Jump to content

Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Mel Gibson

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:03, 4 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cleanup cleanup tags

Any cleanup tags need to be placed by section. Flagging the whole article does not help editors focus work where needed. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it's at the point now where this whole article is in need of a good copy editor to clean it up. Too much has been added to this biography of a living person that is questionable. Just because something has a reference doesn't mean it should be added to an article. This article is almost to the point, imho, where it may need to be moved to someone user's space until it is up to policy and guidelines needs. You can see the comments made of at WP:BLPN Mel Gibson. I am hoping someone with good editing skills will come along and do a clean up. User:Fences and windows tried to as did a few others but it didn't stick. Also, the allegations of needs major work done but no one has made any suggestions as of yet. I do my work on the project but I don't consider myself a good enough editor for the kind of work this article is in need of which is why I am asking for help. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no need for any clean up at all. Everything is factual and referenced. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
Read what I said just above. There are policies that need to be followed which aren't being followed as I state above. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Third recording

The article should mention the third racist and misogynistic rant by Gibson since it was publicly released today. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

have you listened to all the recordings? they will make you sick to your stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

abuse of women/death threats

Are the just released tapes of Mel Gibson telling his girlfriend she deserved it when he hit her and making death threats against her a valid source for this wiki page?SlamBurger (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I've been wondering this myself. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that anything using these tapes, which are called "alleged" by even maistream press, should not be used. It is essentially black mail material and effectively breaks the restraining order on Grigorieva. This is not a tabloid, but these personal life sections effectively reduce this article to a tabloid article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The tapes are real, its his voice, and Mel hasn't denied anything, so the tapes can be used as sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, the tapes are primary sources and, even if real, can't be used. I don't see why secondary sources talking about the tapes can't be used, but they all use "alleged" for a reason, and if they say alleged, so should we. And I doubt we should use direct quotations from an alleged source, even if the secondary sources quote these alleged tapes. So report on the fact that this material is "in the news", yes; quote or give excessive detail, no. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok so being accessive, using primary sources or secondary sources saying alleged shouldn't be used. Report the facts. I agree. How do we report the facts without the sprawling commentaries we have now which is under the titles of allegations of? I think the items we are sure of should be under the the heading of his personal life. Then we need to be careful in writing it so we don't sound like a gossip rag like the article now reads. Should we roll the article back to prior to the writing of all these allegations and add them back in slowly when we are sure that the references used are accpetable? Suggestions? --CrohnieGalTalk 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Yworo (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the history of the article and couldn't find a good place to roll back to. How about you take a look and if you find a place go for it? --CrohnieGalTalk 20:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How about here, June 29. This was just before a section titled "Other allegations" was added. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well we can move it to there and then clean up and retitle the allegations of sections. The first dif I looked at was a press release which of course won't do for any of this. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Massive reverts are inappropriate and disruptive. Sort specific issues appropriately. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 11:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Who's doing massive reverts? I just looked through everything and I see rewrites going on but not a lot of reverting. So who are you talking to Jack? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that either of you have done so, but you're talking about it, just above; suggesting that Yworo roll back to somewhere; and then June 29 is offered. Bad Idea. Jack Merridew 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
@Yworo; rolling back to June is *not* reasonable. Edits to address specific issues are appropriate; discarding some hundreds of edits over the last few weeks is not. Please don't go there. Jack Merridew 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this. Wasn't planning on rolling it back myself, just helping Crohnie locate where the additional allegations sections were originally added. Seemed to me there would be way too many other changes to manually integrate for rolling back that far to be practical. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Great (↓↑). We can now return to regular editing ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just throwing out ideas and had no intentions of rolling back the article without a consensus. Jack's comment was due to something in our history which I think we got sorted on my talk page. I agree that too many edits have occurred now that it would be too difficult to add all the good edits back to the article. So we can now ignore this idea. Sorry for the confusion that this caused, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion on the allegations controversy

has it been suggested yet to combine all of those allegations into a single section called "controversies" and trim them all up a bit, provide more summary and less commentary? not suggesting overlook his lunatic antics, but it might flow better with fewer "alleged" headings. Just my unsolicited $.02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these sections need to be condensed and it will vastly improve the article. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It is that simple, where there is a section with a link to a main article the content here should be just a brief summary also. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The "domestic violence" section should probably be renamed to "relationship with Oksana Grigorieva" That would at least make the header seem more NPOV. That section should actually chronicle his relationship with her, not just the juicy tape bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, when and if he is actually charged with domestic voilence, then of course the title should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Family Section

