Talk:Kitchen Nightmares

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Assessment comments

1 Table Cleanup
2 Proposed Deletion
3 Student review
4 re: reviews
- 4.1 Interview with Hyde on the subject of the Kitchen Nightmares lawsuit
5 Moved explanation of Olde Stone Mill Address
6 Opening music
7 Restaurant Websites
8 Repeated Deletion of Critical Section
9 Concensus on the Criticism Section
- 9.1 Section break
- 9.2 Compromise version
10 Page Protection Abuse
11 More on Criticism Section
12 Is this a credible source for criticism section?
13 Leaving out relevant material a disservice to readers
14 Footnotes

[edit] Table Cleanup

I find the "Ratings" table nearly useless as it has no information on what these numbers mean. I'll point out each column to show you what I mean. First "#" What does this mean? Episode Number? Production Order?; Second "Original Airdate" This information is posted above in the episodes table and the same with the "Restaurant" column. The next 3 columns "Rating", "Share", "Rating/Share" are useless. I don't know what any of that means? 4.2? Is that some number a Website gave this show? And if so what website? Share? WTF does that mean? And Viewers is listed as "6.64" Is that in Millions? Billions? Thousands? And finally the "Rank" column. Its completely empty. It was prob to rank each episode in popularity... but who knows? I would clean up this table but I don't know where the information came from nor what it means.

I propose that since the halve the information in the Ratings Table is repeated in the above table we merge the two together. Remove the "Notes" section and use an *, **, ***, like system to list the notes at the bottom of the table. Next Clarify what "Rating" and "Share" mean, maybe new title or something. Remove the "Rating/Share" as I'm sure thats useless. And put in brackets under "Viewers" what the numbers mean such as "(millions)". And finnaly remove the "Rank" column. -Mirrikat45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrikat45 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion

I have removed the Proposed Deletion tag for the following reason:

This article is about a future TV show. Both Gordon Ramsay and his past/current UK and US TV shows, such as Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and Hell's Kitchen (US TV series), have proven their notability. I have no doubt that once the show airs, it becomes notable in itself. If anyone still feel it should be deleted, please list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. --Edokter (Talk) 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student review

I removed the final sentence in the review section, with a quote from a student newspaper. The other reviews quoted are all from major US dailies, written by professional reviewers; a college student's review isn't up to that standard. I understand it meets WP:RS, but when we have better reviews that cover the same ground, there's no need to use inferior sources. 209.6.213.236 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: reviews

This show is awful. ;) Why is "kitchen" even in the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.181.197 (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The show is only awful if you focus on Fox's changes, and not on the food or Ramsay's advice. Sitting under the crap is still the original Channel 4 show, you just have to dig a little to find it. RvLeshrac 03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actual this show is still garbage. Don't expect it to be winning the equivalents of BAFTAs or International Emmys like the original show. Also, please refrain from adding non-article related commentary to the talk page. Thanks. --Madchester 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview with Hyde on the subject of the Kitchen Nightmares lawsuit

I remember finding a interview on Hyde for Kitchen Nightmares on Youtube a while back. It was stating how things were set up and that the tapes made it look like he was fired instead of quitting. Does anyone remember where the link to it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkmeltdown (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved explanation of Olde Stone Mill Address

Here is the explanation given by Wikiscull on whether the Olde Stone Mill is in Tuckahoe or Yonkers:
The Olde Stone Mill is actually in Yonkers, NY... hence Yonkers Mayor Amicone giving the owner the key to Yonkers... a source of some confusion to viewers wondering why the alleged "mayor of Tuckahoe" would give away the key to a different municipality. It has a Tuckahoe zip code, but is west of the Bronx River on Scarsdale Rd. making the establishment a Yonkers business Arjunasbow 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

10707 is indeed a Tuckhoe ZIP Code, according to the USPS. Tuckahoe is a village within the town of Eastchester, however. I can find nothing at the Yonkers official site about its borders that can explain the claim above. Without a cited source, this sounds like original-research analysis. I'm not saying you're not right, only that Wikipedia requires cited sources for things. I'm making an adjustment to the mention until we have an authoritative, cited source for the claim.--69.22.254.111 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to an address confirmation from Google maps should do it, or a Rand Mc Nally. It's a ZIP Code, easily verifiable by anyone. WP:V MMetro 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening music

