin the Telegraph tells a different story, "Alex Scott, the owner and head chef at La Lanterna, said that the vegetarian in question appeared distressed after the incident: "I did feel a bit sorry for the guy as he ran out of the restaurant looking very sick and pale." RomaC 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to eat a dead horse here, but the references to Ramsay's serving meat to vegetarians are now both gone from the article. (In one case, it was chicken stock, in the other, pork.) I would like to see them reintroduced in a section or subsection called something like "Controversies involving Vegetarians," because 1) It is noteworthy that Ramsay has knowingly served food to people who don't eat that sort of food; 2) The incidents were widely reported and triggered significant reactions; 3) Part of Ramsay's public identity is his anti-vegetarianism. Suggest something along the lines of: Ramsay has been targeted for his anti-vegetarian statements, and for surreptitiously serving vegetarian diners meat, which prompted the UK Vegetarian Society to accuse him of a "complete lack of respect" for vegetarians. (references above) I think maybe the PETA horse manure protest mentioned in the article could also be incorporated to this section. Comments? RomaC (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No comments? No objections? No problem? RomaC (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The PETA manure dumping protest was in response to a news piece done by Janet Street-Porter on The F-Word. Watch the clip here. Street-Porter was the one making the claim of eating horse meat to an incredulous Ramsay on the show; he wasn't involved in the research or claim.
2. Please watch the actual "veggie pizza" incident here. Ramsay wasn't aware of the pizza's parma ham until after the vegetarian ate it. The incident was blown out of proportion by the media. The source focuses on Ramsay "laughing" at the incident, when in reality all of the kitchen staff was having a chuckle, as seen on the episode.

The section on public image is already sufficient. Ramsay is foremost known for his colourful language, but even that hasn't been given its own section in the article. --Madchester (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

In last night's Kitchen Nightmares, the "veteran waitress" said she started working at the restaurant in 1967, to which Ramsay replied "I was born then". This puts the article's 1966 date of birth in doubt, unless he was rounding up. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• IMDB lists his DOB as 1966. I would guess that he was just rounding up for (affect) the show. Dp76764 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertising adn Endorsements

I think a section shoudl be added detailing his involvement with advertising and endorsement - most notably Gordon's Gin and British Telecom IT services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.168.181 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Gordon have a hearing aid?

It appears that on a couple of episodes of "The F Word" (BBC America) Gordon has a hearing aid in his left ear. It appears to be the low profile type that goes very deep in the ear canal. Am I right?

It's a wireless ear monitor that allows the director to talk to him. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rector at St. Andrews is part of being a head chef?

"Also in 2006, Ramsay was nominated as a candidate for Rector at the University of St Andrews, but beaten at the polls by Simon Pepper.[12] Despite a publicity campaign, Ramsay never visited St Andrews and did not appear in press interviews." Why is that in the "Head Chef" section? CarlFink (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DVD

Anything out on DVD?--80.133.193.185 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares is on DVD in Australia --Coheed56 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DW Celt

I reverted the recent edits of the above user since he was responsible for this addition to the article, which was only seen and removed today. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Claridges

Why is Claridges in the previous restaurants section?

It's still up on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.234.228 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A food view?

On Hell's Kitchen some of his most notorious moments come when risotto is poorly prepared. This quote was taken from a interview posted on Hula.com and I think it's important because Ramsey values consistent work in large quantities.

"Everyone knows how to make a risotto. And for a true test to any chef it is like making bread or making pasta. A risotto is vibrant and it's alive and there are never two risottos that are the same. But you can always can always identify the skill of a really good chef when he can prefect a risotto not just one but 25 of them a night. That's the difference. It's not about just making that one risotto, it's about doing that risotto every night consintently brilliant."

I'm not adding yet because I don't know if it would be considered clutter and since we're doing away with trivia the topic it falls under is unclear.

