Talk:Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

(Sept 5): in the second-season premier "Kitchen Nightmares Revisited", Fox added some footage of the manager quitting on his own accord and walking into the street at night. I definitely don't remember that from the original first-season episode.

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:<br\> 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More on reliable...

This is from the Realiable Sources Noticeboard...discussing another site... "I see no evidence of the sort of editorial oversight process that could make a web site reliable, nor even an "about this site" page that could explain why it might be reliable: it's just some single person's site. So unless you can make some claim that the person who runs the site is independently recognized as a having some kind of professional expertise on the subject, I'd say no, it's not reliable." Emphasis added

My about page mentions my professional expertise and it's easy to verify. Yet, you have ignored it time and again. Sup with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability (which is official policy): Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unfortunately your blog is not published, and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Maelwys (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that page. My blog is published. Self published, yes - but self published is not excluded per se.

And here's another direct quote from [Wikipedia:Verifiability]] (which is official policy): 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I highlighted the part that you people keep ignoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave up trying to guess my password, so I made a new account...still me, just not anonymous.

The relevant field here is television production. That's the field I work in and have written about for over 15 years. My work has been published by a number of reliable third party publications. My expertise on this subject comes from research and interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC)We can quote policy back and forth forever. The reality is that multiple editors believe that the link (and therefore, the section) are not backed by independent, verifiable sources. With no disrespect to you or your credentials, your personal blog does not count as a verifiable source. I'll add that you seem to be the only person arguing for the inclusion of the link. More than almost any other policy, Wikipedia operates based on consensus which, unfortunately, appears to be against including the link. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this is still going on. Lee, stop defending yourself and your 15 years of professional expertise, noone's saying you're not a qualified journalist/filmmaker/graphic artist/writer/editor/author/photographer/etc. All that matters right now is that your site, www.stranahan.com is a blog, (you call it a blog yourself,) and blogs are almost universally not accepted as reliable sources here. (The details as to the reasons for this and the exceptions are articulated quite well by other users in this discussion.) If you did this reporting on behalf of Variety or something else (see the list of sources in the article) then it would almost definitely count as a reliable source. We just don't accept blogs here and bloggers arguing about the validity of their claims and their personal notability is nothing new. Noone's calling you a liar, there's just no way to VERIFY that you're telling the truth since your site is not a reliable source, regardless of your own expertise. It's nothing personal, and we're not going to debate or contradict your claims, which is all you seem to keep repeating: "Noone contradicts me so it must be true!". Regardless of your expertise, your site is a blog, which Wikipedia doesn't cite as sources except in special cases. And as outlined above, it's a textbook case of original research. Sorry. --TM 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're heading towards personal attack there. Be calm, brother. It's still going on because I've never been though the process before and people keep saying things 'Wikipedia doesn't cite blogs as sources' that conflict with the policy I've read. That's all. It's now down to 'with respect, forget policy - we have the numbers so we win'. And for that I have no answer, do I? So, you win. LeeStranahan (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Postponed

I cant find a source other than the sky news channel in australia, but hells kitchen series 3 has apparently been postponed due to this whole affair thing that gordon has so called had --Casket56 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Discuss it on the Hell's Kitchen page instead; more appropriate there. There's also a news bit of Fox News about this. DP76764 (Talk) 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

oops sorry, I meant to say Kitchen Nightmares season 3 has been postponed, my bad, i got them muddled up, thanks --Casket56 (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, Kitchen Nighmares it was; however, there are some dissenting sources saying that it has NOT been postponed. And since the article doesn't currently have an expected filming date listed, we should probably wait until something official gets published about the schedule of the filming. DP76764 (Talk) 08:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

...is now complete.

since when have wikipedia-articles a release date? when was casting completed? --Trickstar (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Air dates

Just wondering... where are the air dates for the second season coming from?

Reason I ask is that the "Fiesta Sunrise" ep just air tonight (Nov 11) on Global in Canada...

- J Greb (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The US. It's an American show. Drmargi (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trobiano's closed