One paragraph says he divorced his wife, the next one mentions his former girlfriend )Oksana Grigorieva). We should probably fill in the blanks somewhere in the middle of those two paragraphs. And wasn't he dating her while he was still married and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

tbe Oksana Grigorieva article does a nice job of summarizing her history and relationship with Mel, including the despicable aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

dual citizenship - irish?

the source given does not in ANY way support the claim that is being made. that sentences about him having dual citizenship because of his mother's ancestry should be removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid

This article uses way too much of the word "alleged". Per WP:WTA, these phrase usages should be reworded, to more specifically address the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true when the sources say "alleged", as they do. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why you are obsessed with using the word "alleged" as much as humanly possible, but it is simply not necessary in such a repeated fashion. There are numerous other ways of phrasing things using the English language to be more specific. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Do go read the discussion at WP:BLPN. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have. The WP:BLPN discussion agrees that there is too much use of "allegations of this and allegations of that..." -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that part of the discussion was only about the headings. You just skimmed it after I brought it up. Yworo (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that comment refers to the article itself. And you just made an incorrect assessment about what I have done. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Article page needs sourcing improvements

There are lots of unsourced claims and assertions in this article - this should either be properly cited, or removed. These include a completely unsourced direct quote from the subject of the article. The sourcing is substandard and needs lots of work. Tagged as such. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Subsection: Producer

This entire subsection has zero references whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet - completely unsourced subsection and unsourced direct quotation

This subsection contains no sources at all. It also contains an unreferenced purported direct quotation from the subject. This should be sourced, or removed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Claims in completely unsourced section, Apocalypto

This section of the article is also completely devoid of references. In particular, claims such as "Gibson further established his reputation as a director" and purported facts about the film's languages spoken and who spoke them, should be sourced, or removed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about revenue facts and figures

Completely unreferenced facts and figures in subsection, The Passion of the Christ, that should be removed, or properly cited. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced subsection, Lethal Weapon

This subsection contains no sources at all. In particular, the claim, "This series would come to exemplify the subgenre of the buddy film.", should be cited to whatever source is making this claim (the Wikipedia who wrote it, perhaps???) or removed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallipoli - unsourced claims about career

"The critically-acclaimed film helped to further launch Gibson's career." - who says this film was "critically-acclaimed"? Who says it "helped to further launch Gibson's career"? A film critic? A book? A random Wikipedian that wrote this? This should be cited, or removed. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Section with no references at all, 1990s

This section contains no sources at all. In particular, the claim, "During the 1990s, Gibson used his boxoffice power to alternate between commercial and personal projects.", needs to be cited, or removed. How did he do this? What does "boxoffice power" mean? Who is making this claim? When? -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jonojoe, 15 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I take issue with Wikepedia's opening statement - that Mel Gibson is an "American". I am Australian and have worked in the Australian film industry for over 30 years. I worked with Mel Gibson on 2 Australian films, "Gallipoli" in 1980 and "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" in 1985, and I can tell you that Mel considers himself to be an Australian. In fact, the Britannica Encyclopedia begins its bio on Mel as follows: "American-born Australian actor, who became an international star with a series of action-adventure films in the 1980s and later earned acclaim as a director and producer." His formative and developmental background is Australian, and his cultural and professional soul is TRULY Australian. John Lennon lived in America too after he'd made his name as a Beatle. Was he considered American too?

