Talk:Richard Gere

The "Henry" issue

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about whether or not Gere actually has a half-brother named Henry Gerbilzewski, born in Germany. I have not been able to locate the hypothetical article being used as a reference by some editors; however, I went at it from a different angle, researching Gere's mother - she is well documented as a Mayflower descendant. The available records show her to have had only one marriage, to Homer Gere. There is no mention of her having a son Henry. In fairness, there are discrepancies in these records, as they have different dates/locations of birth for her, and many do not list all of Richard Gere's siblings. Nonetheless, the one thing they are consistent about is that she has had only one marriage.

Like many, I suspect that Henry's name had been in the article when we first read it, and we did not think to question it at the time. Having done a bit more research, I would suggest that there are valid questions as to any relationship between Richard Gere and Henry Gerbilzewkski, and until there are multiple sources tying the two together, we should omit the line about Henry.

Does anyone else have other suggestions? Risker 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Biography channel to ask them if the reference to their magazine is correct, but so far I have received no response. There is a Biography magazine, but it isn't in any of my local libraries. If anyone could find that issue, that would be one way to check. I agree that the line should be omitted until confirmed. -Jmh123 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to also semi-protect this article until we have some confirmation of whether this Mr. Januszewski is actually related to Gere. According to a German Wikipedia user who mistakenly posted on WP:AIV, Januszewski (or somebody affiliated with him) was repeatedly adding this "information" to the Gere article on de:wiki until that article was protected, and is now doing the same to the English article (this one). I checked the history of the German article, and it seems the IP adding this information haapens to be in the same IP range as the user adding it to the German article - to me, this looks like somebody trying to further this bit of information whether it's true or not. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a dodgy claim, we have no reliable sources so we should just remove it without comment whenever it's placed into the article, until such time as reliable references ever do materialize. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this sounds like a thinly veiled joke about the gerbil rumour Mattbrown04 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

August 2007

Our IP editor friend is back adding this statement, and has provided the source "Biography Magazine, Summer 2004, p.14" as the reliable source. Now, there was indeed an article about Gere in the magazine; however, I've been unsuccessful in locating the magazine, and Jmh123 has not apparently received a response to his request for verification direct to the publisher. So far, nobody else has been able to locate the article so I am having a hard time considering this information "verifiable" at this point. I've also taken a quick look at a couple of Gere biographies, some of which mention his family; the name Henry Jauszewski did not appear in any of them. I will remove the claim again, pending an additional verifiable source that is actually accessible to people. Risker 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo included

I have included a photo per the previous message in article. The photo is from a united states government website.

URL: http://www.usaid.gov/in/images/richard_gere2.jpg

.WacoJacko 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great photo. -Jmh123 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks!WacoJacko 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could you add IPA on how you pronounce Gere? I heard several pronunciations. --Error 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only two fairly reliable sources I was able to find disagree: http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=richard%20gere http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d1118/Richard_Gere --Espoo (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vogue cover information.

Hi, I just came across the interesting piece of trivia in IMDB.com that Richard Gere was the first man to appear on the cover of Vogue magazine (with wife Cindy Crawford) and George Clooney was the second. Wikipedia carries the same information. I thought that this would be a very useful fact for quizzes and so on. I also reckoned that if Richard had appeared with with Cindy, then that might mean that George was the first man to appear solo on the cover; another equally useful bit of trivia, so I set about verifying this.

However, it turns out that in July 1970, Helmut Berger was the first man to appear on the cover (with Marisa Berenson.) See http://www.vogue.co.uk/CoverArchive/Inside.aspx?Year=&Model=Helmut+Berger&Photographer=&Issue=1970%20July for details. The Vogue Cover Archive, which doesn't actually have all the covers, allows you to search by Year, Photographer or Model but neither Richard or George are included in the drop-down list. It does list Bono with Christy Turlington (Dec 1992), Robbie Williams with Giselle (Oct 2000), P.Diddy with Naomi Campbell (Oct 2001) and Elton John with Elizabeth Hurley (Dec 2002).

When I noticed that Mario Testino had shot two of the covers, I clicked on his link to find that the last three were all shot by Mario Testino and also noticed among his 35 covers another one of "Razorlight frontman, Johnny Borrell, on the cover making history as the seventh man to have taken fashions's top spot (alongside Natalia Vodianov...)" (my italics) in May 2007. I can't find any details on the missing 'sixth' - or rather second - man to be featured (probably Richard Gere in 1982). It also seems that no man has ever been featured unaccompanied by a woman. George Clooney did feature on the first issue cover of Men's Vogue, but there have been many other men on that particular cover, so it's not such a big deal. SuperiorPics.com and Squidoo are also carying the incorrect info about the cover.

Hope you find this interesting and helpful. It started out simply enough then turned into something of a quest. VirKoto 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms/parodies

Rumors regarding his personal life and criticisms of his political activism belong in this article to render it neutral. The following quoation, for instance, is from a Gere critic:

Please do not remove my post; that borders on censorship.

Bancroft EIR (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can and will remove your content as per WP:BLP. I'll quote "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I left your "source" so people can check it out. I consider your source poor. It is simply an odd rant from Lyndon LaRouche....Asher196 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to the talk page. Do not censor. Keep my comments for the record so that other editors can judge for themselves. Your input is not the last word here. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OF course WP:BLP applies to the talk page. I just quoted from it above where it specifically says "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space"....Asher196 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typographical Error

The sentence

A prototypical leading man of romantic and dramatic films, he first became famous during the 1980s, and has since managed to retained his status.

should be changed. The word "retained" should be "retain."

Done. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kiss in India

"grabbed and pecked Bollywood superstar Shilpa Shetty three times on the cheek." I beg to differ. There's video online of the kiss, where he appears to grab her, dip her in a mock-passionate kiss pose. She looked somewhat embarrassed, but that's my view. In a later interview, he dismissed the whole thing, since they and the other celebrities went to a dinner together and parted amicably. He blamed a small right-wing party in India for agitating the issue. Is there a better way to describe this in the article? BrotherSulayman (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the video as reference and rewrote the account. He actually kissed her at least six times, not three.Asher196 ([[

User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gerbil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – RfC closed on May 4th. Consensus noted at end that the gerbil content does not belong in the article as a BLP violation — Becksguy (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – There is a request further down this page for a neutral administrator to close this, which might mitigate some of the argument. The discussion below is quite heated, but there is a clear consensus that the gerbil material should not be included here - there are various reasons, and you can choose from WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE for the best ones. The latter is probably the least contentious here - the general feeling in the discussion is that since Gere has nothing to do with this story (no reaction to it, no notable incidents in connection with it, etc) then its inclusion in a biography about him is unnecessary. The material, if it must be included somewhere, should not be included here. Happy to receive arguments on my talk about this, where a nice, civil discussion can take place. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article continue to not have the gerbil story? It's obviously known as an urban legend. It’s arguably the most known urban legend. It’s been mentioned in movies and television shows. The sources are reliable and notable. Family Guy mentioned it on a segment, and that is one the more popular shows on American network television-millions of viewers a week and tons of syndication. The Wes Craven movie Scream mentioned it as well. That’s one of the highest grossing horror movies, and one of the highest grossing movies of 1996; not to mention 2 successful sequels and possibly a third in the works now. What more is needed, reliably sourced, acknowledged as an urban legend.Fodient (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is almost exclusively based on rumors of a living person. Jennifer Fitzgerald's article probably only exists based on slanderous rumors, and most of it is based off a notorious rumor creator Kitty Kelley. What is the difference between her article and the edits I feel should be put in Richard Gere’s article.Fodient (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is in another article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, at the end of the day, BLP trumps all. Unless you find a New York Times article detailing exactly how, when and where he inserted the gerbil up his butt, don't bother. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that one article can be soley based on a rumor and another can mention one, but one survives because people like that one and not the other. I'm sure the movie scream and family guy are both more popular than the NY Times. And NY Times has been wrong plenty of times, and I'm sure that NY Times is also aware of the this urban legend.Fodient (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And I never said that he had a gerbil inserted in his rectum, I'm meerly saying that there is a highly notable urban legend saying that he did.Fodient (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to reread everything I've typed. I don't care about the article you linked. I care about this one, and your little gerbil story is staying out. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Through some research I found this [1] which clearly states that the gerbil story should be in the article. It not only states that this would be acceptable, it mentions the gerbil story as an example.Fodient (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That proves nothing. Keep trying, and always remember that BLP trumps all. But by all means, keep adding the rumor so we can get you banned. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice that the discussion was on BLP which trumps all.Fodient (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your linking to one person's (non-admin) opinion is laughable. And you may want to trot on over to WP:ANI. Probably your last chance to make an argument as to why you should still be allowed to edit here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant line from WP:BLP is: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Sancho 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not belong here. It has nothing to do with Richard Gere. Whoever started this story could easily have used any public figure's name. Maybe it could be on an Urban Legends page. But not here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It qualifies under that BLP line perfectly. It's notable enough that Wes Craven would put it into one of his most popular and Seth McFarlane would do a segment on his extremely popular television show. Both of which were sourced by reliable sources.Fodient (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So between urbanlegends.about.com, a mention in "Scream", and a mention in "Family Guy", which exactly were you considering to be the reliable source? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wes Craven movies and Seth McFarlane cartoons are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Sancho 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a NY Times book review? --WebHamster 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About what? (that link requires registration, so I couldn't read it) If it's just a book review that mentions that this was a rumour, there's still the line in WP:BLP, "Avoid repeating gossip". Sancho 19:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

cypherpunks6/cypherpunks6. HTH!--CRConrad (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But in the context of the paragraph, they are reliable sources of how notable of an urban legend that is mentioned. Would you rather a mention of his "cameo" on family guy or him being mentioned in this major motion picture. Remember no one believes this urban legend happened, we are discussing the notability of the legend itself.Fodient (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be notable as an urban legend, but that doesn't make it notable about Gere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And we don't even have a reliable source that discusses the urban legend, let alone its notability. We need the first before we can even consider the second. Besides, being an urban legend, we are instructed by WP:BLP to avoid repeating gossip. Sancho 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't doubt that it is just an urban legend but Gere's name and the gerbil are inextricably linked probably until the end of time. The two go together like great danes and vaseline, or the American population and irony. If one enters richard gere and gerbil into Google one gets 10s of thousands of results. I'm sure gere has learnt to live with it and I rather doubt his Wikipedia article will bring up anything but fond and furry memories. --WebHamster 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The incident in question here (the urban legend) is notable and well documented in pop culture, specifically in Scream and Family Guy. That is pretty notable.Fodient (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And those pop culture references are well documented. We dont turn to wes craven or family guy for news, but they chock full of notable pop culture references.Fodient (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And pop culture references are plentiful through out wikipedia.Fodient (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As Snopes points out [2] the story was around before it was attached to someone's name. It has nothing to do with Gere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google richard gere in quotes and with the word gerbil you get exactly 24,000 hits.Fodient (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Then surely at least one of those 24,000 hits meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Please post one such link here. Otherwise, all you're doing is dancing around the elephant in the room. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you replace "gerbil" with "alligator" you get 33,200 hits. Now that must have been painful. Seriously: never base an argument on Google Hits. Black Kite 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=richard+gere+gerbil&srchst=cse Fodient (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The NYTime link you couldn't get at (though I could direct from Google)...

"Celebrity: Richard Gere and the Gerbil

Politicians are obviously not the only people whose personal lives get dissected by total strangers. For every story like that of Hillary's lamp there are a dozen popular legends about movie stars or rock singers or athletes, from the 1960s rumor that Paul McCartney was dead to the more current one about Richard Gere and the gerbil. The gerbil story is a good example of the way gossip about entertainers has paralleled gossip about politicians. It also demonstrates the willingness of even family newspapers in the 1990s to print outrageous and unverified stories about famous people's personal lives. "Rumor: Richard Gere had a gerbil, the result of a bizarre sexual practice, removed from his rear end at a Los Angeles hospital in the mid-1980s" reported the Indianapolis Star in a sixteen-hundred-word rumor-roundup in 1997. "Fact: There has never been a verified medical case of a gerbil (or any other rodent) having been extracted from a patient's rectum."