What does it take to get this put on the site. A simple google search shows multiple articles on it being closed, including on from Newsday. Yes its a blog on Newsday's website, but they are still a newspaper. If it was a New York Times blog would it not be accepted, even though it is endorsed by the Times? You can even call the restaurant and find out it is closed. It is silly this keeps getting taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.88.121 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that's just the way it is. However, it should be noted that it wasn't "closed" per se so much as "seized". If you ask me, it could plausibly be fixed by them paying what they have due. It isn't like Lela's, which was flat out closed. It's also not only not the only case of a seizing this season (Fiesta Sunrise also suffered this fate), but it's not, in both seasons, the only time a restaurant was closed for a period of time (Dillons/Purnima/Dillions in season one was temp shut down by the New York Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene in April of 07 per http://167.153.150.32/RI/web/detail.do?method=detail&restaurantId=40660751&inspectionDate=20070426 . This occured both before the episode aired, and also before the Hyde v Ramsay suit). Another example of a temp closure was Black Pearl when they moved, before the final closing. 71.60.43.87 (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple articles, but not about it being closed. Most are reviews. I just reverted the latest addition of that note with no source, then ran a Google search. Nada. All I found from Newsday was an old review. If you can produce better, add it back with a source. The trouble is, no one ever does. Drmargi (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also the issue that their site is still up and they appear to be in business, all other things considered. It needs a very reliable source to be included. --13² 17:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Their website is no longer up. Now can we say that they're closed? Or at least make a note that their website isn't up?-PlasmaDragon (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's no indication that they are closed. To say it is closed, it has to have a reliable source. And no, information about their site not being up is not notable enough to include. Perhaps they decided not to renew with the service they were using before, maybe someone forgot to pay the bill, maybe they decided to change the name, etc. You'd have to find a reliable source to indicate why the fact that it isn't up is notable. --13² 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper columns/blogs

Newspaper online columns/blogs written by columnists and other professional journalists are allowed -- not readers' comments, but those of the newspaper columnist/journalist.

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

--207.237.223.118 (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the example of Newsday since you reverted my removal: how do you know that the "Newsday" blog is "subject to the organization's full editorial control?" From what I can gather, it's a part of a website that is part of Newsday, not actually a part of Newsday itself. Further, the person who wrote the blog article does not cite any sources herself. Considering these restaurant closings would be big news if true, there should be more than just a casual mention in one person's random blog. I will also mention that I can find absolutely no indication that the newspaper itself has any connection to this blog aside from the fact that it is on a spin-off of their main site. I can't find any warnings on the page, any small print, or anything to indicate Newsday supports, edits, or authorizes the posts made in the blog. Please point one out to me in case I've missed it.

Also on the page in which you have quoted from (except this is in the main text, not a footnote), "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources." This is an extraordinary claim (one that could potentially harm the business) and it has to have an extraordinary source, preferably one straight from a major news source (not their blogs) or covered by multiple sources, not some casual mention in a blog that doesn't cite their claims on a website that, while run by a more major news source, is not the news source itself and gives no indication the major news source actually supports it in any way other than providing bandwidth. Out of genuine curiosity now, how do you come to the conclusion that this blog is a reliable source? --13² 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. That Newsday blog has no editorial control exerted over it that can be discerned by the reader. Some newspaper staff writers and columnists maintain blogs and their reputations give their own entries a measure of integrity, if not necessarily reliability. But blogs by their very nature are informal online phenomena and not subject to any measure of editorial control, organizational or other, aside from that of the blogger him or herself. What's more, the comments attached to them are subject to no sort of review unless the blogger has a mechanism to delete. That's a far cry from the full editorial control claimed above. Unless an editor can demonstrate the Newsday blog is subject to some control with some solid evidence, it's just a blog chatting about restaurants, and of highly questionable reliability. As you suggest, why is it only this one publication carrying this information? That in and of itself calls its reliability into question. Drmargi (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

User:Drmargi has reinstalled a questionable edit that needs discussion. No one is against adding a notation about the season-two episodes airing back-to-back. The only point is whether to use the numeral-one footnote, duplicating another numeral-one footnote in the article, or something else. No manual of style advocates using two sets of numeral-one footnotes, which is intrinsically confusing and duplicative.

Is there any reason that an asterisk, for example, or a cross symbol, or any of a variety of footnote indicators cannot be used instead? --207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The footnote, as it is, seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me. On the other hand, I would have no problem with it being changed to an asterisk (or the like). If there is a 'MOS' guideline about this, it should be followed. DP76764 (Talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really even need the footnote at all? --13² 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is fancruft, frankly and should go in totality. Anyone with half a brain can look a the table and see there were two episodes on the nights in question, the result of the World Series. If you're removing the note on the basis of its formatting, remove the whole damned thing, rather than keeping what you like. You ended up with a disconnected sentence that belongs to the table but looks like text, making no sense at all, and I've reverted it again. How is that in any way preferable to the note used previously? I'm not even going to get into a debate about the appropriateness of repetitive placement of a single note, which perfectly clear: the same note applies in three places, so we attach the same number in each case. The alternate is to add the same note three times at the bottom, which is idiotic.

