Talk:Restaurant Gordon Ramsay

Use of claim ultimately sourced to Daily Mail
The claim attributed to "The S.Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants" is ultimately sourced only to the Daily Mail. The DM is a deprecated source - we can't trust what it says, and we can't trust it to render others' claims.

, you're edit-warring this claim in, sourced only second-hand to a dubious source we can't trust. This doesn't appear to meet WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the editor re-adding the material - do you have anything to back the claim? - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you ever try to find a replacement source? Or do you just remove them? The Banner  talk 09:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , we don't demand that editors spend their own time trying to find sources for random factoids that others failed to source properly. That would be very silly. The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content, to support it with reliable sourcing. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you just remove the sources leaving them unsourced or you just remove the facts? Just because a source that used to be okay in the past is by now deemed not okay. Is straight removal of the questionable sources really in the interest of the encyclopedia? Or would hiding them suffice (preferably with a citation needed template)? The Banner  talk 10:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a much-discussed issue. If the only source for the claim was, as it appeared to be, the DM - whether that was in a comment or not - it should never have been there. But yes, basically it is - we shouldn't pretend a source is good when it isn't. And tagging doesn't work to replace the deprecated sources - removal does, though - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I still call that vandalising, sorry. The Banner  talk 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out words mean things, however, and WP:NPA is also one of our few hard policies - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be an ecumenical matter. I have been told both, with equal confidence. The only solid consensus is that whatever anyone does, it's always wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And beside that: the removal of the facts was in fact a demand to come up with replacement sources. You just shift the burden of sourcing to somebody else. The Banner  talk 10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of hard policies, but David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you just remove things and hopes somebody else will take the burden of providing sources? Is that really in the interest of the encyclopedia? The Banner  talk 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , er, that's the foundation of how Wikipedia works. WP:BRD is basically exactly that. Add content, and if it's challenged, then the person looking to include it has to support it. Whether to remove or tag cn is a subjective decision, and likely to be based on how contentious the text is. In this case it was simultaneously both negative and apparently trivial, so removal is what I would have done too. Reasonable people may differ. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we shouldn't pretend a statement is sourced when it isn't, particularly when the source for it is a known bad source. This improves the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DAILYMAIL: The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. And it states nowhere that removal is mandatory. The Banner  talk 16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DAILYMAIL: There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Perhaps you missed that bit. - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read that. And it does not state that removal is mandatory. The Banner  talk 18:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Categories / see also
If sources confirm British and French cuisine, feel free to add Category:British cuisine, Category:French restaurants in the United Kingdom, List of French restaurants, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)