The gerbil story's staying power was related to an anxiety as powerful as the one about overreaching women--fear of AIDS. It was basically a cautionary tale about unsafe sex, like the famous anti-hairspray legend from the 1960s about the girl with a lacquered beehive hairdo who died when poisonous spiders built a nest inside it. Playboy claimed the original gerbil story was a homophobic fable dating back to 1990 that was linked to Gere after "the actor had joked to a magazine writer about having performed some youthful indiscretion with a chicken." A Los Angeles Daily News columnist got it into print through the time-honored method of decrying the people who were spreading the gossip. A prankster then sent people in the Hollywood community a phony fax from the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, attacking Gere for abusing a gerbil. Like the Hillary lamp story, the gerbil rumor reached a status where it could be referred to in shorthand. In a 1995 Vanity Fair profile of actor Keanu Reeves, author Michael Shnayerson claimed a rumor that Reeves was having an affair with producer David Geffen "was everywhere. Like Richard Gere and gerbils." --WebHamster 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from the book...

CHAPTER ONE

Scorpion Tongues

Gossip, Celebrity, and American Politics

By GAIL COLLINS

William Morrow and Company, Inc.

--WebHamster 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The urban legend is notable enough that it is mentioned in the high and mighty ny times.Fodient (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP still specifically instructs us to avoid repeating gossip. Sancho 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not if it's notable, plus the fact that it's been circulating for more than 10 years. It's inclusion is not going to harm Gere's reputation one iota. I have this image of someone somewhere with fingers in their ears... going la-la-la-la-la. I wonder why :) --WebHamster 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say "avoid repeating gossip, unless it's notable". It says "avoid repeating gossip". Sancho 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah so it says that exactly, with no other criteria does it? Or are you merely selectively using one very small part of the whole thing? Anyway, it's pretty safe to assume that this is no longer gossip. It's urban legend. And it's not as if the article will say that "oh look ducky I heard from Rita who told Stephanie that she heard that Richard Gere stuck a gerbil up his bum". Look it's pretty much proved that the urban legend is notable. There's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned even if it's just a few lines. If the star wars kid can get a full article then there can't be much wrong with Gere's article getting a mention of something most westerners have heard anyway. --WebHamster 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP states that if the incident is notable whether or not negative it should be. And if you google "Richard Gere Gerbil" all in quotes you get over 9000Fodient (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that some tabloid mentions some random rumor. This is a highly notable urban legend that has been mentioned multiple times in pop culture.Fodient (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you want argue that it's gossip, BLP states "avoid" gossip. It doesnt state "never mention gossip" at all costs.Fodient (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that no-one's attempting to state that it's true, another stipulation of BLP that is being met here. Can I hear that la-la mantra getting louder? --WebHamster 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion mentioned in the BLP noticeboard. I strongly disagree inclusion of the "gerbil story," per BLP and the dictum that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. This is a quintessential tabloid rumor. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a tabloid rumor. It's a part of pop culture.Fodient (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So is pornography, which is also not in Wikipedia. Seriously, this is a very good example of the kind of thing that is not allowed in Wikipedia, and which gives Wikipedia a bad name when inserted. It has been removed as described below, and please do not reinsert. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---(Edit Conflict)--- Holy frig... this AGAIN?!?
Every now and then, somebody with zero familiar with the policies on BLP wants to try adding this bloody rumour, and we have to go through the entire thing over again. First, check the archive to see the numerous times this has been addressed in the past.
But, bulletpoints:

• BLP forbids it.
• Though it's easy to find evidence of people acknowledging the rumour, nobody can find a direct source of someone making the accusation (the closest anyone's come up with so far is a quick joke in Family Guy).
• Without anyone to attribute an actual serious accusation to, all we're left with is, "some guy, that nobody knows or can confirm exists, may have believed that Gere did something nasty."
• A source (or even many sources) saying that it's false is not the same as a source claiming that it's true. Unless there's a notable source saying it's true, I don't see how one can just disregard BLP.

In the meantime, why hasn't this been removed from the article, and the article entirely protected until this matter was resolved? In the case of BLP concerns, we must always err on the side of caution. Including an unsourced rumour is not erring on the side of caution! 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed, as described above. If this problem continues, the remedy is to apply for full or semi protection of the article. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the rumor being removed. Why is it that some people always want to try to use Wikepedia to perpetuate stuff like this? Can't they just put themselves in the shoes of the person they are doing this to? My opinion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's what I love about WP:BLP. You don't "fact tag" something. You delete on sight. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected. If any confirmed user reinserts this shite, the remedy is to have him blocked until hell freezes over.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you actually read BLP or this discussion? This section is clearly sourced, notable, neutral, and conforms with BLP.Fodient (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's sourced? Tell me, precisely who is or has made this accusation? Don't give me a source of someone saying it's false. Give me a source of someone (notable) explicitly suggesting that it's true.

I've said this on the BLP noticeboard, and I'll say it here: The best we have so far is Wikipedia says that (for example) snopes says that someone asked them about a rumour that someone else may or may not have believed was true. Until you can identify that someone else, it isn't sourced. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that this urban legend does not exist?Fodient (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to applaud you. I've never seen anyone on Wikipedia dance around an argument like you do. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I have never seen anyone ignore the facts as much as I have today.Fodient (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that you have not contributed to this discussion at all.Fodient (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people are still waiting for you to provide some actual facts. So by all means, proceed. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well other than your occaisional condescending remark.Fodient (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I commented on the BLP board. Does anybody know how long this urban legend has been tied to Gere or when the legend was first reported? Maybe the wrong board for this, but I first heard this "story" tied to a Philly tv person back in 1980/1ish? They supposidly had a hospital report ect. Anyways, nuke this stuff on sight. Best to leave it to snopes or smoking gun or gerbilsrus,com ect. Cheers,--Tom (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I just read above where it says "mid 80s". I know that everybody likes to claim these urban legends as there own, but I swear this came across as "true" back in the early 80s. Any Philly folks out there that know who I am talking about? Don't use his name of course, but he does have an article here :) Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC: - Having reviewed the sources, the argument being made is that this is a notable urban myth related specifically to a named living person. Snopes states "It has stuck with one [person] in particular" and also adds "[it] has clung tenaciously to Mr Gere". Snopes is probably a reliable source for urban myths, in the sense that if the site says he has been named exceptionally in the context of this story, then indeed he has. The question then is, do we cover urban myths about X in an article on X? Obviously there is a high bar for it - everyone has gossip, and we don't repeat stuff because its salacious and widely repeated. But we do report matters, even if they did not happen, if they are highly notable. There is a point where it is notable enough we do. For example, hoaxes - the hoax may be untrue, but the fact the hoax exists is verifiable and factual and may be deemed notable. Same applies here. No gerbil incident happened. But a reliable source on urban myth confirms that this is an urban myth notably connected to the subject. The question is, is the myth itself notable, even if untrue, enough to merit a curt one sentence note? It might be. It would also not do harm to say that. (But even if so, it doesnt deserve a new section, or more than those few words, or any other form of attention.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Snopes article points out that this rumor was around as a generic rumor first, not connected with anyone in particular, and apparently not true in any case. Then someone arbitrarily decided to stick it onto Gere - just as certain people on this page are also trying to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not quite my reading of the snopes article, though I take your point. True, its discussed in the page as a generic "a celebrity" story and could have been anyone, but then it goes on to state unambiguously that the story has attached itself very particularly to this one person, not just "a bunch of people" or "random celebrities" as it gets recycled. The fact of how it got there doesn't affect that an assessment of the myth at this point in time says it's been attached to the one person "in particular", and then says so again, using words like "clung tenaciously" to describe this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I just read the bio and Gere is a Philly boy? There you go. Like I said, this was originally tied to another Philly tv personality. I would be totally against the "brief" mention/disclaimer suggested above. This is not some 911 conspiracy theory ect., do not raise it to that level by giving one KB of inclusion, just mho. --Tom (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Well, this has all been addressed before, but since you're being very logical and methodical, I think you deserve having it gone over again. :)

As I mentioned earlier, Snopes is only saying that the hoax/legend exists. However, as it's just that-an urban legend-there naturally isn't an original source for it (as is often the case). The problem then becomes this: The best that wikipedia can say is that snopes says that someone asked them about something they read someone else saying, where that 'someone else' may not have even thought it was true. So, for example, some hoaxes propagate from a specific accusation. If those are notable, then the articles can say who said what, and then what the reply/truth is, as the case may be. But, here, there's still not a single source of someone actually saying, "yeah, I think that Gere really did that." And certainly not a notable source of it.

Additionally, while although if you were to create an article about that specific fictitious act, Gere's connection would be notable to it, the converse is not true. That is, if there were an article on applying-rodents-to-rectums, then the urban legend might just squeak its way in. However, Gere's had a long career and this tiny urban legend simply doesn't carry the same weight as everything else. Basically, even one sentence would still be undue weight, when compared to everything else.

And, even then, all of this assumes that BLP never even existed. Those arguments are basically just what would apply with the normal requirements for verifiable sources and 'undue weight' concerns. BLP explicitly sets a higher standard for these sorts of things. So, basically, there are multiple levels of 'no' when it comes to this legend. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And further, this is unlikely to be deemed pertinent even in an extended printed biography or Gere, so it must not go in a brief wikiarticle just because our online culture is fascinated with the facile and the ridiculous. Snopes be damned - I doubt any reputable biographer would use its material, not because of reliability but because of irrelevance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't even heard that rumor for years. I assumed it had died off. So some latecomers are trying to revive it. So in effect, even forgetting the BLP issue, it fails on notability. Maybe it had some currency a decade or two ago, but at this point it's nothing. It's a mere blip. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no reliable source that says the incident actually happened (or even could happen). However the existence of this urban legend (but just the existence of the legend) is reliably sourced (including in the NYT). However, WP:BLP trumps verifiability and notability. This urban legend clearly does not belong in the article and is a WP:BLP violation, regardless of how many RS it has and how notable it is, and even though it's reliably connected with Gere. And even though the sources clearly identify it as an untrue, but verifiability existing urban legend. Remember: "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity". — Becksguy (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the rumor isn't true, it doesn't appear to have much to do with the subject of Richard Gere. If the story belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs on the article about Urban legends. Not that this is not a specific endorsement of its inclusion there, just an opinion that it doesn't provide useful information about Richard Gere. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in flagrant opposition to all of the people reaffirming that it's a blatant BLP violation, it has been added back anyways. Even better, the edit summary is rather mocking in tone. I've yet to understand why people bothering editing wikipedia if they aren't interested in improving the articles. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What seems lost on people is that this isn't about the rumour per se as that is obviously false, what is true, notable and a part of pop culture is the legend itself. It's now a statement of fact that the story of the gerbil and Gere is real even if the story is false. It's inclusion in the article will do no harm dependent on the way it is worded. This has been the way it is for more than 10 years. The world and his wife knows about it... but when they want to read about it the over-zealous pedants of this world have attempted to bleach it from history by bleating about BLP (in general terms I'm not pointing a finger at any one person). Gere and gerbils, gerbils and Gere, they are now synonymous yet strangely there's no mention of it on the Wikipedia article. How cool is that. Doh! --WebHamster 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster's just being immature at this point. I was actually a bit surprised to see his past civility issues, and associated blocks. Anyways, there's a pretty clear consensus here. All we need now is admin muscle to help. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::My, my you must have run out of arguments if you have to resort to picking through someone's talk page history. The fact of the matter, though it's patently obvious that you don't like the fact that it doesn't actually breach BLP as has been stated numerous times. It's not harmful to Gere, he's heard it all before. It's notable, Google demonstrates that all on it's own. It's even been mentioned in a NYTimes reviewed book as also previously stated. Shake your prurient heads as much as you like does not detract from the fact that this is a notable urban legend. And it's the legend that needs including, not some rubbish about a gerbil going noseying around looking for the monkey's night-time nut supply. I'm sure his membership of Hubbard's lot and some of his career decisions have cause him far more harm than a 2 line section in WP. --WebHamster 00:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So the links to those reliable sources are where exactly? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need a gerbil to do some looking about in dark places for you. The NYTimes one is always good for a starter. The fact that it has appeared in a NY Times reviewed book (details above) establishes that the fact the legend is in the zeitgeist. So it's looking like you now have your hands over your eyes as well as your fingers in your ears. I'd recommend some Shure E2Cs as being far more comfortable. --WebHamster 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that two comments and half an hour would establish a clear consensus. There's no deadline, and no harm in allowing a conversation to happen for a few days, is there? I couldn't find any blocks for incivility in User:WebHamster's block log, though I did see a pair of year-old 3RR blocks. Maybe I misunderstood and you were talking about someone else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Between here, ANI, and BLP, probably a dozen people have chimed in, and 2 are in support of adding this alleged rumor, so there's a pretty clear consensus. Since the two people fighting the good fight have yet to cite a reliable source, I'd say they've got a ways to go to turn the tide. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just bet you would insist black was white too eh? So some reason you don't seem able to read what has been put in front of your face for the simple fact that you can then ignore it. We've given you a link to a reliable source, we've demonstrated that it isn't in fact against BLP. Yet hear you are not giving any evidence at all that it shouldn't be included. You are merely stating over and over again... interminably I may add, that it shouldn't go in the article but you aren't backing up your opinion with anything of substance. --WebHamster 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for you though, I do like to help the aged at every opportunity... The book's name is "Scorpion Tongues", it's by Gail Collins, it's ISBN is 978-0156006507. The relevant section of chapter one is reproduced just north of here. This book was reviewed in the NY Times, the link was mentioned several times but as your wrist may be a little week and not up to the mouse action required I'll repeat it again... simply put "http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/collins-scorpion.html" into Google (complete with the quotes), then click on the first link that says "Scorpion Tongues" (it'll bypass the NY Time login page) and voila you'll find a demonstrable write up in a reliable source of the fact that this is a pop culture legend. --WebHamster 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, your gross incivility doesn't help your case in the slightest. Between the lame (edit summary) joke in the article, your comments here, and your (edit summary) accusation that the people opposing you are just from the 'bible belt', you've made it quite clear that logic means nothing in this dispute.