User:207.237.223.118, who should register if they plan on taking a regular, active role here, has flung the insinuation of WP:OWN around, but I'd suggest that his/her own edits are the only ones reflecting ownership of this article. Be very careful and review WP:CIVIL before making such comments, particularly given the tone of your edit summaries and a whiff of edit warring. Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Drmargi on this issue. I wouldn't care if there was an asterisk or some other symbol instead of a number indicating the footnote, but to take the note out completely and have some random sentence below the table is ridiculous. It should either be there, with a connecting footnote, or it shouldn't be there at all. --13² 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The note (and it's not a footnote, which is used in a different context, just for the sake of argument) has outlived its usefulness. When KN's schedule was irregular around World Series time, it made a certain amount of sense to add a simple tool to help the reader access this information, particularly given the tendency of a couple editors to load up the table with long-winded explanations of what was happening, along with some needless trivia about the Series. Now, it's obvious they doubled up a couple nights, and the rest doesn't pass the "who cares?" test. It needs to go in totality. Drmargi (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixing Bowl and more

Alright, this article, which is currently ref #6, states "Also on the closure list are... The Mixing Bowl in Bellmore, New York." I'm going to add this with a message of closure for Mixing Bowl. Any objections? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(This was copied from the above user's talk page.) I don't see too much of a problem with that source. My only concern is that they don't say where they found their information and I'm also a little hesitant because they actually cite one unreliable source within the article (Eating Long Island). That makes me wonder if they just used all of those blog entries and review sites that people have attempted to use as sources in the article in the past. --13² 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiesta Sunrise

Can we please get a decent source for Fiesta Sunrise's closing? I have almost no doubt that it has been closed, but, so far, the only sources reporting it are blogs and review sites, which can't be used as sources. Surely there's something more reliable reporting it. --13² 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch that are like that, where you know that the place is closed but it hasn't been reported by local news or anything. Some places just close and it's never reported anywhere. In the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:COMMON, I'm going to pose the following: would it be possible for us to relax WP:SPS just a little so we can use blogs as a source? I know that this would be unacceptable in most other situations, but it seems like it would quell a lot of issues. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A blog by someone we know to be a (former) owner, should be evidence enough. But we really have to be careful here - it would be damaging to a business to say it has closed when it has not. It's right to err on the side of caution. Incidentally, this wouldn't require any blurring of WP:SPS as SPS is subject to WP:SELFPUB. Hibbertson (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

More on sourcing

Okay, I think we need to discuss sourcing issues rather than just saying, "No, it's a blog, done." Links to blogs are occasionally acceptable, you know. Example: Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs has references to Whedonesque, which is a Joss Whedon blog of sorts. I think it's sort of okay to link to a post by Joan Reminick, who is Newsday's food critic, is acceptable to show that a place - in this case, Peter's - has closed. If we were going into more detail or trying to draw some conclusion and citing the post as a reference, then it would be unacceptable; but all we're doing here is showing that the place has closed. Now, I used the Herald article as a reference to indicate that the place has closed. I'm not sure why Drmargi undid that previously, but it's an acceptable source that we've used before.

I'm just hoping to get a little more dialogue going here, so that maybe we can come to some consensus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Campania

I have added infomation about what happened to Campania after the show was made. However I am not sure if one of the sources I used is expectable; I used the Campania website as a reference to its success after the show. Is this O.K? It seems fine to me, as one can quickly tell that it is the same owner and that the press section details its success, but I thought I'd better check. Thanks, --86.132.232.28 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to remove the addition. I would absolutely love to share the successes of restaurants here on the article, but I just can't if the sources are not reliable. The Campania website is considered a primary source, which means that it is original research, which means that it's not reliable. We very, very rarely use primary sources. The second source was a blog entry, which is also considered original research and, thus, not reliable. If you can find some sources from press releases, newspapers, magazines, etc. (basically, anything listed as a reliable source here), let us know and we'll add it immediately. Thank you! --13² 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I don't edit often and its usally just fixing mistakes not added sourced info. I managed to find this; whilst it comes from the Campania website it is from a newspaper or magazine. Thanks, --86.132.232.28 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The only reason I'm hesitant is because it appears to be more of a review of the restaurant, as opposed to a report on their financial success. It's a fine line, but there is a difference. I think we may be able to use it, but we'll have to be careful about what we quote and make sure it's not this particular writer's opinion, as opposed to this writer reporting the facts. --13² 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a review, and a very dated one at that. All restaurant websites post those as an inducement to customers. A more fundamental question; what's a success? It's implicit the restaurant is doing well if it remains open. Beyond that, we cross into the realm of WP:POV. So my opinion? If they close or are sold, and it can be sourced reliably, we note it. Otherwise, we leave the box blank. Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to agree with Drmargi on this one. I just can't find anything useful in the article. I think the only way we're going to be able to put up successes is if it's a notable success, that is, the restaurant reports that they are completely out of debt or something similar. Closings are easy; check to see if the source is reliable and add it. Successes are just so much harder because it's a lot more difficult to define "success." --13² 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I found something: a website to Campania. Not only that, but also to The Olde Stone Mill and Finn McCool's

Here are the website:

Campania: [2]; The Olde Stone Mill: [3]; Finn McCool's: [4].