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with editing <material that has nothing to do with editing was removed> Jonojoe (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank your for sharing your personal experiences with Mel Gibson. However this is an encyclopedia -we don't change articles only because of personal anecdotes. I am sure Mr.Gibson is a good man; however it happens that reliable sources report things about him, and it is our duty to report them. About the American/Australian thing, I am unsure, thank you for pointing us at Britannica. --Cyclopiatalk 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, the nationality in the lede sentence is based on citizenship at time the subject became notable. If Gibson became an Australian citizen, and you can provide a citation to that effect, then we could determine whether or not the lede is accurate. If he was and still is an American citizen, then the lede is correct. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and the John Lennon case isn't really comparable. He is described correctly as English because he was born in England and was a British citizen when he became notable. He never became an American citizen, but rather had permanent resident status. So there is no possible reason to call him American. Yworo (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OP, In short, this is wikipedia and not hollywood. We cannot pretend here, regardless of how it might add to one's mystique or perceived "coolness". If I am an american citizen and I move to mexico, for 20 years even, learn to speak spanish and take a siesta each day, that does not make me a mexican citizen. citizenship has to do with birthplace and legalities. A press release is not proof of citizenship. so while mel gibson might enjoy pretending he's australian, until he legally relinquishes his united states citizenship, he's a yank. comprende? even if he wins an oscar for portraying an australian, he is still an american citizen. no kidding. I'm serious. crazy isn't it? that's how it works in the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Americans can hold dual citizenship and according to the article, Gibson is an Irish citizen as well as an American. I'd like to see better documentation on this, but it seems reasonable given his mother was an Irish citizen. So it is not inconceivable that he is also an Australian citizen, but that would require supporting sources. Yworo (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No point in arguing with you, but on this we can agree - without compelling evidence to the contrary, Mel is not an Australian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Gibson is an American and he never renounced his US citizenship. (92.3.134.39 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC))
Why is it alright to allow the ranting prejudicial commentary of editors with an axe to grind, when you are so actively engaged in the acrimonious process of acting as judge and jury of people who have not had an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law? It shouldn't matter whether we're discussing Mel Gibson or goddamn O.J. Simpson. Editors at Wikipedia are not the arbiters of a totalitarian state; although one would be forgiven for thinking so.
For the sake of democratic integrity, allow yourselves to strive for a higher-nature in forgoing your obvious inclination towards negative gossiping and airing of your ostensible partisanship - and don't fool yourselves with all this to-and-fro'ing with "techno-babble'. This page is full of it.
You're an encyclopedia. Act like it.
PS: Your editors may (and oh-so-predictably will) wipe this post, of course, because it reflects badly upon them. Frankly I couldn't care less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonojoe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Jonojoe, ignore the IP editor. It's a troll. Don't feed it. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
To Jonojoe, personally I'd be interested in seeing any references you would care to share. I know you are new, so knowing what is considered a reliable source and other policy driven needs for a biography of a living person takes time. Please be bold by putting anything you think is important on this talk page so it can be discussed. This way you can learn policies and we might be able to get the article more information which can be balanced if necessary. Please consider this. I'm sorry you were attacked so early in your time here. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your personal responses, but please understand that I'm not out to buck the system nor question the status quo in "Wikipedialand". Yes, I'm a novice - that's obvious. It's just good to see that some people out there understand that the ethereal world of web correspondence involves real people. Do your best.

Unsourced info moved from BLP page to talk page

Awards and accomplishments
  • People's Choice Awards: Favorite Motion Picture Actor (1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2003)
  • ShoWest Award: Male Star of the Year (1993)
  • American Cinematheque Gala Tribute: American Cinematheque Award (1995)
  • Hasty Pudding Theatricals: Man of the Year (1997)
  • Australian Film Institute: Global Achievement Award (2002)
  • Honorary Doctorate Recipient and Undergraduate Commencement Speaker, Loyola Marymount University (2003)
  • World's most powerful celebrity by US business magazine Forbes (2004)
  • Hollywood Reporter Innovator of the Year (2004)
  • Honorary fellowship in Performing Arts by Limkokwing University (2007)