That said, you also never addressed what I was saying earlier.

• There's no source for the claim. The only sources provided are people like snopes (or others taking a similar role) saying that they were asked by other people who had heard from other people about the rumour; without even a suggestion that those other people even believed it was true.
• There's no source actually supporting that his identity and career hinge upon this rumour. That is, FisherQueen made a good argument for why it might be added to the 'urban legends' article, but that doesn't mean that the converse is true. Richard Gere may very well be essential to the legend, but the legend isn't essential to Gere. So it does nothing to suggest that it belongs in his biography.

You'd need to address those issues before you could even consider trying to overturn BLP. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I haven't been uncivil 144 times, but then who's counting? I'm certainly not. Perhaps levity means a different thing in your neck of the words. Again, not something that concerns me. But to the point in hand. Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. Whether Gere's career hinges on it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that if you were to walk into pretty much any bar in the western world and ask someone if they'd heard about a legend or a story concerning Richard Gere and a rodent you would probably get the reply "oh didn't he shove it up his ass or something?". That my dear Sir or Madam is what makes it notable. It's probably the most well known urban legend and it links Gere with it permanently regardless of whose name was link with it originally. That fact alone is what makes its inclusion necessary. And it has nothing at all to do with being "essential". They are already the twin suns of the urban legend world. Neither the gerbil nor gear are essential to the other, it's virtual perpetual motion. It's even referred to in the God Blog of the Jewish Journal website (May 2007 if you're interested). It was published in 1997 in the "Indianapolis Star" newspaper (the fact that it was a 'popular' legend that is, not that the act was true). This very facts all point to the notability of this event and leaving it out is giving the equivalent of a string vest to Mr Gere... ie it's supposed to do something but it still feels like there's something missing.--WebHamster 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue where you got the number '144' from. I should hope you would've been blocked long ago if you were that bad.

And, your analogy is entirely flawed. (this is, of course, ignoring the fact that not even I suggested that the accuracy of the legend was even an issue, or that I was very clear and specific with my reasoning)

If you were to ask about a 'legend' involving Gere, sure, there's a decent chance that someone would know what you were talking about. Similarly, if you were to ask about a 'legend' about water and wine, they'd answer about Jesus. Doesn't mean that the water or wine articles need to include that particular miracle, does it? Even the wine article, while mentioning religious uses, still doesn't include it. Why? Because it just doesn't have enough significance for the wine article (even though wine is absolutely essential to the Marriage at Cana article). Going back to the problem with your example, you'd essentially be asking the people in the bar if they'd heard of that legend. A better question is whether they'd still be talking about it if you'd simply asked, "hey, you ever heard of Richard Gere?" To which they'd probably reply with something about Pretty Woman, or some other mind-numbing movie.

Simply put, if someone talks about rodents in the butt, they'll probably think of gere. If someone talks about gere, they'll think of bad movies. (or maybe a cameo on the simpsons, depending on age, or the shilpa shetty incident, depending on geography)

In any event, the current consensus is to stick with BLP and omit it. However, since the article is currently protected (and will be for a while), there's plenty of time for other people to weigh in and let themselves be heard. I imagine this'll be on the BLP noticeboard for a while, so people will probably stop by. In any event, I think my positions are pretty well known, as are yours. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things to clear up before going up the stairs to Bedfordshire... 1) perhaps I should have Wikilinked the 144 (damn I hate explaining jokes) 2) I don't recall using any analogies, much less any that were flawed. Whereas I'm afraid your Water into Wine analogy (probably not the wisest -logy to use considering the subject at hand) blew chunks (no doubt down to mixing up the bottles when crafting your analogy). I've said my piece. I can only state objective things so many times before boredom sets in, and you really don't want that as that's when I really start to take the piss! --WebHamster 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)WebHamster, I think I hear your argument that since there has been so much hub bub about this urban legend and Gere it deserves mention, even if it says its just that. I would say that even with a NY Times mention, it is still trivial and not to the level of what this project is shooting for. Should we write, "though Gere has denyied having gerbils up his ass, there is this awesome urban legend that has made the rounds for years that its true and it just won't go away"? I haven't even looked at what is being added to the article, but I can only imagine. Also, just based on your ID, you would seem to have a bias towards small furry creatures :P (just kidding!) Cheers, Tom (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I just read the "material". Are you kidding me? NUKE & SALT!! And you wonder why Wikipedia is laughed at in academic circles. Tom (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense and WP:SALT it. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this belongs to the Urban legends article, not here. Specially given that the history did not originally feature him. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: In case no one noticed, this article has been full-protected by an uninvolved admin for "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy"; protection to expire in two weeks. Any suggested edits to the article need to be done via a {{editprotected}} tag, preferably posted in a separate section, for example == Edit protected requests ==. — Becksguy (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• SupportThe fact that so many people, including this Crotchety Old Man, know about this urban legend shows that it doesn't even need to be sourced, and should be included. Im sure just as many people know this rumor that know that Obama is the president of the US. Does the article on Obama need references to that?71.255.67.212 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What? Obama also has a thing for gerbils? Eek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He might, after seeing after seeing him buddy buddy with rats like Nicolas Sarkozy and Dmitry Medvedev. But thats a different discussion.71.255.67.212 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • If we treat our allies like enemies, then we end up like... well, like we were under Bush. I fail to see how the entire world telling us we're wrong, as they did under Bush, helps the U.S. But that subtlety might be lost on someone who thinks a bogus story about a gerbil has notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the RFC, and I have to say that I think the argument that reporting on the existence of the urban legend violates BLP is a tad silly. If the article reported on it as true, or in any way implied that some actual action of Richard Gere had precipitated the story, there would be a BLP issue. Reporting that the urban legend is widespread and that Snopes indicates that it evolved from an earlier story involving a different celebrity may or may not belong in the article, but it isn't a BLP issue. In terms of sheer notability, I can only offer anecdotal evidence: when I saw the RFC, I tried hard to remember anything about Richard Gere besides the gerbil story. It took 5 minutes for me to come up with the name of a movie he starred in, and I can still only come up with one. I would argue that Richard Gere is more famous for being the target of this story than for anything he actually did.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the summary archive[3] of the old usenet discussions of the matter. This is the place snopes learned his trade. Precis: no good reference. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course there's no good reference actually connecting Gere to a gerbil. I'm not sure that the topic of the story is even possible. That doesn't say that the story isn't firmly connected to him. I have no problem with people arguing that it doesn't belong in the article for any number of reasons, but so long as the mention doesn't attempt to portray the story as true, and is carefully worded to be only asserting that the story exists but has never been tied to any actual incident, and is generally considered false, it's not a BLP issue.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally came up with an analogy: if reporting the existence of this story is a BLP violation, wouldn't Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories be a BLP violation against Neil Armstrong? After all, it basically paints him as a complete fraud. It's not a BLP violation for the same reason that reporting the existence of the gerbil story isn't one: it states that while the story exists, it is generally considered to be false.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was linked to his bio, maybe. Not sure if saying you never went to the moon is as bad as saying you stick small animals up your ass, but maybe. Anyways, Tom (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here think that when a random user looks this talk page's table of contents and sees "gerbil", that they think "what could that be?" Of course they know what it means, everyone knows. Thats how notable this is.71.255.67.212 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

It seems as though there are two issues here:

1. Does this violate BLP? To me, it sounds like it does, because the accusations still haven't been tied to any direct source, so, by definition, every source we have is a... not primary, not secondary, not tertiary... quaternary or maybe uh pentary? (is that a word?) source. Besides that, there's the more general concern that we're supposed to exercise caution when discussing living individuals, so even talking about such a bizarre act that nobody's saying he does, well... (at the very least, it's not hard to find firsthand sources accusing the moonlanding of having been faked; besides that fact that such nonsense doesn't have its own section on Armstrong's bio page!
2. Is it even relevant to Gere? So far, there's been lots of support that Gere is very much relevant to this urban legend, but not a single source to suggest that the urban legend is relevant to Gere. (I sorta like the "water into wine" not being in the wine article, but "wine integral into the cana article" analogy, though I'm not sure "analogy" is really the right word) There are a LOT of rumours about all sorts of public figures. We associate 9/11 hoaxes with Bush, but I really hope that isn't mentioned on his bio page (I'm afraid to check). People associate moon landing hoaxes with NASA, but I really hope that isn't mentioned on the NASA page (still afraid to check, even though that wouldn't be a BLP issue anyway). It's a directed graph, not bidirectional.

Anyways, if nothing else, SECTION BREAK! WOO! (does that spoil the tone of my arguments?) 72.88.36.199 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm impressed by the arguments from some of the editors without accounts here, in particular yours and 209.90.135.182's, and disappointed by the poor quality of the arguments (and indeed the outright immature behaviour) coming from some of the editors with accounts. Your second question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Sources that document the subject in question don't actually mention Gere at all. This is, indeed, a subject that is not about Gere. For detail on this, read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Gere. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• No gerbils no malicious rumors "that i heard from my cousin and that were once addressed in a newspaper to dismiss them. Anyone arguing for this as encyclopedic and biographical should be ashamed.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• The main valid argument I see for excluding the rumor is the WP:UNDUE concern. Rejecting it based on WP:BLP alone is practically a non-starter as some semblance of sourcing has been provided and there is no attempt being made to assert the rumor as fact. The problem for the supporters of the rumor is they haven't proven how it's relevant to Gere overall. I'm not saying it isn't worth mentioning, just that it hasn't been proven worth mentioning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proven is not even be an issue. To say "prove it" is to say whether or not this exists; this being the urban legend. And not one person here in this entire discussion believes that it does not exist. Obivously the urban legend exists and a reliable source is not necessary to prove its existance. The reliable sources are stating the urban legend, that we all know exists, is in fact notable. The only question is whether or not this is notable enough to be put into the article. So someone please make an agruement against its notability not whether or not it exists(because we all know it does) or where its got its origination.71.255.67.212 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "prove it". I said "prove its notability". Meaning, "prove its relevance". "Prove how it passes WP:UNDUE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you Mendaliv for being the first user to read one of the arguements supporting this, and challenging the supporting arguement instead of just burying your head in the sand when someone presents a valid point. I am 1000% serious when I say that.