I was hoping to add this. If don't it's okay. Badjsp (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no real point to adding those. I think it would violate WP:LINKSPAM. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Updates from Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns

As the article notes, the second season started with Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns. In that episode Ramsay returned to the following six restaurants a year or more after original filming (I include summaries of what the show reported):

• Peter's - Open, with business reported to be up 30%-40%, when Ramsay returned a year after original filming
• Dillons/Purnima - Open, with business reported to have improved to an annualized turnover of USD1m, when Ramsay returned a year after original filming
• The Mixing Bowl - Open when Ramsay returned a year after original filming*
• The Olde Stone Mill - Open and profitable when Ramsay returned over one year later from original filming
• Finn McCools - Open and profitable when Ramsay returned over one year later from original filming
• Campania - Open and profitable when Ramsay returned over one year later from original filming

Clearly, by its very nature, this information is only accurate as at the time of filming the relevant segment Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns (although you might have expected an epilogue saying a restaurant had since closed if that were the case at the date of original airing of the revisit episode). Indeed, the article already states, with sources, that Peter's and The Mixing Bowl are now closed. (As an aside, I'm not sure I like the source and we don't know where the Daily Herald got their information - and in particular, we don't have confirmation that the journalist didn't lift it off an earlier version of this page, but that's another matter.)

I think this information is useful and relevant and ought to be reported in the article (either in the notes column for each restaurant, the notes section for Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns or in a separate prose paragraph elsewhere on the page. It is right to report some of good news (and it is good news that these restaurants lasted at least a year after Ramsay visited), as well as the bad (when there are restaurant closures). In terms of quality, the source is as good as any other episode of the program (and if we don't accept those as acceptable sources, we might as well delete most of this page). The source would also be stated, so the reader can decide to what extent to trust the source, and how up to date it is.

I know User:Drmargi disagrees with me, and believes this info should not be added, hence my starting this discussion on the talk page. No doubt Drmargi will set out the argument against inclusion. Hibbertson (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, DrMargi, I'm curious why you say that "We can't assure accuracy from this alone", referring to using the episodes as references. Lots of articles use episodes as references. So what's wrong? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Any questions directed to me personally belong on my talk page and will not be answered here. Drmargi (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content question. You reverted someone's edits, so I think it's only fair that you should explain your actions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DrMargi, there has been a consensus of sorts reached. Both Hibbertson and I are in agreement - you're the contrarian at this point. And you still haven't justified your edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You two don't give folks much time to weigh in, and you certainly have nothing approaching consensus. Consensus takes more time than overnight, and needs to allow for editors to read and reply as they access the article, not on the timeline you seem to want to impose. There are a couple other editors who edit here routinely who should be given an opportunity to respond. I chose not to add my comments until I felt I had articulated my arguments sufficiently - and I'm very uncomfortable with being personally targeted, pursued to respond according to your schedule, backed into a corner and told I much "justify" edits that were quite clearly explained in my edit summaries.

I would argue against the addition of the updates from the revisits simply because they do not reflect the status of the restaurants as they are now. The newest of these revisits is over a year old now, and Ramsay only revisits restaurants that are still open, so there's a certain 'duh' factor to stating the obvious. Moreover, we know several of these restaurants either are or are very likely now closed based on foodie blogs, etc, which do not meet the WP standard of evidence, as I noted elsewhere. So why add out-of-date information about what Ramsay found when he revisited? It would make more sense to set up a table describing the revisits and put it there? As previously done, the revisit information added to the notes is both out of date, and in the case of some restaurants, erroneous, confusing and misleading.

Particularly problematic, to my mind, is the WP:POV description of the revisited restaurants as "profitable." They don't really address that explicitly in the revisits, and what little information about financial standing of restaurants we have comes from the word of an owner with a camera stuck in his/her face - not exactly an unimpeachable source given the nature of reality TV's tendency to embroider the truth and a human tendency to want to save face, not to mention that many of those restaurants revisited soon closed despite rosy assurances all was well at the time of the revisit. What a restaurant owner tells us is very different from what we see as Ramsay works with the restaurant, which is what the article describes.