The opening-credits theme is not "composed by Craig Alan Owens, David Vanacore and Doug Bossi.", it is a rearrangement of Dick Dale's version of Miserlou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.174.88 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So change the page if you believe the information to be incorrect. This is WikiPedia, friend. W@ntonsoup 09:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurant Websites

The article's topic is on the television program Kitchen Nightmares. Unless the restaurant websites include any subpage or additional details about the show's visit it is not acceptable per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. In a nutshell, Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. For example, the Gordon Ramsay article only links to his official website, not to his individual restaurants. --Madchester 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NOT (not a directory) also applies. We don't link to websites in the middle of an article for no reason, and there is no encyclopedic reason to do so. Go ahead and remove them. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Restaurant Websites should be included if the contain the current menus. The focus of the show is often a big change to the menu. Menus are sometimes the same as the show but often the ownwers have not taked the advice and gone back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.20.111 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean anything to anyone reading this article unless the info about the menu was included here. It isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Deletion of Critical Section

This section is important but has been deleted several times. It's significant especially in the wider context of the Dillon's lawsuit, which claims that Kitchen Nightmares uses techniques such as biased editing and producer created incidents to create a false impression about Martin Hyde. These claims are denied by the producers. This section deals with that question in the wider context of the show. It references an interview from the Stranahan.com website - this is my website and one deletion said it's a personal website; a distinction I don't see. I'm a published writer and former magazine editor and publisher. I spoke firsthand with people involved in the show, such as Buddy and Brian from the Finn McCool's episode as part of journalistic research on this subject. The references are factual and if there's an actual question about the reliability based on some counter claim, that should be stated. Additionally, there are other reports of exactly the same kind of trickery by other sources that I was attemping to post when I saw the section was deleted. The deletion and re-deletion of this section is arbitrary and doesn't serve the goals of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That section practically broke every rule in the book. It is from an unreliable, non-secondary source (a blog), and was heavily opinionated. Furthermore, the fact you are pointing to your own website reeks of conflict of intertest and spamming. This is an encyclodpedia, not a magazine publishing opinionated original research, and certainly not to be used to plug your own website. Please do not add it again. — Edokter • Talk • 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who posted it originally nor did I have anything to do with the posting. So much for your spam or COI charge. I came in after it was posted to clarify things that were posted.

There's no opinion - I gave sources clearly - this person said that. The source is as reliable as one could imagine - people involved in the show. These are facts, not opinion.

What facts are in dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, such as reliable sources, original research, neutral point of view, soapboxing, conflict of interest and external links. As it stands, you broke all of the above. Wikipedia is not here to publish opinions, especially not of those linking to a website published by the contributor. The lawsuit is already covered in the article. I have no problem with a Criticism section, if that criticism is published by multiple, secondary sources, preferably from mainstream media. A single blogpost simply does not fit that criteria. The fact that you point to your own website only hurts credibility of Wikipedia. Those contribution are 99% likely to be deleted, and you risk getting blocked if you keep adding links to your own website.

It doesn't matter who originally posted the link, the fact you kep readding it presents a conflict of interest. Also be aware of the three-revert rule, which you now also broke. I'm going to ask other admins to have a look. See the admins incidents noticeboard.

This is not my opinion; it is policy, which I have no choice but to uphold. Many first time editors make mistakes. That in itself is not a problem. It will become a problem if they keep making the same mistake over and over again. So please, read the policies so you won't make this mistake in the future. — Edokter • Talk • 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have answered this on your personal page.

Now - which facts are in dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the bulk of this discussion over to the admins incidents noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concensus on the Criticism Section

The main issue, as noted by Edoktor, is that Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, and do not satisfy the requirements of verifiability for inclusion on Wikipedia. That seems to be why he initially removed the citation and the criticism section - without a citation to support the criticism, the section was unsourced and had to go. In this case, I have to agree, for the reasons below.