I think it's relevance can be seen in the examples that were mentioned earlier, Scream and Family Guy both made mentions of it. And those are just a two. I think that if it gets mentioned in a movie as popular as scream is, and family guy does a bit on this, that shows significant level of notability. WP:UNDUE, to me, really deals with opinions more than notability of a fact but the line that really stuck out the most with me was If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. The prominent adherents are here, the ones arguing for this to be included backed by the pop culture that surrounds this urban legend that has stood the test of time.Fodient (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also to show how this does not slander to Gere, Wes Craven was threatened [4] that if he left the Gerbil part in Scream he would never work again. Gere never sued Craven nor did he even threaten to sue him and they both went on to make plenty of movies following.Fodient (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

KeepIt makes sense to me to keep since everyone has heard of this story. And since the discussion is so extensive, doesn't that mean something regarding its notability? I like it big keep. You know, if we don't keep it maybe someone should create an article on the Gere/Gerbil story, I think the story is that famous.Racingstripes (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting on the Craven note. To me this is getting to sound kind of like the situation of including the homosexuality rumors in the Tom Cruise article. While I understand the Cruise homosexuality rumors are a lot more widespread than this one, it sounds like we actually may have the beginnings of something. But I don't know. WP:UNDUE says that we should not give minority views equal coverage that we give majority views. What this means is that we don't, for example, discuss Schlitz in the beer article. While Schlitz may be the beer that made Milwaukee famous, beer is an ancient invention, and Schlitz itself is a relatively insignificant development. Similarly, Gere's career and life- that is, things that have a measurable effect on his "story"- merit much more attention than minor rumors or gossip. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we cannot give undue weight to this rumor, and if that means excluding it until everything else is mentioned, so be it. What we need from the pro-gerbilists is significant proof that this rumor has affected Gere. This would include something like his publicly acknowledging it, joking about it, denying it... whatever. Some kind of controversy directly involving Gere would be perfect. Kind of like how Chuck Norris facts gets into Chuck Norris. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this to be an interesting twist regarding Sylvester Stallone saying that Gere thinks he started the rumor.[5]. It's from MSNBC which is a reliable source. It has Gere acknowledging the rumor through Stallone's words.Racingstripes (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this should be added to the Stallone article as well.Racingstripes (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This really does satisfy all arguements:

• Notability - through mentions in pop culture(scream/family guy), not mention that this discussion clearly shows notability because everyone has heard of it.
• Reliable sources - NY times/MSNBC/Entertainment Weekly
• It doesn't damage Gere - he has been in plenty of movies since this legend existed.
• Coupled all this with the connection between the Wes Craven comment, and the Stallone comment along this legend lasting for the time it has.Fodient (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment: celebrities tend to be the center or rumors, many of them salacious, and Gere is no exception. This whole "urban legend" thing is an excellent example of precisely the kind of material that doesn't belong in BLPs. We should be arguing (if we are going to argue) about what made Gere notable, which is his acting, not nonsense like this. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when have articles about celebrities remained solely about what made them notable. The articles are about the person and their life, not just the "notable" sections of it. Is it notable that a celebrity lives in a certain place? Is it notable that they were born on a certain day to certain members of the public who are their parents? I think not. Non of those things are notable yet they appear in articles. This mantra of "notability" is getting a bit beyond the pale these days. Notability is the criteria for which the article exists, relevance is the prime reason elements of the article exist. --WebHamster 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on most of the above. I'm just returning to the overarching pricniple that there are certain things that Wikipedia avoids, among which are salacious material, gossip, and rumors. To be sure, if an actor's career has been harmed by incarceration and arrests (Lawrence Tierney is an obvious example; in the first paragraph of his obituaries it was said that he was noted for his barroom brawls), it is one thing. But here you have an actor with a long career who has been a subject of rumors. That's where you are going to get some really strong resistance, as all major performers are subjected to rumors. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always had the opinion that the "gerbil legend" should be mentioned, but only in the context that it is a pop culture urban legend that has never been proven. The legend/rumor has been covered numerous times by secondary sources.WackoJackO 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I don't know if I have a different IP address now, but I'm the same person as 209.90.135.182. Also, I may end up repeating what I, or others, have previously said)

I'll prepare a better defense a bit later, but just to address address four things now:

First, in reference to the suggestion that BLP issues are a non-starter, the BLP policy includes, "Avoid repeating gossip.". Obviously, this is repeating gossip. Keep in mind that normal standards for other issues in other articles are not good enough when it comes to biographies. Any argument that would barely make it for a normal article has to fail when it comes to biographies. This isn't up for debate. It's a core policy in wikipedia.

This (among other reasons) is why the Bush article (hopefully) doesn't include the accusation that he orchestrated 9/11, and the Armstrong article doesn't include the accusation that he had a part in faking the moon landing. Articles about a moon landing 'hoax', or 9/11 conspiracies, can acknowledge these people, so long as the utmost caution is used. But the highest level of discretion is mandatory. And including a rumour that nobody can find a single source suggesting is true (or even a single source suggesting referring directly to third parties who even believed it) is the very opposite of discretion.

Second, as for the bullet points above:

• That doesn't prove notability. If it did, then the John Travolta article would include references to him being gay (both South Park and Family Guy made that joke). If you want to include any mention of the subject of a biography cramming a rodent into his anus (sorry to be so vulgar), then you need something better than quick jokes (particularly in shows that specialize solely in quick, random jokes). Of course, the fact that we've heard of it is immaterial. (See my points on Bush and 9/11 above) And, again, there's a difference between saying that Gere is important to the legend, and saying that the legend is important to Gere.
• But, reliable sources of what? Can you find a single reliable source of someone believing it to be true? Or even of someone directly refuting a claim made by someone to them? So far, it's either people reassuring others who might've heard it (but not believed it) from other people who may or may not have believed it, or people just talking about it in general because they were already on the subject of urban legends. Even if you can't find a reliable source fulfilling what I'm asking for, you'd at least have to find one that wasn't discussing it primarily within the context of urban legends as a whole (because, then, it'd belong in an urban legends article, not Gere's biography). Can you find one that discusses it within the context of being significant to Gere? eh?
• You can actually make this argument. Arguably, including it hurts wikipedia a lot more than it hurts Gere. Of course, calling Christina Aguilera a monkey in a human-suit wouldn't really hurt her, either. We can't arbitrarily choose whether or not to follow the words based on whether or not it would certainly harm someone (particularly their career). But there is no burden to show that BLP violations will actually damage the subject of the biography, nor is there any burden to show that Undue Weight will somehow damage said subject. They are very broad, sweeping policies, that help to establish a certain level of quality that the entire project is supposed to be aspiring to.

All of this, coupled with the fact that any inclusion would necessarily violate the restrictions on undue weight... no. just no. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as sources are concerned, here are some that mention the gerbil legend: MSNBC - story half way down page, [6], [7], [8] WackoJackO 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I asked for reliable sources showing that anyone has ever actually believed it (not asserting that it's true, just that it's even been notably believed). Granted, failing that, I also asked for asked for a reliable source that wasn't bringing up up in the context of urban legends in general.

However... a source suggesting that Stallone thinks Gere might think that Stallone made it up is also gossip. (I mean, frig, it's a tiny blurb under a bit about paris hilton about someone guessing that someone might attiribute a rumour to him. yeesh!)

The second reference is precisely what you weren't supposed to provide: an article that was talking about several urban legends in general (again, that only shows that gere is important for the legend, not vice versa).

The third reference suffers from precisely the same problem (seriously, did you even read what I asked for before posting? It's disheartening to say the least. Read and reply, or ignore me, but don't insult me by removing all doubt that you replied without knowing what you were replying to). Better yet, the closest it comes to actually addressing it is to say that even the national enquirer didn't propage the legend. Nice to see that what you consider to be a good source says that the national enquirer has higher standards than you want wikipedia to have.

The last reference doesn't even deserve consideration. It's a quick joke extending a hugh grant joke. Please be serious. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, try to shorten your long rants, you might want to try being a little more clear and concise. The whole point of my sources were to show that this is a valid pop culture urban legend, and it should be mentioned in that context.WackoJackO 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, try to curb your incivility (also official policy, incidentally). They are not 'rants'. You posted four references. I posted four replies. I will not apologize for actually acknowledging the references you were trying to present. Additionally, you posted those as a reply to what I'd said, so excuse me for thinking that it actually had any connection to what I'd said. I don't generally assume that people are intentionally being random in their replies. That said, I'll take this as a confirmation that you have no references that satisfy my request. Good to know, as it helps bring this matter to a close. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the discussion here ended when you said so, if you are finished taking part in the discussion, that is fine by me, but others are obviously free to continue debating the matter.WackoJackO 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I never said discussions end when I say so. Please don't put words in my mouth. However, if you choose to not provide a single requested source that would actually address legitimate concerns for being included in the article (I won't repeat them, for fear of being accused of 'ranting', but just look at the bulleted points immediately above), then I'm forced to assume that you've elected to give up. I mean, if sources are necessary, and you choose to not give them (again, you've only sourced irrelevant facts; not provided necessary sources requested above), then how else could I interpret that? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again the point is lost on someone. What the urban legend alleges is unimportant, inconsequential and patently false. It's the fact that there is such a well known urban legend that is now inextricably linked to Gere's name that's notable. It's very easy to make mention of it without actually accusing Gere of an inverted rodent fart. The fact that it must be one of the most well-known celebrity legends out there has to count for something surely? --WebHamster 10:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's very humourous or well-known gossip does not negate the fact that it's gossip. It doesn't matter if you present it as being true or not; it's still gossip. (And BLP's reasonably clear about spreading gossip) And you still haven't shown that the legend is significant to Gere, as opposed to Gere being significant to the legend. Look at how long this discussion's gotten, and yet still a single absence of one such source. You'd arguably need more than one considering both the BLP and Undue Weight concerns, but you can't even get one for a start! It's absurd that it's gone on this long! 209.90.133.75 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very illuminating to see that your whole argument depends on the semantic that it's "gossip". It hasn't been "gossip" for a very long time, if it ever was. You seem to be grimly determinied to hang on to this summation as it's the bedrock of your whole argument. This based on a single, tiny bit of BLP. It's now so much more than "gossip", that why it's called an urban legend. And it's the FACT that it's a legend (urban or otherwise) that makes it both notable and doesn't fit into the "gossip" category. Gossip is which lipstick lesbian Paris Hilton's fucking in front of her camera phone or who Cameron Bale is reaming out next, it isn't a 20+ year 'rumour' that is better known than the owner's film career. And that is precisely why it's notable to Gere, because most people know him for that than his listing on Imdb. --WebHamster 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the whole argument. It's defamatory, it doesn't rely on the level of caution required for BLP, it lacks relevant sources (a thousand sources that make the wrong point aren't any better than one), and it's gossip. That's just for WP:BLP. It would also carry grossly undue weight, as nobody has yet to show that it's important for his biography (and even a single sentence is too much if it isn't relevant to the biography). Now then, if you were correct, and the legend really was how more people knew him than as an actor, then you'd have one amazingly good argument!