This stuff was interesting at the time of the revisits, but it's not current and I'd argue, potentially misleading and not notable now. Drmargi (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Drmargi raises some fair points. I was myself unsure whether to attempt to describe the profitability (or otherwise) of the restaurants on Ramsay's revisit. The information is based on what the owners tell Ramsay in front of a camera, and it needs extrapolating to determine whether it is profitable (eg paying off all debts and then some = profitable; keeping up with debt repayments with no mention of whether the owner is taking a paycheck = breaking even or worse). I therefore accept Drmargi's position that we should not describe the revisited restaurants' profitability. What we do know - and can say - is that the six revisited restaurants were still open and under the same management when Ramsay revisited.

Although I disagree with Drmargi's comments on notability, on reflection, I do think the restaurants revisited may be best listed in the notes section on the Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns. The identity of the revisited restaurants is clearly relevant to that episode, plus, it allows the reference to the restaurants as being open and under the same management to be clearly dated to the time of that episode. Incidentally, it is not obvious that a restaurant is open at the time a revisit. On the UK version of the show, Ramsay has revisited restaurants that closed and/or changed hands. Just because, as of date, he hasn't done so in the US, doesn't mean it will be assumed by the reader that revisited restaurants are open and under the same management if we don't state it.

In essence, my revised proposed edit is to change the note to Kitchen Nightmares Revisited: Gordon Returns from

Ramsay returns a year later for progress reports on six restaurants from first season.

to

Ramsay returns a year later for progress reports from the first season. The six revisited restaurants, all of which were open and under the same management, were: Peter's, Purnima, The Mixing Bowl, The Olde Stone Mill, Finn McCools, and Campania.

Do others agree that this revised proposal is better? Or have alternative proposals of their own? Hibbertson (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia, but I would like to revisit this point. I do think it's appropriate to at least mention the six restaurants that were revisited in the "notes" section of the revisit episode, and so am amending the article appropriately. I have, for now, not added the clause "all of which were open and under the same management", but am tempted to add it - with the phrase "at the time of Ramsay's revisit" - but I'll allow time for comment on that before I do it. Hibbertson (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see your interest in having the specific restaurants and their status documented, but I'm not sure they belong in the table. Instead, I'd suggest either footnoting each of the six as a Revisited restaurant or better still, put it all in narrative. As it is, the table looks peculiar with excessive white space forced by one sentence. Of course, I'm to the point that I'm considering removing the updates, in line with the UK article. They're too hard to keep current, harder to source and after a while, who really cares? Drmargi (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I tend to think that footnotes are less useful than a column, since ideally this is a data point (whether the restaurant is still open) that we should have for every single episode. It's useful data for users, and it's extremely relevant to the entire premise of the show. So I guess if you want to be a hero and reorg, then go to it, but don't remove useful information, which was mostly sourced and everything. --204.14.159.182 (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Casa Roma

I was revisiting some of the old episodes of this recent season of Kitchen Nightmares and was watching the scene at the end of the first episode (the revisit) where they showed scenes of the season two restaurants, plus their logos. From the ones shown, Handlebar, Giuseppi's, Trobiano's, J. Willy's, Hannah and Mason's, Jack's Waterfront, Sabatiello's, and Fiesta Sunrise were aired, but I didn't see Black Pearl or Sante' La Brea in the sequence. However, that's not what I noticed. In the sequence of logos, one of the ones shown is for Casa Roma Restaurant and Cocktails with a print saying "Since 1958". This logo is after Jack's Waterfront if anyone wishes to verify it. I bring this up because no episode featuring this restaurant has ever surfaced or been advertised. Also, it should be noted that, if Casa Roma's episode, if one exists, aired, it would cause the number of restaurants in Season 2 to be greater than those in Season 1 (11 to 10 as opposed to 10 equal) Is there any sort of reason for this? Was the Casa Roma shown related to Black Pearl (which I doubt) or Sante' La Brea, or was Casa Roma a missing episode? Also, is it possible to determine if any of the scenes in the montage were of an unaired restaurant, to determine if a Casa Roma episode does conceivably exist?

Here's, from what I see, the logo sequence order: Trobianos, Hannah and Mason's, Fiesta Sunrise, Handlebar, Giuseppi's, Jack's Waterfront, Casa Roma, J. Willy's, Sabatiello's. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The only things that matter are what is aired and what is reported by reliable sources. Anything else or any conclusions you draw are considered original research. So, unless "Casa Roma" is aired or it is mentioned in a reliable source it absolutely cannot be included and discussion about this should be kept to a minimum or not at all. --13² 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screenshot of it: 160px.