Now, the reason blogs aren't usually reliable sources is that anyone can post a blog. The concern is that if any claim could be made and supported using a blog, then any number of untrue and potentially harmful items could be added to the encyclopedia - rumors, libel, etc.

The exceptions to the rule are blogs written by individuals whose statements would otherwise be notable to the subject. For example, on some of the articles dealing with the NBC show Heroes, we sometimes cite a blog written by producer Greg Beeman. Because he can talk about the show with some authority, his statements about the show are usable as sources - even though they come from a blog. Official blogs of this type are OK, when cited in articles pertaining to their topic. Here, Gordon Ramsey's blog would probably be OK too, so long as it's some sort of official blog that can be confirmed as his.

In this case, I didn't have any indication that the blog was an official blog about the show, nor could I determine if the author had indeed spoken to the individuals mentioned. I couldn't find the statements elsewhere (in a news article, for example), so I couldn't corroborate those statements. That's why I removed the section - maybe a little hastily, given that there was a dispute about it at the time. The argument could be made, however - and I'm not making this claim - that the author was making it all up. It's possible, even likely, that he did speak to the individuals noted and that the account of the conversation is faithful to what they said - but there is no way to verify that.

Is there an alternate source for some of that information? If there is, we can certainly include it, so long as we do so in a neutral fashion. If not, then I'm not sure how else we can restore the section. I hope this helps, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am individual whose statements are notable. I am an established print journalist and magazine editor, who has written on media and TV production for over 15 years. I have interviewed CEOs and celebrities. I have no need to make up an interview, hoping that someday a stranger will cite it on Wikipedia so I can argue about it for hours with some other strangers.

An official blog is unlikely to say 'we make things up', isn't it?

You were hasty in taking it down, because there was no dispute about facts. Nobody claimed that I made it all up. The only dispute was - he took it down, without citing a single fact in dispute.

More important - since any could actually verify it themselves with a phone call to Finn McCool's - is anyone DISPUTING it? Are you saying I made up the interview I did? Are you saying I faked the emails sent to me by people, that I posted? Did I fake the newspaper articles cited in my article?

This is my reponse to Ekdokter's post on the admin board - I couldn't respond there anymore.

The issue is not whether the show is 'dramatized', which is a vauge term. The new intro I wrote explains this more fully but in short - a number of published accounts show that the show goes far beyond normal editing or production techniques. The published, verifiable facts show that KN will totally misrepresent things to the point of out and out fabrication. There's not a 'particular instance', but numerous verified and clear instances. These are significant especially because of the Dillon's lawsuit - that is the 'need'.

The COI thing is a red herring - I'm not going to reinstate the section, so that's settled. If someone other than me reinstates it, there's no COI.

You are misapplying the issue of original research. To quote "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."

The facts about this subject are published, are were prior to the entry. I published them and so have other sources. By your misapplication, there is no such thing as a site - becuase EVERY cite was a direct result of someone's 'original research.'

Reinstate the section, and watch secondary sources magically appear - as I said, that's what I was trying to post when you pulled it down.

I realize that you probably won't agree, which is why I've asked for other comment on this - but I appreciate you finally giving some specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk • contribs)

Bottom line is that claims of fact need to be substantiated, and mere blogs out of nowhere do not meet the reliability standards required to be sources here. I agree with those who have removed the section. I almost did so myself yesterday before I even knew it was under discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with all of the points of ZZ and Edokter. The only source presented is a blog, which is not in anyway a verifiable source. If this material has been published, than cite a published source instead of the blog. A blog is not 'published' because there is no editor or fact-checker involved, and nobody needs to be held accountable if the information is wrong. If you can find this information in published, reliable sources as you claim, then feel free to put the section back up with those sources and leave off the blog link. Then COI won't be a problem, and the unverifiability of the blog won't be a problem, because all we'll be looking at will be the other sources. --Maelwys (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ZZ, I think you described the situation better then I did. 222.223, I hope these comments give some insight in how Wikipedia works. Your reputation not withstanding, verifyability is one of the pillars that supports Wikipedia. Other then that, the section went way too much into detail. If there are other sources, let us know and we could indeed put the criticism section back in (albeit condensed). — Edokter • Talk • 20:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

71.93.222.223, please don't think that I am in any way questioning your integrity. The policy on blogs isn't there for your blog specifically, but for blogs in general - and, being a journalist and a blogger, you know that for every good blog online, there are 20 deceptive or misinformed ones. I meant no disrespect - I was simply looking for some alternative, and I can't see one at this time. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good rule for you - USE COMMON SENSE.