Feel free to work on citing to WP:RS sources, here on the talk page, and then add back to the article if/when properly cited. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a WP:POINT violation, as you well know. Yworo (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You just added completely unsourced content back into the article, after complaining about "WP:BLP". That is hypocrisy, at its finest. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Do try to avoid personal attacks. You know as well as I do that BLP apply primarily to negative or controversial information. Yworo (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, please point me to the part where Wikipedians are encouraged to add completely unsourced material to BLP pages? -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are sorry. Please point me to the policy that says editors should follow other editors around and pointily engage in disruptive editing because they are mad. Yworo (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not make false accusations and falsely accuse editors of "point" for removing unsourced claims from a BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit over the top though. While we need to improve the article, gutting those innocuous 'awards' isn't really necessary. They're not what's controversial about this biography, are they? We can find some sources for them, but they're hardly the priority. Fences&Windows 11:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, they could be added back with cn templates so that when the other things get settled and people have the time citations can be added. A lot of citations have already been added since the templates started showing up. This article needs work but that are a lot of editors eyes on it and it has come a long way as far as I'm concerned. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of personal issues in summary section

I attempted to add a NPOV mention of Gibson's personal battles, which was quickly reverted by Yworo for lack of citation. "Gibson's personal life has been marred by accusations of homophobia, anti-semitism, and domestic violence -- he has previously attributed these problems to his battle with Alcoholism" I believe that sentence to be more than evidenced by the content in the "personal life" section, and find it odd (and slanted) that there is no mention of this aspect in the summary area. Yworo, which parts of my sentence do you feel need citation? My goal is to include an important aspect of Gibson in the summary area in the most Neutral way possible, please let me know what you feel is necessary to achieve that. Chrismurf (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with it being "designed by committee" for NPOV, but some mention of these (pervasive, ongoing) accusations should be made in the summary. Chrismurf (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that the current news is that the tapes many of the stories of domestic violence are based on may have been altered. I have no problem with the summary including the things currently in the article, but I think was should hold off until it's know whether the tapes are reliable or not before including things primarily based on them. See discussion a couple of sections up. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yworo, your comments make sense. Would the sentence I proposed be more appropriate if I removed the reference to domestic violence? Chrismurf (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. My apologies, I should have just removed that part, but this talk page was being vandalized repeatedly by an IP sock and I felt rushed. Go ahead and restore your addition without the domestic violence part. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am slightly rephrasing the text to remove the original-research issue. Fell Gleamingtalk 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your revisions, FellGleaming. Chrismurf (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Is Still Married???

You mean they have not even divorced yet? This should be clarified in the article, it *appears" that Mel is still married to this day (even though they filed for divorce). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A new twist to the allegation sections

There are now a lot of reliable sources stating that the released tapes may have been altered. The tapes have been turned over to the sherrif's department handling the allegations of abuse who say they are going to get them evaluated to see if they have been tampered with or not. This is just one of many sources talking about this. The attorney's for Gibson are also getting the tapes evaluated to see if they are authentic. Maybe the allegation stuff is too crystal ball like entries. So my thought is that maybe we should wait to have entries about these tapes in the article until reliable sources come through about all of this. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are now doubts about the tapes, I believe we should simply remove all material based on the tapes per WP:UNDUE. We have been seriously overemphasizing this material too soon without waiting for the situation to settle. IP editors have been saying the Gibson hasn't denied it so it must be true. However, if I were Gibson and knew the tapes were faked, I'd not have said anything either, as it was sure to be discovered sooner rather than later with all the commotion about it. Denying it was him would have been just about as effective as the denials of a Wikipedia sockpuppet. Yworo (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it all should be removed. I think we got into too much of a hurry to add this information to this article and the other articles that are mentioned. We need to wait until the court case about the custody hearing is finished and the information is allowed to be released. Right now it's closed sessions so we need to wait for the information to come out. I think this also goes towards his arrest on DUI. We can say he was arrested for DUI but until they decide whether they are pressing charges we need to stop and wait till this also comes to a conclusion. I think we need to stop basing conclusions on leaked information. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that it should be removed, per WP:UNDUE, pending further developments and/or further discussion from WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This stuff about the tapes should all still be mentioned even if it is proved the tapes were faked, its notable enough for a mention. Just as long as its written in a way that clearly states at present we dont know for sure if they are genuine or not. I also do not follow the no comment stance from Mel. If there was nothing true about the tapes then his lawyer of himself could have issued a statement right away saying they are fake. People may not of believed him, but there would be no reason not to get their side of things on the record. It would seem reasonable for tapes to be checked when dealing with serious allegations like this, it may not mean its likely they are fake. Also "altered" can mean many things, even if they were altered to make things more damaging, alot of the content is shocking.
As long as its well sourced and provides balance to the fact we cant know for sure if the tapes are real, i dont see why it should not be included. People would be far more shocked to come to this article and find any mention of it missing, than they would to see a sentence or two. It is not giving it undue weight considering the media attention this has gotten. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but we aren't the news we also shouldn't be in a hurry to rush and put the information into the article. Hopefully things will settle down and some good secondary and teritary sources will show up to use. The old stuff that was removed didn't. Of course this is my opinion. Also, policies get in the way of adding allegations of whatever. Let's wait until we get past the stage of allegations. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the person who somehow managed to bug Gibson's house (thus recording is domesitc life)? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I haven't seen anything about this, do you have references? I'd love to look at them if you do, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ya mean there's no sources? yikes. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I took it hook, line and sinker, thanks, :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult to accurately characterize this discussion, and the edits it inspired, while avoiding a violation of WP:NPA. I'll just say the "reasoning" here is patently ludicrous. A passing mention in a Reuters article of a few unnamed "reports" that the tapes might have been altered does not mean this issues is suddenly no longer notable. The removal of it on that basis is shockingly irresponsible, and utterly contrary to WP policy, incuding BLP and NPOV, as well as common sense. Shocking, shameful stuff here: let's please not have a repeat. IronDuke 00:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP says that the sources must be absolutely certain. It also says that if there is any doubt, we should err on the side of caution, and not include the material. The veracity of the tapes is in doubt, therefore we must leave the material out as explicitly stated in WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This material is cited; feel free to add sources alleging falsification, or to remove specific bits that are unsupported. Please do not wholesale remove coverage of patently obviously sourced subjects. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"BLP says that the sources must be absolutely certain." Well, I have to admit, that just about destroys my arg... wait a sec: where does it say that? IronDuke 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegation under "Family" section, not mentioned in citation.