PlasmaDragon (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And we do what now? Where is it? Why missing? Can you even prove it exists, much less that an episode was filmed? This could be a stock filler shot, no more. I can't find anything that allows us to identify it by running a Google search. I'd argue you're reading far too much into a brief shot of a sign. Let it go. Drmargi (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Casa Roma is a restaurant in Lancaster, CA and an episode was filmed. I know because I live there. It shows on tv guide that it will air next Thurs. the 22nd even though tonight it the season finale? Go figure. It is in a kind of bad part of town and I read somewhere online that it was not a pleasant experience for Gordon which is sad because there are a lot of places in town that could use the help.

That may very well be, but it's down to you, and that makes it original research. Fox has now removed the episode from its schedule. Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to an undoing of my reversion and people continually re-adding this information, without bothering to cite sources and saying the air date is TBA. As of right now, the only reliable sources for when this episode will air (if it ever airs) are only FOX, Ramsay, and the official Kitchen Nightmares site. Anything else cannot be considered reliable as they are not the official source for this information (which begs the question, where did they get the information, if not from the official sources?). For these reasons, any addition of information regarding this restaurant without a cited source from either the Fox Network, Ramsay, or the Kitchen Nightmares site (or a source that cites one of these three sources) will be reverted. Thank you. --13² 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm behind you TSquared. I've no doubt the episode was shot, but at this point, its status is unknown and Season Two has ended. It's unclear when, or whether Fox plans to air the episode, and not unknown to have one dropped altogether. I, too, will revert any attempt to add it to the article until Fox announces an airdate.

ETA: In light of the latest revert, it can't be restarted strongly enough that what makes sense or might be isn't sufficient evidence to add a TBA episode. "Pushing Daisies" is a poor comparison; it's been widely publicized that ABC is holding back its final episodes until an indeterminant date. We have no such knowledge about the "Casa Roma" episode, and the last one aired was listed as the season finale. As stated in the edit summaries following multiple reverts, speculation about it running at some point in the future isn't sufficient. Until we have a reliable source stating that Fox plans to run it AND treat it as part of Season Two, it can't go in the table. Drmargi (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"We have no such knowledge about the "Casa Roma" episode, and the last one aired was listed as the season finale." --The last one aired was not listed as the season finale, that is just incorrect. By your logic, Cafe 36 should not be listed because Fox.com has no mention of it. Casa Roma got bumped because of Pres. Bush's farewell. FOX plans to air it before Season 3. This is also identical to the situation that Arrested Development had with its season 1 finale, "Let 'Em Eat Cake" where it aired much later in the season.

Are you serious? Cafe 36 was broadcast. It doesn't get any more reliable than that. Moreover, it was identified as the Season Finale in a number of television publications/sites. Your argument regarding not listed on Fox could not be more disingenuous and your argument Casa Roma was "bumped" has no evidence to support it. You continue to push to add an episode to the table that you contend is part of Season Two, without reliable sources, ad nauseum. Despite your protestations, its status is at present unknown. It may be run on a yet-to-be announced night or may be folded into Season Three. We don't know, and a reported e-mail is far from a reliable source. Please, let it go, be patient, and wait until there's firm, reliable information about the episode before adding it back. And sign your posts. I won't even ask how the finale of the first season of Arrested Development ran "much later in the season." Drmargi (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the email, not only is an email not reliable, but it is also not verifiable. This means it cannot used as a source for information ever, let alone for something controversial. Also, please explain what an aired, verifiable episode of Arrested Development has to do with an un-aired, unverifiable episode of Kitchen Nightmares. Thank you. --13² 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Casa Roma episode was broadcast in the UK last week. I know as I watched it. So it does exist and has been shown. Where should it go on the list? Hibbertson (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted a new attempt to add Casa Roma to the US S2 table. It's not really an issue for the purposes of this discussion, but I want to draw the editor's attention to the discussion we had, where we agreed putting it in the table implied it was broadcast in the US when it wasn't. Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Updates and Alignment with the UK Article

Can we please remove the updates column? It's just a magnet for original research and people arguing about whether or not their sources are reliable, which 95% aren't. It's just too difficult to keep up-to-date and it's way too difficult to be sourced reliably. If I don't get a reply otherwise in the next couple of days, I'll probably just do it myself. --13² 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed, agreed and DONE. The British article doesn't have them, and is no worse for it. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a mile, particularly given the sourcing, notability and original research issues. Anyone in doubt is referred to the discussion on the British article. Drmargi (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, and thank you again! :-) --13² 12:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't going to be an easy transition... I have asked the recent reverter to discuss this issue here and gain a new consensus if they disagree with the removal of the updates. Hopefully they take that suggestion. --13² 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll throw my support for the removal, as it really only causes more problems than it should. I'm not entirely convinced that that (the verifiable parts of) the updates shouldn't be on the page in some form, though, as long as they were properly sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I split this out into a new section in the hopes it would make the discussion more visible. When I removed the updates (hosannah), I also rewrote the introduction in a style that aligns it with the UK article. The issue of adding updates to the UK article has been pressed recently by an editor who cites this article as a rationale. Consensus over there is the show is about what Ramsay does, not the what happens to the restaurants into perpetuity after he goes. I came down on that side of the discussion, better articulated by another editor, and have added a note over there that we've removed the updates here.