There is no policy on blogs, per se. They raise issues of reliability - but USE COMMON SENSE. Raising issues doesn't mean you can't cite a blog.

There is no factual dispute at issue here. It's not a 'mere blog' but pretty clearly a notable resource about the show by an subject expert? And nobody is disputing the facts.

And how can I put up cites when the section is down and I've been warned not to put it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, please remember to remain civil. I am attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt, and see if there is a way to include the information you reference in your blog in a manner that satisfies the relevant policies, cited above. My common sense says that, unless it's in a verifiable source, it cannot be included. The only verifiable source I have for the claims that were removed from the article is the fact that you say they're true. Well and good - they very probably are. But if that fact cannot be documented by a reliable source, as defined by policy, then we cannot use the information. Blogs cannot generally be used as reliable sources, unless the statements of the author would be notable for other reasons, as I discuss above. No one here means you any offense by this.

As for working on a new version of the removed material - I suggest you copy the material to something such as notepad or another text editor. This will let you work on the wording of the text (for WP:NPOV) and add any citations you find. You can then post the new section here for input before re-adding it to the article. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What was uncivil? Reminding you of common sense?

Like on Reliable Sources page where it says "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. "

or the Common Sense page itself that says..."Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. If you use common sense when editing, you are unlikely to do anything wrong."

So - when you say 'a reliable source, as defined by policy' - you are in direct contradiction to what Wikipedia says about 'reliable sources' which is it's a guideline, NOT a policy...

Please consider the possibility that in this situation you are too wrapped up in rules. Now, as a mental exercise for a moment focus less on rules and instead use common sense...

Look at my site. Read the entries about Kitchen Nightmares. Note the large number of cites in my posts. Note the people who have commented, including Sebastian and the restaurant reviewer. Note the vast amount of non-KN material on my site - does it seem like a fly by night blog. Google Lee Stranahan Editor Chief and verify my magazine credentials. Ask yourself 'Do I believe this dude made up the interview?" Then ask whether I'm making extraordinary claims.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Another point. You also could have changed it to "Writer Lee Stranahan claims to have interviewed the owners of Finn McCools and says they told him"....that would have fine by Wikipedia, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

That wouldn't work either. The fact remains, we only have your word for it. It remains unverifyable through second sources as long as other media do not pick up on it. You as a journalist must know the value of verifyable sources. I case of Wikipedia, only other publications (either through print or broadcast) can be used as secondary sources. Having to phone your editor doesn't work. If you have published citations, post them here on the talkpage. — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully - what you are saying is not Wikipedia policy, nor does it fit guidelines, nor are you even using the term secondary source properly. You are not following the common sense guideline. I was the only one who did the interview that I did or asked the questions that I asked. Nothing in my interview is contradicted by anyone, anywhere - including you.

The work of mine that was cited is a primary source; an interview that I did with the owner and head Chef of Finn McCools. My statement were not interpretative. You have no reason to assume that I am not a reliable source; that is a Bad Faith assumption on your part, since you lack any reason whatsoever save for your narrow and incorrect view of Wikipedia's 'rules'. My interview is just as verifiable as any print interview by anyone. Nobody has challenged it as false. Just because it COULD be made up is no proof that it IS, especially in the absense of any proof. Again - read the sections on Reliable Sources and Common Sense...then explain how anything I wrote seems unreliable and BE SPECIFIC.