But, uh, is that assertion actually based on anything, or is it just a random claim? You're saying that most people know him primarily with respect to that legend, not as being a creepy actor, or someone who was in a lot of bad movies (or, ugh, good movies, depending on one's taste in movies). You don't think it'd be Pretty Woman, or any of the other snoozefests? Really? In that case, all you need to do is prove that statement. Should be easy, eh? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly let's blow your melodramatic assertion aside. It isn't defamatory as no-one is asserting that it's true, only that the allegation is known to millions of people which is of course true. Truth is an adequate defence to defamation in most countries and in most circumstances. I'll bet you're glad you didn't go for a career in law now aren't you? Also it doesn't suddenly become "gossip" just because you say it is. The only reason you are asserting it's "gossip" is because BLP says gossip isn't allowed, it doesn't say urban legends aren't. As for him being notable as a has been actor, well that's probably why it's debatable that he's known best for the Gerbil as opposed to, say, Pretty Woman. You seem to forget that not everyone is up on 80s popular cinema. It's been established from various sources given in this discussion that the element of urban legend is extremely well-known and the fact that it's his name that is linked to it. None of the sources (or editors) insist that it's true, only that it's a well-known legend so that's WP covered from a legal standpoint. It's also covered for your "notability" argument as in it's reasonably accepted that it's just as likely that Joe Blow in the street would know him for rodent infamy as they would for his movies (over and above PW and Officer and then only dependending on the age of the person being asked). It's pretty obvious that you have nothing new to say and as a result I have nothing new to answer. You have got "gossip" stuck in your head like a bad tune and I rather doubt anyone here will shift that so this sub-argument will just go round in circles. Oh and by the way, you bringing out the "incivility" gambit on Waco so early is just plain tacky. Incidentally "rant" isn't uncivil anywhere else than in the mind of a very thin-skinned wikipedian trying to gain ground in an argument discussion. Just thought I'd mention it. --WebHamster 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, again) First off, characterizing someone's good-faith attempts to improve an article as a 'rant' is uncivil. Also, I don't see what's 'early' about it. This argument has been going on for, what, a week now? If you think that a week is a short time for civility to start being an issue, uh... moving on...
Next, I'd like to make a quick request now: Stop saying that nobody's claiming it's true. I bloody well know that you're not claiming it's true. He isn't claiming it's true. Nobody's claiming it's true (at least, nobody who'll be taken seriously).
Next, as to whether or not it's gossip... please refrain from absurd and insulting accusations. The reason I call it gossip is because it fits an acceptable definition of gossip, not because gossip isn't allowed. A few definitions of gossip: "Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature", "Trivial, chatty talk or writing", "idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others". Sound familiar? Yeah, thought it might. If that doesn't describe this legend, then I don't know what does! Unless, of course, you're suggesting that it isn't 'trivial', 'sensational', 'intimate', 'personal', or 'idle talk or rumour'? If you don't believe any of those apply, then we can proceed along that line of discussion. If you think it does, then we can move on.
And, no, it is not "reasonably accepted" that an average person knows him just as much for that legend as for his movies. You haven't even attempted to prove that's true, so how the heck can you declare it "reasonably accepted"? Again, if that is your argument, then prove it. Don't worry about what's 'stuck' in my head. Your argument hinges entirely upon that assertion, so prove it. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat that no-one's saying it's true because of little bits of BS like "defamatory", Duh! Also if something is perceived as a rant, regardless of how it was intended then it's not uncivil to describe it as such. To bring out the WP:CIVIL gun for something so trite in an effort to reduce an opponent's argument is gaming the system. This makes it tacky in my view.

"Gossip" tends to be accepted as something based on current events and is labelled as something that's true. This is not current, it's over 20 years old and it's not being touted as true. Those are the real world definitions of "gossip". I'm not in a position to know whether you inhabit the real world or not so I can't tell if you are being obtuse, pedantic or naively innocent, as such I will assume good faith and presume the latter.

Oh I forgot, it seems I can't use the term "reasonably" as that presumes that I'm talking to someone who knows reason. There is little point in me spending hours tracking down source after source when the "gossip" brigade are going to block every attempt by bringing up the BLP bollocks time and time again. This I also consider to be a "reasonable" response to the wiki-lawyers and wiki-pedants. So far in this discussion I have already come up with reliable sources only for them to be ignored by blinkered editors who stick their fingers in their 'eyes' (?) and go la-la-la because they don't like it when their argument is quashed, they then just rearrange the words of their argument, use semantics and off we go again wasting yet more of my time. But for the time being this little titbit and the fact that there's even a MySpace page for the alleged rodent explorer with 482 friends should go some way to demonstrate that "reasonable" isn't an inaccurate summation. --WebHamster 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue that it's possible to be defamatory, even without pretending that something is true. If I were to keep saying, "I'm not saying that Bush did orchestrate 9/11, I'm just saying what I heard is all" or "nah, I'm not the one saying that Travolta is gay! I'm just saying that some people have said it. And Family Guy. And South Park. But it's probably not true. But people say it", obviously those would be inappropriate, and arguably they'd be defamatory. Furthermore, characterizing my attempts to maintain rational discussion as "gaming the system", or an indirect way to hurt someone's argument is both an assumption of bad faith, but also an inappropriate accusation.
• "Gossip" tends to be accepted as... the definition of gossip. Owning a dictionary does not mean I don't "inhabit the real world", nor does it mean that I'm being "obtuse", "pedantic", or "naive". And you're growingly increasingly insulting. Stop it. Now.
• First off, seriously, cut the crap. Insulting people is both counterproductive and uncivil. I do have reason. The point of contention was that you declared it "accepted" that he's better known for the rumour than as an actor. It's a laughable claim, and deflecting its absurdity with more insults isn't the same as a cogent argument. Cut the 'wiki-lawyer' and similar accusations. If you don't like how wikipedia operates, leave. Failing that, try to change the rules. But don't keep stamping your feet and flinging insults. Oh, and I'm sure you're tired of me repeating the same thing over and over again, but there's an easy to stop it: actually address the concerns brought to you. Your 'sources' only assert that Gere is relevant to the legend, not that the legend is relevant to Gere. I don't know how many times I've said this, as have others, and yet you still choose to ignore that fact. Currently, you've presented zero sources that address whether gerbils are relevant to Gere.
• And, seriously, stop insulting. Stop with the ad hominems. Stop with the false accusations. Stop with questioning motives. Stop flinging insults based on my preference to use actual definitions of words, rather than your own personal arbitrary definitions. Stop it. I still don't know whether these numerous insults and flagrant hostility warrant referral to admins. (Normally, I hate doing that sort of thing, but read your own words there, and tell me how the heck it couldn't be considered outright insulting!) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the only person you are in any position to demand anything of is yourself, so quit with the "Stop" demands. They'll only make you feel powerless when they go unheeded.

Secondly my opinions of your responses are just that opinions, if you don't like them, well tough, there's not an awful lot that can be done about that. You say something in a certain way I generate an opinion. It's not looking like either of us is going to change anytime soon. The adult response would be to shrug it off, not the 'run to teacher' response that has become so endemic on WP in recent times. Also I get so sick of seeing that over-used expression "ad hominems", especially when they are used incorrectly. If I were to make an ad hominem attack on you, you would be well aware that one had occurred. The current threshold, both yours and Wikipedia's thin-skinned editors, is set so low as to destroy the ability of grown-up editors to express themselves fully.

Thirdly you repeating yourself, me repeating myself is going to continue because you will stick to your guns regardless of any time I spend backing up my assertions, you already have done. You strike me as that sort of person. Yes, an opinion, but there ya go, we all have them. So I don't feel that the time spent would be worthwhile. Not because I don't think I'll find what I need, but because the result will be ignored by the "gossip" and "BLP" brigade.

I suppose you've been looking up "uncivil" in the dictionary too? Unfortunately, for you, it's a subjective adjective. I don't believe I've been uncivil, merely truthful based on observations gleaned from this discussion. My opinions have been based on what you've said, how you've said it and how you've tried to present yourself as the hard done-by editor under storms of attack by the uncivil brigade. In my view that's gaming the system. That's not uncivil, that's an honest opinion, both on your behaviour and the current ethos prevalent in the WP backwaters. "Mum! He described me and I didn't like it". Now you may want to ignore the fact that this gerbil/Gere thing is in the top 10 of urban legends, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to. I have to admit I'm even tempted to waste some more of my time and create a new article on the legend. Whaddya think? It wouldn't make you too apoplectic would it? Oh by the way... just say No to Political Correctness, you know it makes sense. --WebHamster 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah and hurrah, I think this is a time I can be brief for a change!

You want to make accusations? Fine. You want to bicker? Fine. The problem is when you're wasting space on the talk page of an article for your own personal uses, and when you interfere with legitimate attempts to resolve issues concerning the article. Simply put, if you don't want to contribute, what are you doing here? Thick skin, thin skin, if you don't want to contribute, there's no reason to be here.

Actually, if you were to make a legitimate argument, I'd acknowledge it in a heartbeat. Doesn't mean I'd agree, but I'm always quick to acknowledge valid arguments on either side of just about any issue (and I mean just about any, including even the major political/race/choice issues that need not be named). Thing is, I was very clear, and you were very vague. The only things you've been specific about are your insults and your fabricated redefinitions of words.

No, I didn't look up 'uncivil'. That is one of the things that I know there's room to disagree on (for example, if you'd stuck to just one or two insults, I'd see room for interpretation). As for your 'urban legends' reference... uh... you just made my point. Again. You just proved that the gerbil incident might belong on an urban legends article. Furthermore, you've proved that, if we had a 'gerbilling' article, a very strong case could be made for mentioning Gere. Unfortunately, that isn't what we're debating. Too bad, eh? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and an extra note: Looks like there was an article on it before. Well, more specifically, on the practice, rather than the legend. It was CSD'd by MZMcBride. You can ask them why if you like. If such an article were to exist, then I'd still argue that it may not be appropriate to mention him in it, due to BLP concerns, but I certainly wouldn't even attempt to make any notability or Undue Weight arguments around including him. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think it might be helpful to see Uncle G's comments here. I think he summed it up quite nicely in that block (just scroll past the indentation fixes) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Here is a thread from a WP:ANI archive on this issue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive527#User:Fodient. — Becksguy (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to clarify

I may be wasting my time, but if there's one thing that the pages upon pages of discussion above proves, it's that it doesn't matter if you understand your argument, or think anyone should be able to understand it; others may disagree.

As such, I'm making one last attempt to explain this...

We have an article on Steven Hatfill. If the name doesn't sound familiar, he's the guy that the government and news media publicly massacred (figuratively, not literally) because of that anthrax scare way back.

Basically, he was only ever a 'person of interest', but there was clearly a lot of public condemnation. Turns out, he was innocent.

Now then, here's where things get fun. See, seeing as how he never poisoned/terrorized anyone, you'd think that BLP would prevent talking about the incident in his article. However, turns out, the reason we have an article on him is because of that incident. Sure, his life has been about more than that incident, but that's how everyone else knows him. BLP means we have to be careful about how the incident is phrased, but it doesn't preclude mentioning it. Basically, it's essential to his biography.

Similarly, though David Howard (well, the one I'm talking about) doesn't have his own biography page, he is mentioned in an article. Turns out, he used a word that, through sheer ignorance, some people misinterpreted as being racist.

He never made a racist comment, this much is for certain (well, that comment wasn't racist, anyways. As far as I know, nobody's followed him around with a tape recorder, checking for racist comments throughout his life). If (that) David Howard had also happened to be, say, a "world famous billionaire bikini model supermodel astrophysicist" (look it up), and that was the reason he had a bio page (I know, lots of 'if's here), then it'd be harder to include the incident. It'd probably still get in, since it ended up with him losing his job, but it'd be harder. On the other hand, it'd pretty much have to be included in the article I just linked, because it was just that significant to the coverage of the topic. BLP would be a concern on his bio page, but far outweighed for that article page.

Conversely, there are certain names that tend to pop up in fringe topics. This concept isn't even confined solely to matters of gossip or rumours, but others as well.

The example that's already been used, and I hope you don't mind me repeating it, is the moon landing. (or, specifically, conspiracy theories concerning the moon landing "hoax") Here's an interesting fact: Armstrong ought to be a more prominent figure than Aldrin in that "hoax"; and yet, the "hoax" is mentioned in the Buzz Aldrin article, but not the Neil Armstrong article. How could that be? Easy. Because, ideally, the theoriest of conspiracy nuts wouldn't ever be relevant to either Armstrong or Aldrin. (Keep in mind, however, that it's at least easy to find actual evidence of people believing those conspiracy theories to be true.) The catch is that there is a specific incident that makes hoax accusations relevant to Aldrin: Aldrin actually punched someone over it. Armstrong never did that. Google searches don't mean much, but just for ha-has, do a search with: moon landing faked armstrong (you'll get about 341,000 hits) Do a search with: moon landing faked aldrin (you'll get about 112,000 hits) Obviously, that doesn't directly prove anything, but it certainly doesn't do much to suggest that Aldrin is more important to the hoax theory than Armstrong.