For us, it simply serves to strengthen the argument that the updates should go, particularly given the constant sourcing/original research problems. We may need to address the issue of the show's emphasis as well as discussion progresses. Interesting the only resistance (so far) has come from an anon. (Dutch) IP with no other contribs. Drmargi (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I really like the following suggestion from Madchester on the UK talk page: "If there are any general news articles describing the overall effect of Ramsay's visits then they can be incorporated into the Reception section." I really don't see any reason we should be updating about every single individual restaurant other than "it's interesting information" which, while true, is not a valid reason for inclusion. Add in all the issues of original research, verifiability, reliable sources, indiscriminate information, and journalism, I really don't see any reason to keep the updates. --13² 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting is a very poor reason to add updates to an article. I read a piece this morning about the recent closing of Momma Cherri's, the British restaurant that had been considered his biggest success. has now closed after a long struggle to stay afloat. That's not all that notable, particularly so long after the episode (2006) about the place. But the article notes only five British restaurants he helped are currently open under the original owners. That's what's worth noting, either in the reception section as you suggest or in a small sub-section of episodes about outcomes - maybe. Even that's problematic because it's going to be dated in time, and would have to be presented in a time-sensitive manner. Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough consensus here to remove it. And even if there wasn't, the anon IP hasn't really made an argument either way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to settle it. The anon IP is probably a fairly experienced editor; they knew how to revert across multiple edits using the history page, and that's not something a beginner will do intuitively. That means they know how discussion and consensus works, and won't have a leg to stand on if they continue to revert and attempt to discuss via edit summary 13sq, thanks for bringing over Madchester's argument. I couldn't recall the other point he'd make, which is was raising the issue of the updates really being indiscriminate information. I'm glad to see these two articles in better alignment with the infernal updates gone. Drmargi (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Go figure, the other most recent editor to revert it has also never edited any other articles and also knows how to use undo. Coincidence? Probably not. --13² 01:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The account was created only a few hours ago. Sounds like sockpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We obviously need to watch it, and if need be, take action. Hopefully, that can be avoided. Drmargi (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going without a fight. We've had two anon IP's and now an editor revert because (as noted in the edit summary) "two people have spoken" whatever that might mean. I've encouraged the editor to read the discussion and get up to speed on consensus. Drmargi (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it fairly frustrating that the page is being targeted all of a sudden when it was essentially dead for months and is being reverted by people who have never even edited the page prior to this. What makes this page so exciting all of a sudden? o_0 --13² 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No argument there. I have a theory that involves agendas regarding the other article and probably a sockpuppet or two, but can't substantiate anything, of course. It's interesting that these are editors who all know how to complex edits and like to argue via edit summary, but carefully ignore the talk page and discussion to consensus. One IP in particular is being particularly persistent, and I've left a message on his/her talk page re: edit warring and vandalism. Drmargi (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of this constant reverting without any discussion. Can any of the anon IPs (I have a feeling it's one person doing this over and over) give any solid reasons why the extra section should be included? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's one anon IP and one registered editor, both fairly casual editors otherwise, making the reverts. Both repeatedly ignore requests not to edit war and to add to the consensus discussion, and both continue to revert without valid edit summaries. Given their respective edit histories, I doubt it's one person, but these two seem determined to edit war rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or to respect the consensus established. Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Either way, the IP was blocked for reverting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

31 hours will slow him down, if not stop him. Now to keep a sharp eye on the second offender. He's already got a pretty checkered history, it appears. Drmargi (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor #2 is back now, claiming others "had a consensus" first. He clearly does not know the procedure for reaching consensus. I've put a warning on his talk page, but I'm not at all confident it will have any effect. Drmargi (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I've blocked User:Sophisticatedcat for persistent edit-warring on this article. If s/he continues edit-warring after the block expires, let me know and I'll reapply as needed. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for blocking this guy, and for blocking the anon IP. We will definitely let you know if either one turns up again and edits in the same way. Drmargi (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't look now, but we've got yet another anon IP having a cow about this, all of a sudden. At least this one commented in a new section -- no participation in this discussion, but at least some engagement, which is an improvement. Drmargi (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, the UK edition is your personal fiefdom and a lot of editors have be kind enough to allow you to remove the updates of the restaurants here. That doesn't mean you can do the same with the American edition of Kitchen Nightmares here when there updates of the restaurants have their own references from good media sources. If you keep on reverting this issues I will charge you all with edit-warring this article. Roman888 (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dillon's/Purnima's

Should we just do something like this regarding the Dillon's/Purnima's name change (obviously with all the restaurants in the list)?