Under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_gibson#Family

"to prevent her speaking publicly about the case" is not expressed in the cited article.

Cited article: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/25/mel-gibson-files-restraining-order-baby-mama-oksana-grigorieva/

The article says the conditions of the restraining order are legally classified, and I don't see anywhere that says it has anything to do with her speaking publicly about the case. It doesn't specify any of this anywhere in the article.

It is possible that the person who wrote this entry invented this element himself/herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.69.12 (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The unsupported detail is now removed, and a second supporting cite added - I was unsure how reliable fox news is. This Daily Mail report states the same thing and adds "details of the file are not available to the public." -84user (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That section still skips all over the place with little or no detail linking events. Out of the blue it mentions a "former girlfriend" Well when did she become his girlfriend in the first place? was this an old high school sweetheart that he drug his feet breaking up with her, like 40 years later, or was she a more recent girlfriend? Very sketchy time line and many other details are presented in a disjointed fashion. I realize everyone is a volunteer and trying their best, I'm just providing some feedback on that family section, not trying to say anyone is not doing a super job. but this section could use some TLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning to my "unsupported detail is now removed" above, I now see this Guardian 2 July article has "He also pressed to stop Grigorieva from disclosing certain information to the media," followed by some unattributed speculation. I agree with the above poster that the Family section is still a mess. Google News finds a few sources concerning Oksana: the Sydney Morning Herald reported on April 17, 2009 "Third Oksana linked with Mel Gibson", the earliest mention I could find; while the Daily Telegraph Sydney on April 29, 2009 reported "Mel Gibson goes public with his new love Oksana Grigorieva". Anyone fancy trying to first re-add what I removed and attempt to fix the rest of that section, please go ahead. -84user (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some new references

I am posting some reason references here for others to take a look at. [1], [2], [3]. Obviously some of this is just duplications. There are more if anyone cares to look. I just thought that the newer stories could help balance out some of the information that is in this article and of course her article. I am just trying to help gather some sources at this point. Hope these help, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient, I am adjusting the references above because looking at them with fresh eyes, I linked some that were old and didn't add the ones I intended to. With so many windows open during my search, it's easy to make this kind of error, sorry for any inconvience. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tmz.com. RadarOnline.com and others as legitimate entertainment news sources