It's easy to say that, in an article about gerbiling, BLP would be the only possible concern, because nobody could possibly argue Undue Weight or Notability. Yes, it's been attached to other people, but there's still a clear frontrunner.

However, it's hard to say that, in an article about Richard Gere, a silly urban legend that apparently nobody believes is really on the same level as his notability as a (bad, so bad) actor, humanitarian/activist, or even buddhist. If he'd been caught punching someone out over it, then (like the Buzz Aldrin article shows), it'd end up getting stuck in there. But there simply lacks an argument to show that it goes both ways.

Anyways, I hope this at least explains part of my position a bit better. (The BLP aspects, you either agree or disagree. I don't think I can do much to convince anyone who isn't already convinced) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not!!! I never heard of the "gerbil" story, but it is not notable and the content of the story does in fact violate WP:BLP and is exempt from the 3RR rule if reverted. JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I only made a brief (though very firm...) remark far above, so I'll add that prior to coming to this discussion (a) I was fairly familiar with Gere from films (b) had heard of gerbiling (c) never heard the two connected. Obviously this colours the strength of my feeling that idle gossip and discounted urban legend should not be needlessly repeated. None of the sources given suggests the rumour has had any effect on Gere, so per WP:UNDUE (or possibly WP:FRINGE...), it shouldn't be here. It might be mentioned in another article on urban legends, if there is sourcing showing that it is significant in the context of urban legends. What it is not is significant in the context of Gere. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan and never heard that story. Not notable or encyclopedic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Urban Legends" are a type of Gossip

First let me say that I do think that the "gerbil" story is notable to at least get a mention -- except that it fails the gossip exception under WP:BLP.

Some people have been saying that it is an Urban Legend and not gossip. But what about it makes it not gossip? Here's the definition of gossip given at dictionary.com:

"idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others: the endless gossip about Hollywood stars."

And here in a definition of Urban Legend from the American Heritage Dictionary:

"n. An apocryphal story involving incidents of the recent past, often including elements of humor and horror, that spreads quickly and is popularly believed to be true."

This "gerbil" story is a rumor that won't die -- just because it is so shocking (or titillating) to some people. And it qualifies as an Urban Legend because it contains elements of humor and horror. Urban Legends are just a type of gossip that is especially interesting -- usually because they are outrageous in some way.

Here is the relevant section of WP:BLP:

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"

Notice is says: "If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" And no one has submitted a reliable source that is claiming that the "gerbil" story is true.

The counter argument to this is that it is true that there are multiple reliable sources that believe there exists an urban legend about Gere. Yes, I agree. But if that were the test then we'd have to let lots of gossip into biographies. Because you'd just need to find an article from a reliable source that says that the rumor exists. So if an article from a reliable source printed: "There's a rumor going around that Mr. X beats his wife and molests his children." Then you could say that it is true that the rumor exists so it should be included in a WP biography of Mr. X.

I understand the desire to include notable Urban Legends. And I can see wanting to argue that they are different that gossip. But even if you could show that an Urban Legend is a completely different animal than gossip ... and so not against the "letter" of the policy. I'd still say it's against the spirit of the policy b/c including Urban Legends has all the same dangers as including gossip -- and so should be avoided using the same criteria. For example, the desire to include Urban Legends would need to be weighed against this WP:BLP policy:

"The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

And I know at least one person has argued that publishing this Urban Legend won't hurt Richard Gere -- but I'd contend it clearly has the "possibility" of harming him in some way. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Oppose: So in case I wasn't clear. I oppose including the "gerbil" story in the Gere biography. Because Urban Legends present all of the same dangers as gossip -- and so should be excluded from the biographies of living people under WP:BLP. If someone disagrees, I'd request that they point out specifically how an Urban Legend is less dangerous to repeat than gossip. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, kill this suggestion with fire, chop off its head, lime it, stake it through the heart and bury it in concrete.. This is an urban legend. It is just gossip. Fences and windows (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. It is not our role to spread or debunk urban legends. Dlabtot (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose though not becasue or BLP or spreading gossip etc. The contribution from 209.90.133.75 above is very good, and I would just like to expand on it slightly. There is no problem with discussing a rumour if that rumour can be shown to be sufficiently notable. It does not break BLP to say that there is a rumour, explain the background and its impact on the person, and say that there is no evidence for it (as in this case). (Albeit we should tread very carefully in the discussion). There should however be multiple reliable sources talking about the rumour, and showing that it is notable to the person in question. This hasn't been shown for this case, and so I would not deem it notable. Quantpole (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it impacted Gere enough to come out in public to discuss it (finally), so will this do? --WebHamster 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"I just decided not to pay attention to any of it. It’s a waste of energy." -That sound like it really 'impacted' him? Incidentally, by definition, that can't be a reliable source. Not because it's just aol, but because it includes related claims that not even the article tries to substantiate, including, "Richard Gere reportedly believes Sylvester Stallone started this rumour..." Reported by whom? The closest the article comes to acknowledging the significance at all is the quote, "I just decided not to pay attention to any of it", so no, that doesn't merit inclusion in a biography. (full disclosure: I'm the primus editor from above; just with a different ip address) 139.57.100.104 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Quantpole (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Summing up

If I counted right, 22 oppose, 6 support. It violates BLP, and the sourcing is poor anyway. Can the requester of the RfC withdraw it now, and let everyone get on with improving articles? Fences and windows (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty blatant consensus here. Kudos to people for getting it right. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The RfCbot automatically removed the RfC header and listing on May 4th, 30 days after it was opened, thus closing it. Since the RfC was already closed and no posts have been made in about 10 days, I'm marking this resolved and archiving it in place as a housekeeping action. — Becksguy (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section break

I'm about 2 months late for the gerbil discussion, but let me throw my 2 cents in: I think the urban legend is false. I think everyone recognizes that the urban legend is false. However, it is in fact one of the most well known urban legends of our generation and should be noted in passing, along the lines of "Gere is also the subject of a famous urban legend involving sexual acts with a gerbil", or perhaps putting the legend in a separate article and linking to it within the Gere one. I also find it amusing how many mental blackflips those in opposition of adding a section did to try and justify keeping it out.

First they said that numerous sources repeating the legend were not adequate and some people said things along the lines of "Unless you find a New York Times article detailing exactly how, when and where he inserted the gerbil up his butt, don't bother." and when someone produced a citation from the NY Times they immediately dismissed it and came up with other objections.

Another argument made was that no one could produce a citation with someone actually making the allegation, only people stating that the legend existed or debunking the legend. I think this is somewhat of a ridiculous standard, but I didn't see anyone post anything actually showing this, but just off the top of my head I am aware of one instance of this found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=136cNGNd7Yg . It's from comedian Stephen Lynch and was made on the nationally broadcast Bob and Tom show in 2006(it's part of his comedy routine) this routine was also broadcast on comedy central. Now I know people are going to say that he's obviously making the allegation in jest, but I don't think that should matter. Otherwise you place an impossible burden of proof on those in favor of adding this to wikipedia. It seems all sources who report this as truth are "rags" and should not be cited and those which are "reputable" report it as false and thus cannot be cited (even if they re-affirm the existence of the MYTH which is at issue, not the veracity of the claim which isn't.)

Also, all this talk about having to worry about defamation laws (US in particular) is completely wrong. If you are worried about spreading misinformation do not repeat this, in the US this is certainly not defamation, nor is it defamation under the laws of any major country as far as I am aware (please read the wikipedia article for more information).

Lastly, as others have noted wikipedia takes notice of rumors and smears -even of living people- when they have become well known enough or controversial enough to warrant mentioning. For example just look at the articles on the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns in which it mentions rumors that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child and Barack Obama was a "secret Muslim". These are both bold faced lies, and indeed may be less known than the Richard Gere myth, but are nonetheless mentioned without objection. Also, just off the top of my head, the Michael Jackson article mentions a number of rumors about sexual abuse and plastic surgeries (yes I realize he's dead now and BLP guidelines no longer apply, but the article has been around for some time). The Angelina Jolie article also mentions rumors of her having an incestuous relationship with her brother, again, despite lack of the kind of proof people demand for this article and less notoriety than the Gere myth.

In summation, I'm sorry that some people seem so emotionally invested in preventing this rumor from being addressed, and in fact that probably proves the point that it's notable. I don't see the harm in mentioning it in passing or linking to it in the article. Also, I think it would actually be helpful in dispelling the rumor if it was acknowledged on wikipedia, but cited as unfounded. Thanks. 71.228.165.187 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has submitted a reliable source claiming the rumor to be true or referring to an instance of somebody actually making the claim. Youtube videos of comedians are not reliable sources and it would be original research to make the leap that the comedian was not being jest-ful in a comedy routine. You're correct, all sources that claim that this rumor is true have not met Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Avoidance of liability/legal defamation is only a small part of the motivation behind the policy at WP:BLP. If you have problems with content in other articles, this article's discussion page isn't the place to fix them. Emotional investment doesn't equal Wikipedia:Notability. Sancho 12:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again I feel you are making a distinction without substance. In the youtube video Stephen Lynch, a nationally known comedian on a nationally broadcast radio show, clearly makes the assertion that Richard Gere placed a gerbil in his rectum. The fact that it is not a published source is irrelevant as it is direct evidence of what was requested. If someone were to put into a reliable published source "Stephen Lynch said X" it is no better and in fact worse at proving that he said it than the actual recording. Again, these seem like rather ad hoc rationalizations for not mentioning the myth at all. It honestly seems to me that you are beginning with the premise that the myth should not be noted and then analyzing the content guidelines in a way that supports that notion, rather than going about it the other way around.

Also, I find the idea that, if this is the kind of thing that is regularly and systemically including in other BLPs, then I should go around petitioning for them to be changed, rather than changing this one article. I'm fine with those afore-mentioned articles and actually think that the rumors and smears mention in the articles are notable and appropriate with regards to those figures, just as this one myth is notable with respect to Gere. 76.123.239.176 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics of a song are not reliable sources. Comedians in a performance are not reliable sources. In this case, that doesn't even matter because the video doesn't include the allegation that you claim it does. (He says, "I bought a gerbil at the petting zoo. If Richard Gere can do it I can too.") You're also wrong about published, reliable sources: if somebody put in a reliable published source that "Stephen Lynch said X", it would be better at meeting Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and no original research. These policies aren't ad hoc, they're outcomes of collaboration of the Wikipedia community. The outcome of the RfC above shows strong consensus regarding the application of those policies to this particular issue. This isn't the kind of thing that is regularly and systematically included in other BLPs. You're right that only that which is notable, verifiable, and appropriate with regards to the subject is included. Sancho 21:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, in addition to the previous instances in articles I noted there are:

Tom Cruise: Rumors of homosexuality

Miley Cyrus: Pregnancy rumor

Oprah Winfrey: Rumored to be a lesbian

Jennifer Lopez: Pregnancy rumors; Rumored to be a scientologist

Marilyn Manson: Rumored to be in custody battle over cats. (really?)

David Bowie: Rumored cocaine addiction (probably true)

Nancy Reagen: Rumor about having an affair with Frank Sinatra.

Kate Gosselin: Rumored to have an affair.

Lindsay Lohan: Rumored to have stolen Hillary Duff's boyfriend Aaron Carter. (Note: Super notable)

Jay Z (and every freaking other rapper): Rumors about feuds with other rappers.

Dave Chappelle: Rumors that he was in South Africa for drug treatment

Stevie Nicks: Rumored to practice witchcraft; also, Rumours (1977).

That's another dozen BLPs right there and it only took me about 15 minutes to find those.