Hula.com Kitchen Nightmares vs. Hell's Kitchen

--Martinblank47 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guest Appearance

Gordan Ramsay has recently been to Canada as said http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_22097.aspx and http://toronto.cityguide.ca/gordon-ramsay-at-indigo-019269.php I think we should put some mention to it in the article. --70.51.165.207 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Catholic Church Controversy

I added this, since the Senate inquiry vis-a-vis Council's lamentation, has a chilling effect on the liberties. Separation between church and state: Adelaide Australia's Catholic church, on May, 2008, demanded that Gordon Ramsay's reality television shows be either taken off air or shown at a later time, amid Australia's parliament inquiry into swearing on television, due to Ramsay's antics in his Kitchen Nightmares and Hell's Kitchen. Ramsay used a four-letter expletive 80 times, and also shouted at a chef: "You French pig." Senator Cory Bernardi initiated a Senate inquiry into swearing about Ramsay's programs, with 50 public submissions. And the overwhelming majority ruled in favor of tighter regulation and called for the Nine television network, to censor Ramsay. But the Council for Civil Liberties, New South Wales favored Ramsey: "This inquiry is yet another attempt to restrict the freedom of expression of ordinary Australians. Not everyone is offended by coarse language," the council said in its submission. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church is just chasing ratings here, they have no standing in the senate. In fact the Senate inquiry precedes the church complaint, so it can't have been influenced by it. I don't see how this is notable. It certainly isn't a full blown controversy. Everyone already knows he is a controversial figure. maxsch (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Denied for lack of merit. Your argument is untenable. Read the news, and read its reason and fair reporting. You are not allowed in Wikipedia, to attack a news or make an opinion of it. It is notable edit. - --Florentino floro (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Contrary to popular belief, Gordon Ramsay has no connection to England other than living there. He was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. Being raised in England absolutely does not make him English. He self-identifies as Scottish, as evidenced in the following link:

http://www.vimeo.com/274912

Despite having an English accent and Americans generally thinking that being being British equates to being English, when queried about his nationality former Hell's Kichen (US) contestant Bonnie Muirhead replies, "He's actually Scottish." He clearly self-identifies as Scottish. There is no other way she would be aware that he is Scottish.

I find it curious that seemingly every English celebrity chef is described as English, yet Ramsay is described as British. You cannot have it both ways. Film and television personalities from the UK are identified by which part of the UK they are from. Given that many people believe England and the UK are one and the same, being specific will help dispel that myth. The following are numerous examples of English chefs being described as English, rather than British. Ramsay, therefore, should be described as Scottish, in keeping with this trend.

• Jamie Oliver
• Ainsley Harriott
• Delia Smith
• Gary Rhodes

Disagree? Come up with a solid counter-argument. Until then, stop describing people as British when it suits you. Wikipedia requires consistency. Clydey (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Reminds one of TV coverage of Scottish athletes at the Olympics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And I find it curious that you assume everyone who has ever discussed a similar topic is in some sort of collective hivemind. Yes, we're collectively all calling someone 'British' when it apparently suits us. Of course...

In reality, however, it is really more accurate to call him 'British.' Why? Because sure, he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. But he moved to England at a very young age, grew up there, was educated there and had most of his experiences in life there. Ignoring that is just silly. 'British' is a compromise between calling him Scottish - which he is as he was born there and has Scottish relatives, and English - which he obviously has a lot of connection to (certainly not 'just living there.')

Your argument that because some contestant mentioned that 'He's actually Scottish' it means he identifies as that is quite laughable as well. The interviewer was talking about his accent and what region he came from to get this, to which she replied 'He's actually Scottish' because all he's talking about is what region he came from. It in no way shows that Gordon somehow identifies as being solely Scottish.

As for the very small list of chefs you listed that are listed as English - I don't necessarily agree with them being called English either. Were any of them born in England, which they proceeded to spend a relatively short amount of time in before moving to Scotland and living their entire life there? If so, I'd certainly support calling them British.

Furthermore, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all in the same country. It really isn't necessary to call people English or Scottish and it's a shame people have to divide themselves so much and be so nationalistic on places like this. Whether you like it or not Gordon Ramsay is British... this is a fact.