When you say something like I case of Wikipedia, only other publications (either through print or broadcast) can be used as secondary source" - you made that up yourself, just now. It's nowhere in the defintion of secondary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise version

Wl219 has added a compromise version under the reception heading, in which the blog AND a corroborating New York Post article are cited. Please have a look. With a reliable source supporting the statements of the blog, I'm inclined to leave it alone for a while, if other editors agree. The new version also comes much closer to being neutral, which the previous entry wasn't, really. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I still can't edit this page, I'll just add a couple of other cites here. Here's one from the Campania show...

http://njmg.typepad.com/foodblog/2007/11/a-five-hour-nig.html#more

Discussing the mispresentations on KN - it's the site of a blog of a newspaper.

Well, so much for leaving it alone...the new edit removes all detail.

I still call for a Truce where people stop deleting stuff so the section can grow - I have read Wikipedia's suggestions on conflict and deleting seems to be the first choice of some editors here right now - that's not the idea. For any fans of the show, the fakery on the show is a big deal and source of discussion and there are a lot of cites that demonstrate it. But with the constant deletions - it's crazy.

One general problem here is that entertainment news coverage isn't generally in-depth. This issue isn't fluff, relly.

[edit] Page Protection Abuse

So, I took people's advice about doing a citation (as I've mentioned, I have lots) and did an edit on the Lawsuit section. Seemed to me to be a clear edit and the citation was directly to the lawsuit document itself. Previous edit I did didn't have a cite, so - problem solved right?

Nope. The cite was ignored and called 'original research' for no reason I could tell. It was pulled down and the page protected. I can't edit anything on the page now.

So - I shouldn't feel like I'm being picked on, correct? And I shouldn't feel that petty BS is getting in the way of presenting valid information and improving Wikipedia, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And is it just a coincidence that the Admin who protected the page is 'Retired' and 'Traveling On Business' and will therefore be unavailable to explain their actions?

I am really deeply disappointed in the Admins so far. Sorry. Nothing personal. LeeStranahan (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am here and there. The problem here is that the court case is being sourced direct form the court reports, and that is generally a bad idea. What's needed is independent secondary sources, what we have now belongs on WIkinews not Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a court report. It's the primary document used in exactly the correct way - direct quotes - attributed with quote marks. There's no interpertation.

And you aren't going to get secondary sources that cover the case well. There aren't any, I looked. It's celebrity case, they don't spend much time in it.

And in any possible case, it's not original research and protecting the page violates both the intent and letter of the protection policy.

Anyone else care to chime in on whether a citation to a court filing is a proper source for quoting that court filing?

This is exactly why I am disappointed. Someone like Guy deletes my comments (without asking) from his talk page saying one forum is enough - but he still has never answered the question How is quoting a primary source on a site that isn't mine 'Original Research'? He refuses to answer because there IS no answer - just a blatant misuse of his power, which he apparently doesn't have to justify. And admins seem to just support other admins. LeeStranahan 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog aggregator. Buddytv.com and realitytvcalendar.com are not reliable sources, the only proper (as in reliable, independent, secondary) source was the NY post. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not JzG's personal domain, where he can decide to protect a page and then make content edits himself.

I didn't cite ANY of those sources and improper cites are not a valid reason to protect a page. Read the policy on page protection. If you were concerned about those cites, change them.

Your last edits - removing the lawsuit section - is very questionable, as well. So now you're involved in content and you're protecting the page. And when you say that 'the law has been dismissed' you don't understand what is going on; yes, dismissed from the court because it's in arbitration but the legal and controversy are still existent. An admin is not a super editor and you seem rather out of control at this point.

And how was the legal filing a questionable source? It was directly quoted - no interpatation. And the Fox website is promotional in nature - how is that a good primary source but legal filings aren't?LeeStranahan 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the citations,

1. First citation is commentary on a blog and is considered original research, which is not acceptable.

2. Second citation needs a third-party, verifiable source that does not fail what was incorrect in source #1 and #3.

3. Third citation fails just like the first. If you note the ending line, it is a blog, a column, and is considered original research.