Lastly you should really avoid making lies of omission, the complete lyric was "I bought a gerbil at the petting zoo; If Richard Gere can do it I can too; I get undressed and I start to lube; I put the gerbil at the end of the tube..." Well, you get the idea. Clearly he's asserting that he's going to put a gerbil in his anus in the same fashion as Richard Gere. 76.123.239.176 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If all those things are included in those articles, maybe they meet Wikipedia's policies on WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR (or maybe they don't and should be removed), but that says nothing about this case... it has to be argued on its own merits. As for my lie of omission, what I meant to show was that it isn't clear whether the "it" that he was referring was the purchasing of the gerbil, or the rest of the song and it would be original research to make an assumption about that. It doesn't matter anyway because neither song lyrics nor comedians in a performance are reliable sources. Again, this particular youtube video you provide doesn't overturn the strong consensus formed above. Sancho 05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor, kindly Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Fences&Windows 16:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While I won't be quite so lengthy, allow me to state this. The omission of the gerbil controversy makes this article a farce. It has been referenced in articles, TV shows, and movies over and over. It is very much a part of pop culture. Everyone knows it. To ignore it shows a biased to Richard Gere, period. The fact that some would take Wiki rules and bend them to suit their own posistions shows that they care less about the rules and more about their own feelings towards not including this fact, even though it is a fact that this "Rumor" exists and has been noted hundreds to thousands of times elsewhere. I hope someone more knowlegeable on the subject will include this fact in the article and that people will stop bending rules to suit their needs. Deepintexas (talk)

If it's been noted "hundreds to thousands of times elsewhere", then I assume there's at least some mention in a reliable source. I'll wait here while you find one. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The matter is closed. It is not going to be included, as it is not actually anything to do with Richard Gere. It is just a random meme. The community decision above is pretty clear. You could provide rock-solid reliable sources discussing it in depth and it still wouldn't go in. Let it drop. Fences&Windows 23:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan magazine

Image on right

Image on right

Update: Magazine cover found - uploaded temporarily for discussion.
Today at the news-stand I saw an issue of Cosmopolitan and on the front cover, in large letters was a mention of RUMOURS^{Turns out I didn't remember it correctly??? -- the image doesn't show "RUMOURS"} and Richard Gere and Gerbil. Now, I didn't buy the magazine, or even pick it up, but it sent me to this article (for the second time in my life) to look up about this. Cosmo magazine is as far as I'm aware one of the most popular and notable magazines in the world, or at least where I'm from. Now, about this debate, seems to me we now have lots of references in popular culture to this rumour that I feel it should be included in this article. Rfwoolf (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No. It has nothing to do with Richard Gere, it's a random meme. We have other articles on memes and rumours, if you're desperate to include it somewhere in Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"It has nothing to do with Richard Gere" - are you listening to yourself? Interesting, you're saying that if, say, 5 highly notable sources report on a meme about Richard Gere (if you want to call it a Meme) it's not notable enough for inclussion on his Wikipedia article. How strange. Doesn't sound objective to me at all. Would I want such a meme written about me if I had a Wikipedia article? I don't think so, but that is irrelevant here. The fact that he may have never had a gerbil up his ass is also not relevant here. The fact that we now have some highly notable sources talking about it makes the rumour notable and relevant. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think at some point this RfC needs to be re-opened. As time goes by more and more references in pop-culture are referring to this. Whereas before people may have opposed inclussion based on a lack of sources and possibly violation of BLP, we now have more and more sources for this rumour and can definitely seek clarification on BLP as a separate issue as I don't believe it would violate BLP. Also keep in mind that nobody seems to be asking for this rumour to be included as a fact - in fact snopes and other sources indicate no medical reports of a gerbil being removed from a human anus, nor is it a part of any culture -- homosexual or otherwise, in other words, people don't do it, least of all Richard Gere. In fact you could include this information (sourced properly) in the article when mentioning the rumour. But to exclude it from the article seems close-minded and overly-conservative. Let's just stay in denial shall we, cos it violates family values and what not? Rfwoolf (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please list the sources to which you refer. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the matter of notable references to this rumour, I have created a new section below - a work in progress if you will - where we could list these references so as to decide whether there is a case on this argument. As you may know, arguments against inclusion of the Gerbil issue include a) BLP violation, b) poor references. I believe (a) is debatable and that (b) we should be able to demonstrate enough notable references to the rumour Rfwoolf (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a time-out. Do you understand the difference between a "notable reference" and a "reliable source"? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Richard Gere and Gerbil references for discussion on inclussion

Note: Please limit discussion in this section to references in popular culture and other notable sources of Richard Gere and the Gerbil. If you want to discuss BLP and the broader subject as to whether this rumour/meme should ultimately be included in the article, please use another section. Rfwoolf (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. South African Cosmopolitan Magazine February 2009 issue - see image posted above Rfwoolf (talk)

   Please point out what exactly the image above proves. Thanks in advance. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   "Proves'"? Is this a discussion about proof that Richard Gere stuck a Gerbil up his butt? Is anybody in fact claiming such? Nope, that's ridiculous, and shocking for an encyclopedia to possible even consider saying. Oh that's right, this is about a reference in popular culture to a rumour about Richard Gere sticking a Gerbil up his butt -- and not just verbal references from your uncle Bob's cousin who knew a nurse at some hospital -- no, references to the rumour from such places as Cosmopolitan magazine, movies such as Scream, radio DJs, etc. etc. oh, and an interview with Richard Gere himself. This proves that yet one more notable source has referenced the (seemingly extremely notable) issue of Richard Gere and the Gerbil rumour Rfwoolf (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   Again, please explain what mystery is solved by your posted image, and the associated nine words contained therein. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   No mystery, other than why you fail to see the point. But when it's mentioned on the front cover of Cosmo then like it or not it has gained notability. ergo it has a place in this article. Sticking your metaphorical fingers in your ears does not change that. --WebHamster 13:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Scream (movie)
3. Urban Legend (movie)
4. The Vicar of Dibley episode "The Easter Bunny" (original air date 8 April 1996), Geraldine (Dawn French) remarkers upon Richard Gere's sexiness by saying she wouldn't have minded being the hamster.

I don't know if published books count. A Google Books Search of "Richard Gere" "Gerbil": [9] returns 83 results, and here are a few I selected:

1. L.A. exposed: strange myths and curious legends in the City of Angels by Paul Young
2. Did You Hear About the Girl Who...? Contemporary legends, folklore, & human sexuality by Mariamne H. Whatley & Elissa R. Henken
3. Urban Legends: The Truth Behind All Those Deliciously Entertaining Myths That Are Absolutely, Positively, 100% Not True by Richard Roeper

Gerbil Discussion Continued

Please stop beating this dead horse. The discussion, after an RfC, has been had. The conclusion was to not include it. Fences&Windows 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that an RFC was a permanently binding document? I'm sorry to destroy your illusion, but consensus can and does change every day on WP. Such is the way of the world. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument can only go on for so long against a growing tide of reliably sourced citations. --WebHamster 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Get another 15 or so editors who share the same head-in-the-sand mentality, and you guys might be on to something. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First, the entire RfC can be re-opened because an involved editor closed it ^{hint: get an uninvolved admin and I'll be satisfied on this element}. Second, either side of the fence could have 5 million editors who have an opinion in their favour, but if their opinions are off-point, and 1 "voice of reason" editor happens to demonstrate resounding logic and supports their argument with wiki-policy that is 100% clear and unambiguous, then, that one editor can change the outcome of the entire RfC so long as the closing admin (who was involved in this case and shouldn't have been) is judicious enough. It is the closing admin's job to thoroughly read through the RfC, taking note of each argument and assess them for validity and then giving a result -- as opposed to Fences&Windows' "yay or nay" closing which actually implied that better sourcing has merit in this discussion. In other words if the closing admin reads 500 comments saying "this violates BLP", but then reads one comment saying "the BLP policy is unclear and ambiguous", he may disregard the 500 comments and forward the issue to the Village Pump and Legal Department for clarification, assuming of course that the latter argument is well constructed. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, the argument was never about citations - this myth has no actual connection to Richard Gere, so there is no reason to include it in his biography. Of course consensus can change, but do you have any reason to think the pretty recent discussion was deficient? Rfwoolf, I'm fed up with this, open the RfC again for all I care. I just wish you'd put your zeal and source finding to use somewhere the encyclopedia actually needs it, instead of Wikilawyering and trying to force salacious gossip into an article. I will trust that the majority of editors will have good sense on this issue. Fences&Windows 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the myth has a direct connection to Gere, that's why, in lots of people's minds, Gere and gerbils are inextricably linked. And it is actually about citations. The argument has always been that if it's reliably and adequately sourced then the myth is deemed to be, in WP terms, notable. More and more citations are being found that show that this is actually a well known, and in some cases believed, myth. So far the only arguments against its inclusion are variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that it's silly and irrelevant. The former is no argument at all and the latter is being disproved by the increasing number of reliably sourced citations that demonstrate that it is a worldwide, and notable phenomenon. So much so that it makes sense to include it if only to clarify that it is only a myth and that Gere is a gerbil virgin. --WebHamster 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really am going to shut up after this point: we don't talk about Hitler having only one ball in his article.[10] Hitler has been invoked without a breach of Godwin's Law! Patently false rumours don't need to be included in an article. If someone knows about it already, they don't need to read it in Gere's biography. If they don't know about it, why are we telling them? It tells you nothing about Gere or his career. We shouldn't add trivia to biographies that only serves to make people snigger. Fences&Windows 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that your argument, that if people already know about the rumour why should we include it, seems very weak. Personally I have come to this article twice, historically, brought by references in popular culture (including the Cosmo article) seeking answers about this rumour. I could very well scour the web and google for information -- much like I could about any subject you can think of, but the reason I come to Wikipedia is for the facts, facts like it's a rumour, facts like Sylvester Stallone took credit for the rumour, facts like Snope reporting that it couldn't find any medical cases of a gerbil being removed from an anus, and any references to the origin of the rumour. I could find all of these on Google, but, separately, unreliably, and without a list of references. This is the power of Wikipedia. Part of this reminds me of the 'deletionist' mentality -- of course there is a line to be drawn because we can't include everything on Wikipedia, but in my book this is something that is notable enough for inclussion. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for tabloid garbage. Regardless of how many magazines you pull up talking about the "Richard Gere Gerbil Rumor," it's not appropriate for this article. There was already an RFC over this matter and it was resolved. Stop wasting time and get the copyrighted image off the talk page. Lara 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also amused at how smoothly he just ignored the hundreds of kilobytes of text above him. He's added nothing new to the discussion. This is a non-starter. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As already mentioned, there were problems with the RfC, and, we now have a new reference (in fact now dozens of books as references). Just as I have an open mind and try to look at things objectively, so should you see the issues in the RfC, issues which may or may not make a difference at the end of the day, but are nonetheless worthy of further discussion. And by the by, it would seem that there is no clear-cut BLP violations on this matter, another one of those instances on Wikipedia where there's no real precident, where dissidents such as yourself who WP:IDONTLIKEITfind ambiguous BLP policies that actually refer to something completely different, and pass it up as relevant to this case (such as what Fences & Windows has tried to do). It's not his/her/their fault, but we need to discuss things further. If need be, this looks like a good case for Arbcom, who will hopefully have the same analysis as I do. In closing however, to your credit, there is little point in re-discussion at this point due to the mentalities we are dealing with; the only thing that there is a point in doing is any of the following: 1) Discussions and analysis about the outcome of the RfC, 2) new references, 3) Analysis on BLP policy, 4) Submission to arbcom. As long as we keep things on these subjects we might be productive. And yes, an RfC can be re-opened for a variety of reasons. Rfwoolf (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with people saying that the rumour should be added. A passing, cold mention, clearly stating that it is a hoax, but it is notable by all standards and there is no reason not to include it. It would not violate BLP by any standards. "Not repeating gossip" means "not repeating gossip as fact" not "ignoring completely notable portions of pop culture". Heck, the rumour is so notable and well sourced that probably the best thing to do would to create a separate article on the Richard Gere gerbil hoax. I think WebHamster could try to do that. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we been here before? We're not The Sun, so the tabloid crap needs to be kept out. Kevin (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't stay away... I believe that there is basis in policy to exclude such salacious gossip:

• Our policy of presumption in favor of privacy says that "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.".
• Our policy on undue weight says that "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.".