An encyclopaedia should aim to be factually correct, and not pander to people (Americans in this case, according to you) who are ignorant on such issues. It also shouldn't be fanatically edited by uncompromising nationalists like this. But it's clearly a futile struggle changing it back to a more accurate, compromising term. A quick look at your editing history shows your only intention on Wikipedia is to use it as a platform for your nationalism, and for *you* to change people's nationalities to Scottish when it suits you. Bloodloss (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might think, I do not randomly edit pages in order to claim someone as Scottish. I do so only for genuine Scottish people who are referred to as Brtish, while others in the same field are labelled as English. I am not vandalising wikipedia, but merely seeking consistency. To your points:

Living in England for an extended period of time does not make Gordon Ramsay English. It simply is not possible for him to be English, even if he claimed to be (which he doesn't and never has). I'll give you an example. I'm Scottish and I have Scottish parents. Had I moved to Nigera at the age of 6 and been raised there, there is still no way I could ever be Nigerian unless I seek citizenship (and even that is secondary to place of birth and parentage).

So you see, your argument is flawed. Gordon Ramsay cannot ever be considered English. It simply isn't possible. You cannot make arbitrary judgements on someone's nationality based on a period of residence. At what point did it become possible for Ramsay to be considered English? After staying for 2 weeks? 1 year? 10 years? 20 years?

As for the link, it is quite clear that Ramsay told Bonnie that he is Scottish. How else did she arrive at that conclusion? He talks with an English accent. There is no other way she could deduce that he is Scottish. Any way you look at it, he identifies with being Scottish or as being from Scotland. If he identified as English, why wouldn't he say so, given the period of time spent there? Every other British chef (at least the vast majority) seems to be identified by which part of the UK they are from, yet you want Ramsay referred to as British simply because he has stayed in England for an extended period of time? It doesn't work like that. He is Scottish, no matter how you look at it. The educated reader will, from that, be able to conclude that he must also be British. Clydey (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is the *you* you keep referring to? Three people seem to disagree with your argument. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Was that in reply to me or Bloodloss? Clydey (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

I'm not saying he's solely English though. I am proposing he is called British (which he is, factually - anyone who's a citizen of the United Kingdom is British) to not discount the strong connections he has with more than 1 part of the United Kingdom. The UK is one country. It is made up of 'constituent countries' but since the UK is one official country, it is completely different from the example you listed.

As a modified version of the example you gave - if you were born in Nigeria, had citizenship and moved away whilst you were 1 years old to France, lived their your entire life, had all your experiences there, were educated there, all your friends were there and etc and yet still at the age of 90 you didn't have citizenship, would you still consider yourself Nigerian? Of course you wouldn't. Now, I'm well aware it's unlikely you still wouldn't have citizenship in such a scenario, among other things, but it's an example taken to the extreme to prove a point.

I find it odd that you're trying to denounce the importance of your life experiences and considerations on what your nationality is, and yet using the alleged fact that Gordon Ramsay considers himself Scottish as your main point. Also quite strange that you talk of how 'educated readers' will be able to discern the fact that he is also British, and yet earlier on you were saying that the article should be made more user-friendly to people who are ignorant by calling him 'Scottish' as most people apparently don't know the difference between 'British' and 'English.'

As for the video - Honestly. No other way she could've known? The interviewer was asking 'What region does he come from [to get that accent]? Is he a cockney?' The main thing here is the location. The contestant replies 'He's actually Scottish,' referring to the region he was born in - Scotland. She could easily have just found out that he was born in Scotland from idle chatter or maybe even doing a quick Google and finding it out. There are plenty of possibilities and it in no way proves that he considers himself *solely* Scottish. Bloodloss (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not saying that he is solely English? Of course you're not. You couldn't possibly make such a claim. It does not matter how long you live somewhere if you don't get citizenship. If you're born in England (to English parents) and move to Nigeria at the age of 1, it makes no difference. You are still English. That is the only possible way to look at it, since deciding how long one needs to live in another country to be considered a citizen is completely arbitrary. Where do you draw the line? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? What if you move to Nigeria at 20 and stay there until you are 90? Can you then claim to be Nigerian? And if so, at what point can you legitimately claim to be Nigerian?