#	Restaurant	Location	Original airdate
1.	Peter's	Babylon, New York	Sept. 19, 2007
2.	Dillon's*	New York, New York	Sept. 26, 2007

*Name changed to Purnima's during relaunch.

It's simple and straightforward. Since there aren't any other points in the chart to be clarified, I don't see much need to use numbered notations. I was going to just go ahead and change it, but I'm not sure if I like the little text or if it should be normal sized. Any input? --13² 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. There's only the one, so it doesn't need the fuss of a footnote. BTW, the new restaurant is Purnima, with no apostrophe s. Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Example -

#	Restaurant	Location	Original airdate	Notes
1.	Peter's	Babylon, New York	Sept. 19, 2007
2.	Dillon's	New York, New York	Sept. 26, 2007	Name changed to Purnima during taping

Why get rid of the notes column in the first place? Isn't the notes column for other misc information and updates too? Just add it like the example shown above. Also we haven't even had the dispute resolution to solve the updates and notes column in the beginning. I like you being WP:BOLD but wait until you have WP:CONSENSUS. Roman888 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Restaurants closed

Why is this data being removed from the page? The only reason I keep looking up this article, is so that I can watch episodes for restaurants that are still in business. That's really useful information. If you want to squabble about whether a given restaurant is open or closed, then fine, but don't just remove the information. --204.14.159.182 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus process used here, in which we engaged. Consensus was to remove the updates, and to align the articles on the American and UK versions of the show. You might want to read the extant discussion and get up to speed on the collection of rather intractable problems that accompanied the updates, as well as the arguments regarding the focus of the show (i.e Ramsay's action at time of broadcast v. the long-term fate of the restaurants.) I would also encourage you to review the policy for WP:CONSENSUS, W:NOTE (notability of information) and WP:INFO (indiscriminate information). Drmargi (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but there was no concensus done in regards to removing the updates from the American Kitchen Nightmares. You have already removed the updates from the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares in the UK edition. First there was not WP:CONSENSUS, and you have taken it upon yourself to make the changes by WP:BOLD. It is with this I am going to revert your changes. Roman888 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's directly above this section, and clear as glass. Roman, you're clearly letting this get personal. Take a step back, and take a deep breath, review WP:CIVIL, then engage in the discussion process. Drmargi (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am being civil and clear on this matter. There was no consensus made in regards to removing the updates. I have taken the step of reporting you for WP:EW and for challenging the updates made by so many editors previously. Roman888 (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman888, I appreciate you reporting Drmargi. This is the "Anon IP" who was "having a cow" earlier. I'm editing from other people's computers, every time I try to watch this show, so I haven't been logging in. I'm hurtstotouchfire though in case Drmargi has any further trouble swallowing that snotty attitude towards IP editors, who actually contribute a large amount of valuable data on Wikipedia.

That said, the consensus page that Drmargi thoughtfully linked to earlier points out that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale," and it's clear that if a consensus was reached earlier, it's not sticking. Perhaps Drmargi can take the time to verify the accuracy of the questionable items? It's clear that this information is valued to a lot of us. --69.181.124.52 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the issue. If you want 'em verified, you do it. It's not my problem. I do wonder, however, why you persist in hiding behind anon IP's, and now have used one to potentially restart an edit war, when you (allegedly) have an infrequently-used identity here. One could draw a welter of conclusions. Drmargi (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No question... KEEP!!! We need to be as resourceful as possible... It's only an enforcement of freedom of speech!!! Not only that, but there are people out there including myself that would like to know of the happenings... Other shows have suchs scenarios and have faired just fine!!! It won't hurt anyone to maintain the updated information!!! WIKIDTW 2010 (talk) 1132 PM EDT SUN SEP 20 2009 | 0332 AM UTC MON SEP 21 2009

Not a single policy or guideline so support your reasoning? The only reason we should keep it is simply because you find the information interesting? --13² 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is removing updates that are irrelevant an abridgment of freedom of speech, for heaven's sake? Again, the only affirmative argument: "it's nice, it's interesting, I wanna know." Read: fancruft. This is one of the original nine canvassed users to be disregarded per Parsecboy. Drmargi (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)