Together, these aspects of policy make a strong case for the exclusion of false rumours, regardless of their sourcing. Fences&Windows 13:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The point which seems lost on all you fixed-minded wikilawyers is that the purpose of the inclusion isn't to further promulgate the rumour, it's to explain and debunk it. This is well within the word and the spirit of WP:BLP. --WebHamster 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, no matter how my personal views agree with yours, calling other editors "fixed-minded wikilawyers" is not going to help you, nor to convince your opponents. They are trying to maintain and help the encyclopedia like me and you -we only happen to disagree. Please maintain civility and thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My description relates objectively to their behaviour, not to them personally. They have ably demonstrated their fixed-mindedness time and time again by refusing to change their opinion regardless of the evidence presented to them. Their reliance on their own unmovable interpretations of WP:BLP once again demonstrate their wikilawyering. Thereforr this was not an uncivil comment, it's a factual one backed up by this page's content. --WebHamster 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, I may understand your concerns and you can see that we agree on the matter into question; but I invite you again to be kind and avoid personal attacks to other editors. What looks factual to you doesn't necessary look factual to others, and in any case such comments do not add anything to the debate. Don't heat unnecessarily the debate and strive to stay cool. Focus on arguments. If they look unconvinced, it means you just have to try harder and better to present and defend your arguments. Thank you. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims - Does not apply, because the claim has been spread hugely elsewhere, and WP would be only a drop in the sea. So, no "primary". Second, does not apply because we wouldn't be spreading the claim itself, but its existence in popular culture. I wholeheartedly agree it would be mad to add "RG plays with gerbils". I think of adding something on the lines of "An urban legend claimed that RG plays with gerbils", which is completely different.

regard for the subject's privacy - Does not apply here again, because the rumour is extremly well documented and widespread -we wouldn't be violating the privacy of anyone.

weight appropriate to its significance to the subject - Small weight indeed, but not zero. That's why I said "a passing, cold mention", at least in this article. So one must take into accoun UNDUE for sure, but the weight here is not null.

The policies about gossip are here to help articles do not include gossip as fact. Citing The Sun as a primary source to include gossip of course must not happen. That's what the gossip policies are for. Citing however the existence in popular culture an urban legend which has been covered in books and made the covers of international magazines is beyond the scope of such policies.

Finally, since many people here seem to be understandably ethically concerned about the inclusion of such things: My answer is always that including brief mentions of already well widespread urban legends that clearly discredit them as the hoaxes they are cannot but help the subject into question, and would avoid many (good faith or not) cases of vandalism where unexperienced people, not knowing better, add the gossip as fact, leading -this time for real- to recurring BLP troubles. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems impossible to satisfy WebHamster's high standards. First he complains that "So far the only arguments against its inclusion are variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that it's silly and irrelevant", but then when clear polices are cited he complains of "fixed-minded wikilawyers"! I suppose only those who agree with WebHamster are suitable participants in this debate? The bottom line - vicious rumours have no place in BLPs. Fences&Windows 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving WebHamster's behaviour aside, I'd like for you to comment on the discussion itself. I've tried to explain myself above quite thoroughly, it would be interesting for everyone to hear your reply. There are no "bottom lines" in such discussions, I think. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are bottom lines. Adding false gossip into articles about living people isn't what we should be doing, even if it is to say that the rumour is false. The rumour was malicious, and Gere certainly doesn't discuss it. Just because newspapers and magazines can't help themselves in propagating hurtful rumours about celebrities doesn't mean we should join them. Fences&Windows 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look back up the page, there is a reference to the fact where Gere not only discusses it, but even explains that he suspected Stallone to be the source of it. What is also quite clear is your inability to differentiate between "promulgate" and "explain". --WebHamster 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Gere didn't say that. Try reading that article again.[11] p.s. Stop making snide attacks. Fences&Windows 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ho-hum, how embarrassing this must be for you. The reason I know I'm right is because I produced the link in the first place, and it wasn't that MSNBC article, and it WAS Gere addressing the rumour directly. I don't do snide, I do blunt, and your skills of differentiation are demonstrably poor as this page will attest. --WebHamster 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! "No facts surfaced when a reporter from The National Enquirer attempted to legitimise the story." Last I checked, encyclopedias deal in fact. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Derrrr! The fact that the rumour wasn't true, not that the rumour doesn't exist and not that Gere talked about it in the interview. We should frame this and the archetypal example of being deliberately obtuse. Par for the course with those running out of valid arguments. Isn't it time you pulled your fingers out of your ears and admitted that this is a worldwide phenomenon that is notable and deserves at least a couple of lines of mention. --WebHamster 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about time you learned to be civil. You said the story mentioned Stallone; the AOL celeb entertainment column doesn't mention Stallone. It also reports second-hand that he said this is an interview, without giving the source, making it unreliable. Celeb gossib columns are notoriously unreliable, so if you actually cared at all about the quality of sources, you would have discovered that the original interview was in the Metro,[12]. I stand corrected; he once referred to it as an aside. Fences&Windows 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone else who uses the "uncivil" defence to hide behind when shown to be wrong. Just so we know and can be prepared are you going to use any more WP cliches to bolster up a failing argument? --WebHamster 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is, whenever Gere addressed it directly or not, is irrelevant, given the vast amount of primary and secondary sources on the urban legend. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully must answer that such an argument amounts, to all practical purposes, to IDONTLIKEIT. There is no policy or guideline I am aware of that states that the subject must discuss things on him/herself to make that thing notable. What we should be doing is covering properly notable and public information, regardless of our personal distaste or feelings on it. Due to the huge notability of the rumour, harm is not going to be done by our coverage: the horses are already well out of the barn. On the practical and ethical side of things, I must repeat that a well-made and very brief coverage of such things would deter many good-faith newbies that repeatebly add such gossip as fact, thus reliefing a real BLP problem. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who keep a very watchful eye on this article, all of whom have done an excellent job of reverting the gerbil addition almost instantaneously. Saying that if you add the mention, that it will keep "newbies" from adding it is laughable at best, and probably one of the more moot points I've seen argued here on Wikipedia. Try again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. You say "all of whom have done an excellent job of reverting the gerbil addition almost instantaneously", and I have no reason to disagree. What I mean is, once such an addition is properly made, it can discourage clumsier attempts to put the information in in improper ways, since the information would be already there (but sourced, stated as an hoax, etc.). You may disagree, but please refrain to call other people's arguments "laughable". Not that I care personally, but no need to heat up the debate. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies and Guidelines relating to BLP

The removal of BLP violating content does not require consensus. BLP violations should be removed on sight by anyone. Also, BLP violation reverts are not counted in the WP:3RR rule. Collected here are a sample—incomplete but useful as an indication of the intent, spirit and letter—of the policies and guidelines about Biographies of living people:

• wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people - Resolution from the Wikimedia Foundation that says, in pertinent part, that we should be "...Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest"
• WP:BLP - :Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff - Basic content inclusion principles for any article, especially including all biographies, should be "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity", as shown in the WP:ArbCom case from 2007.
• WP:BLPBAN - Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance."

I think that the above shows the weight on the side of keeping BLP violating content out of Wikipedia. And enforcement has become more stringent. Bottom line: The gerbil content violates BLP in this article. — Becksguy (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That presupposes that it is indeed a BLP violation. There is no evidence to suggest that it is. It's only various people's interpretation of WP:BLP that makes it seem so. --WebHamster 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Becksguy, what we are doing here is in fact discussing about putting the content in. Therefore your remindings of "not requiring consensus" are moot: we're working for consensus on the issue. Now,I address your points one by one:

• Fine (I personally have a trouble with wording as "dignity" and "respect", because the thresholds of dignity and respect are left to each one's POV judgement - and as such it is difficult to build consensus on). However here we are talking about putting the information not only in a completely neutral but in a dismissive way, explicitly stating that such urban legends are hoaxes, and as such helping restoring the dignity and respect of the subject.
• The privacy of the subject is not in question. The urban legend is extremly widespread and has been covered by books and front pages of international magazines, as shown above. So we are not the primary vehicle to spread claims, nor we would "spread claims" at all-we would help in debunking them. For these reasons, privacy concerns and harm concerns do not apply.
• As above.
• There's no need of invoking such draconian measures, because we are discussing on the talk page about the material and no one is going to go on a revert war or something like that.
• As per your "bottom line", what you linked above applies to BLP violations, yet you didn't show that including the material is one -I, among others, provided here and in previous comments several arguments for which the inclusion is completely in line with BLP policy. I remind you by the way WP:WELLKNOWN, which is a part of WP:BLP and which in my opinion is well suited for the case in point: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. -Notability, relevance and well documentation by RS of the urban legend have not been put into question. On these grounds I support inclusion (very brief to stay in line with WP:UNDUE, clearly stating it is only a legend) of the urban legend. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, didn't notice WebHamster last edit, which was very correctly removed. Now I understand better your comment, and I agree WebHamster edit was at the very best premature and in any way not opportune at all. This incident however does not change the nature of my arguments for inclusion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot get over the BLP argument - we are seeing all these points from BLP that talk about something distinctly different from this case. Those BLP arguments are about propagating false rumours as fact, here, we are not propogating (as the rumour has already been saturated in popular culture) and even if we are propagating we are doing it as false - the distinct opposite to what BLP is concerned with. I think here's the golden argument to dissolve all BLP arguments: There is no rumour that there's a rumour about Richard Gere and a Gerbil, instead there is a notable fact that there's a rumour about Richard Gere and the Gerbil. I can see how this may have thrown some of you ;) Rfwoolf (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually your buddy WebHamster just made every crystal clear. See here. He (unsuccessfully) tried to skirt consensus by creating a separate page for the rumor, which was quickly swatted out of existence. Guess that clears up where the admins stand on this topic, with respect to BLP, huh? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "crystal clear", since the incident only tangentially had to do with the discussion. I had no way to see the page as it was, however the title of the page left much to be desired at least, in not making explicitly clear it was an urban legend. I am neutral on the issue, I agree that more caution would have been needed. This does not relate, anyway, to the arguments brought for example by me and Rfwoolf, among others, which would be nice to discuss properly. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to actually read the ANI thread that I linked. Nothing tangential about it. The article held the same basic text that would be inserted here, and was speedied as a BLP violation. End of story. I am, however, sorry you can't accept that. Maybe the Gerbilers should be lumped in with the Birthers and Truthers. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)Furthermore, that ANI post still doesn't cut it because no debate on BLP was had - in other words I posit that those admins were wrong about there being a BLP violation because of the controversy here -- deletionist admins are very happy to delete stuff like this as a knee-jerk reaction if they're unfamiliar with the rumour and its prevalence in popular culture. Whether there should have been an article entitled Richard Gere and The Gerbil is another matter, but those admins are wrong about the BLP violation. I think this needs to go to Arbcom, even if it's to create clearer policy on this matter, as I am adament that policy isn't clear enough on this matter; I'll say it again, this is a notable rumour, acknowledged by Richard Gere, practically verified as false, with at least 4 (possibly 86) good references. If you're still unwaivering in your dissident position, I can only imagine you're a unaware perpetrator of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Rfwoolf (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Keep fighting the good fight, guys! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Right back at ya! Rfwoolf (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I invite everyone to stay cool and avoid heating the debate. Crotchety Old Man: What "would be inserted" in the article is under discussion, so no one knows if it was equivalent to the content of the deleted article. Rfwoolf: I may agree with you, but let's not transform this into a debate on administrators' behaviour. I agree there is a need for a clearer policy on the matter but no need for ArbCom in my opinion -we can just discuss on the talk page of WP:BLP if needed.

Now, I invite everyone to come back to the point. My suggestion is that the parties which disagree with the inclusion of any material on this urban legend, should:

• Answer as thoroughly as possible (point-by-point if possible) the arguments brought above by me and other editors which, in our opinion, support that such material, if properly presented, is not doing harm or violating any BLP policy.
• Explain why in your opinion WP:WELLKNOWN should not apply, or is irrelevant, in this case.

I hope we can be back on track now and have a nice discussion. Thanks! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)