The facts are as follows: Gordon was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. He moved to England at an early age. So what? The two main determing factors of one's nationality are place of birth and parentage. Being raised in another country does not enter into the equation unless you eventually become a citizen.

Yes, the article should be as specific as possible. Calling him Scottish is entirely accurate. Calling him British, while accurate, is ambiguous. When someone from America reads that, the first thing that pops into their head is that he is English, particularly if they have heard his accent. If they read that he is Scottish, it then follows that he must also be British. Surely that makes sense. There's no possible way he can be called English, so the two options are Scottish or British. Calling him Scottish is more specific and it is consistent with the rest of wikipedia, since every other British chef is described based on their home nation. Why should it be different for Gordon Ramsay?

As for your last point, Bonnie was asked what region Gordon is from. She did not reply, "He's from Scotland." She said that he is Scottish. There's a difference. By calling him British you are straying from the norm. This is no different from any other British bio. There are two options, since it would be absurd to describe him as English. The man is Scottish. There are numerous sources that describe him as such. I've yet to see him described as English. Clydey (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You were constantly saying that he isn't English, which was largely irrelevant as I was talking about calling him British.

Your argument makes sense for the Nigerian example, but in this case there is only one official country - The United Kingdom. Technically Scotland is not a different country from England, they are both in the same country and a person from either can be called 'British'. By calling him British it takes both his connection to Scotland and his connection to England into account - but it's not surprising you want to disregard the latter and just call him Scottish.

British is an accurate term and the fact it says, even before it would go onto say that he's British, that he was born in Johnstone in Scotland makes sure that it is not left too ambiguous at all.

The video is quite irrelevant really, as I've said the interviewer didn't ask what his nationality was, just what region he came from. She said he was Scottish referring to where he was born. But whatever she or the interview meant, the point is that it in no way proves Ramsay considers himself Scottish (she could've got the information that he was born in Scotland in many different ways, and came to the conclusions), and considering you don't care about what nationality people consider themselves to be anyway I don't know why you brought up this up in the first place.

I will repeat again - Gordon Ramsay does not have Scottish citizenship, or Welsh citizenship, or Northern Irish citzenship, or even English citizenship. He has British citizenship.

What I'm proposing isn't out of the norm considering the small list of chefs you listed do not have strong connections to more than 1 part of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless there are a number of articles calling people 'British'. Christian Bale has strong connections to multiple parts of the United Kingdom. What is he called in that article? British.

An example of someone who was born in another country but has no connection to there would be, for instance Angela Thorne. She probably has British citizenship now, but her birth place really has no relevance at all.

Alternatively, how the article stands currently is fine as well though I have little doubt it will be soon changed to suit an editor's nationalistic preferences. Bloodloss (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir, don't be a hypocrite. You want him to be called British and I want him to be called Scottish. You cannot say that one of us is pushing an agenda and not the other. Either you think we both are, or neither of us are. The difference is that I have facts on my side. The vast majority of British personalities, in any field, are described based on their home nation. Ramsay does not have strong connections to any other part of the UK. Living in England is not a strong connection. It has absolutely no bearing on his nationality, none whatsoever. And to be honest, I think you know it doesn't. He is Scottish. There are no ifs, ands or buts. No one will ever recognise him as English because of he lives there. Therefore, this article is no different to, say, Jamie Oliver's article. Take Sean Connery for example. He is described as Scottish, despite not having lived in Scotland for decades. Where he lives is irrelevant, quite frankly.