So please, do some checking up and follow advice. It's not acceptable to point fingers, accuse administrators (and other editors) of nonsense, when it is up to you to provide a burden of proof for the citations. And a user is allowed to delete comments on talk pages as he pleases. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

None of which justifies protecting the page, even if you're correct. This is where the admin abuse comes in. The Wikipedia philosophy is clear that deletions and protection are last resorts and that discussion and improvement are the way to go. There are PLENTY of good cites - the problem is that I can't edit the page to post them.

The only thing I cited was 2 - and what possible burden of proof could you need for it? It's a legal filing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please indent your posts to correspond with replies, and sign your posts using four tildes.

It's clearly justified because you, and other editors, were edit warring. Persistent reverts over items that are not justified to be included in the article calls for page protection so that the flood of anonymous IP editors can find something better to do, and for mediation to occur. That't not administrator abuse. If you want to insert your "good cites," you can type them out here and a discussion can ensue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are factually incorrect. There was no edit war ongoing. The discussion had ended that. A look at the history and the times would show that - edit war over. The protection happened after I posted a perfectly valid cite - and I knew it would because I committed the cardinal sin around here; questioning an admin. That is admin abuse. And once again, admins stick up for other admins and are more concerned about petty rule enforcement than actually improving this article, which is a totally lame article. It didn't take long to figure out the politics around here and to realize how many people complain about spiteful, small minded admins. LeeStranahan 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, however, outside views from other parties are more than welcome. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Criticism Section

I believe that even in the compromise version, the blog post is inappropriate. Wikipedia discourages self-citation in WP:COI for obvious reasons. The relentless self-promotion by Mr. Stranahan is only one among many such reasons. How would he feel if I were to post false or exaggerated claims about the restaurant in question, then insist (as he has done) that my own writing be linked and summarized from Wikipedia? Not that his claims are false at all - I am certain they are in good faith. However, to prevent abuses that I outlined above, we really need to do without self-cited material when other material exists. Therefore, I will be bold and will remove that reference. The updated section can survive quite well without it. Arjuna's Bow अर्जुन 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Two different issues - this section is about a cite I did to legal papers.

Also - I never self cited anything. I didn't even fix the incorrect cite location, just so I wouldn't be self-citing. I'm a long time Wikipedia editor, and I specifically decided against posting any of my information. Any information I added or corrected was to a cite that someone else posted here to my site.

There's been no relentless self promotion on my part. That's a bad faith personal attack on me, and I don't appreciate it. Please read the history of this to inform your opinions better.

Thanks, 69.8.247.231, for pointing out that I posted in the wrong section. I have now fixed it. You might review WP:FAITH - as we are to assume good faith on the part of other editors. If you wouldn't mind, please sign your comments. Last, you might sign in, if you are indeed the same as LeeStranahan, and 71.93.222.223. Cheers, Arjuna's Bow अर्जुन 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are the one who should review the section on Good Faith. I'm not sure that accusing me of relentless self-promotion counts. The only time I talked about my background was in direct reference to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that related to the usability of self published material, and even then I only mentioned my relevant background. LeeStranahan 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Lee, I believe you are right - sorry about that. Arjuna's Bow अर्जुन 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that - no hard feelings on my part. LeeStranahan 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a credible source for criticism section?

[[1]]Patrickjolliffe (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the sort of source that we could include, so long as we're careful to keep NPOV with the information we cite. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving out relevant material a disservice to readers

"In September 2007 a case was filed against Ramsay for allegedly staging some of the more dramatic elements in the second episode. The case was dismissed and sent instead to arbitration.["

Can we expand on these types of elements surrounding the show? There is alot of behind the scenes the readers are NOT being told about and in our opinion that hurts this articles' ability to inform...Come on people you can do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.126.157 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of information "behind the scenes"? Unless there's a credible source for it, how can it be included here? If there's a source, post it.CarlFink (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just watched the episode involving The Mixing Bowl and the contrivance is incredible. They actually had scenes shot at night and in broad daylight, edited together to try to make it look like they were happening at the same time. As Gordon Ramsay might say, unbe-fucking-lieveable! - 88.110.142.79 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Many of the web pages given as citations seem to be dead. Or do they only not work from my machine? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)