The most amusing part about this whole thing is that if Ramsay had retained his Scottish accent, this wouldn't even be an issue. For some reason he is seen as having some strong connection to England because he picked up the accent. Now, be honest. If Ramsay had a thick Scottish accent, would this even be an issue, in light of most British celebrities being described as English, Scottish, Welsh etc.? Wikipedia needs to be consistent. Ramsay being described as British simply isn't consistent with the majority of wikipedia. I should add that the Christian Bale example is a poor one. Both of Bale's parents are English. Ramsay has no such connection to England. Clydey (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you resorting to making up things now? His accent has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said - though it does demonstrate that he's lived in England most of his life.

How you can say he has no connection to England is quite baffling really. To push your own agenda so he fits your nationality is one thing, but to *completely* deny any connection to another when he clearly does is something else - I'm not denying he has significant connections to Scotland, unlike you with England. I'm also not wanting him to be called English, just British, which he is.

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.

And again, the other chefs do not have that connection to to another part of the UK - the Christian Bale example may be poor but it's no worse than the examples you listed. If the chefs you listed did have a connection to Scotland or wherever, then perhaps I'd be over on their articles now arguing that they should be called British to not discount their Scottish connection.

It isn't the first time that he's been listed 'British' either (though I somewhat regret listing this as you'll no doubt be rushing over there to change it now even though it's been fine like that for some time). Bloodloss (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading about this on going argument regarding his nationality and feel I need to add my thought's. First I think everyone needs to visit Gordon's website, this page especially. http://www.gordonramsay.com/corporate/theman/biography/ After reading that page it is clear that he is not a Scottish chef just as much as he is not a British chef. The opening sentence on this article is wrong by referring to him as a Scottish chef he is simply a chef born in Scotland. I think I will change the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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" It already says that he is born in Scotland why the need to refer to him as a Scottich chef he learnt his skills in London and France (mainly france) it seems it could be more approprite fine dining chef which is what he actually is. Do you think we should get a admin in on this and see what they have to say. I will be happy if a admin can offer some guidence.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no requirement to use the format "X is a <nationality> chef". The sentence already gives his birth place. Rather than bunching up even more links in the first sentence, we should leave it without the "Scottish" (but implied by giving his birthplace) and then add a paragraph in the article body about how he self-identifies as Scottish despite having lived in England. This idiotic edit warring over a single word in the intro is getting as bad as the Croatian/Serbian lame edit war over at Nikola Tesla. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

So being born in Scotland to Scottish parents doesn't make you Scottish then? Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a 'Scottish accent', just your stereotypical view of what a Scottish accent should sound like.

iainidc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainidc (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There may not be a Scottish accent, but there are scottish accents, some of which (Glasgow for example) are quite distinctive. Ramsay does not, at least when speaking on TV, speak with an accent that is normally associated with Scotland. I dont get why you have such a reaction to someone saying he doesnt have a scottish accent, it was clearly not intended as some kind of outrageous statement, and it was quite clear what was meant. To be clear, I have no real interest in the nationality WP asignes to Ramsay. It would seem to me, that as he doesnt seem to make strong associations with any specific location, or heritage (although he was born north of the border) that he should be described as British. That is presumably what his passport states, and there is no strong consistency in WP for using Scottish in preference to British. Can we worry about other details instead? 92.233.113.107 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this helps the matter, but if you watch this video at from 1:05, you can draw your own conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVttpkH_nHA&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltel85 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this is a ridiculous nationalistic argument. But just to clarify, he refereed to himself as English on his show that aired yesterday 10th May. So really it should be stated as English. As it should be his choice right? If this if overrided then it opens a can of worms and the nationalities should be changed of other people too. Shane McGowen (of The Pouges) for example was born and educated in England and speaks in an English accent but is under Wikipedia as an 'Irish Musician' What I'm saying is .... what is the formula we should be following here? I think by saying British it covers both bases and is safer as Ramsey has in the past referred to himself as British. Problem solved no? This has nothing to do with nationalism. Just want to get the facts right.

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)

On the most recent episode of Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA he refers to him and the chef in context as 'both English'. He also refers o himself as English on an episode of Gordon's Great Escape.

This is an video from 08 in which he categorically states he's Scottish, so can we put this to bed please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuCg6WOQ2Do