It seems that certain individuals who have some need to control things beyond their ability or expertise do not understand how prescient and important that these and other sites are for entertainment news - not political news or other types of more substantive and meaningful news and information, but for their beat (celebrities and entertainment) they are as legitimate as a source as it gets. They have broken a number of entertainment stories that other, more mainline sites missed (Michael Jackson's death being a notable example), and yet using them as references more often than not gets the entire addition to an article reverted with orders to "get better sources". For this particular area, these are the legitimate, better sources. Please do not revert the work of others simply because you think you know better. Lately it seems that there is a fair amount of wiki stalking going on regarding reversion of the work of others that some people do not agree with. Consensus is what carries the day here, and any one individual's opinion regarding the veracity or legitimacy of anything someone else has posted (unless it is obvious to common sense) means that a consensus has too be reached before a revert is made, not after. Please do not simply dump someone else's work because you think you know better or have the "authority" to do so. It lessens wikipedia greatly to have these types of arguments going on within and about the site, and is arrogant, solipsitic and annoying as hell. Please follow the rules regarding both sources and editing - they apply to all of us, including you! Themoodyblue (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "solipsismic", no? Never seen the word before, so I'm just guessing. Dude - please relax a bit. This is sooooo not the place for this. If you want consensus for your edits, it's best to rationally discuss them in a manner that will convince other editors that it will improve the article. It's that simple - if you can't sway the "mini-community" watching this article: you fail to get your edits in. It is a community project, after all. It's best to focus on arguing (with compromise) the merit of your changes; and leave "wiki-stalking" and lecturing to the experts. Cheers, and Happy Editing, Themoodyblue... :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@Themoodyblue, there's no reason to be confrontational. Your edit contained admitted "gossip" and, on top of that, it wasn't properly sourced. Please, remain civil.  Chickenmonkey  05:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson filmography

Given the size of this article, does anyone object to splitting the filmography from this article into Mel Gibson filmography, as I have done in my sandbox?  Chickenmonkey  10:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A fine idea ;) go for it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem with this either. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it.  Chickenmonkey  20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibson's stalker

I would like to have this added to the article but I'm not sure where to put it. I just came across this and feel that it should be added under the movie section of The Passion of the Christ but not being sure I figured it would be best to add it here for input. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel is Australian not American

It says he is an American. I always thought he was Australian. That needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.74.82 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about actually reading the article you are commenting on? In it, his birthplace, citizenship etc. are made clear. Or are you contesting the veracity of the information given? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Extortion

Is it worth mentioning that his (ex?) wife is now under extortion investigation stemming from all this recent mess? http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-07-21-mel-gibson_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the source. If we do, we'll want to say something completely different than JahnTeller07's version. It's his ex-girlfriend, NOT his soon-to-be-ex-wife. It has NO connection to "this recent mess" that Gibson has gotten himself into. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Subsections?

I think that's an extraordinarily bad idea. IronDuke 01:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that neither one of you is presenting a very compelling argument. In fact, no one's presented any kind of argument. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you’re right there. I didn’t have anything to respond to, since nothing was put forth, just wanted to make sure a false consensus did not end up emerging. IronDuke 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol... really?

"Gibson and his former wife are believed to have contributed a substantial amount of money to various charities, one of which is Healing the Children." So the entire few sections have "Gibson said this, said that, did this, did that," and when something good appears about this oddball of Hollywood, it's "are believed to have..." I could "be bold" and do it myself, but It's locked. Anyone mind chainging this to something that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb? Like, "Gibson and his former wife contributed a substantial amount of money to various charities, one of which is Healing the Children." 64.234.0.101 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. Register an account: then you can edit as a "non-IP". It's pretty easy, really... Doc9871 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
DONE! --BwB (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Good edit. I agree with the reasoning in the edit summary, especially. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bounty

Should The Bounty really be listed as one of his notable films when it is widely regarded as the worst of the three versions and Gibson's portrayal of Fletcher Christian was dismissed by critics as bland? (92.10.20.179 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Of course it should be listed as one of his notable films, despite whatever "critical reception" you may be referring to. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But it was a critical and commercial flop and by far the least interesting version. Both Gibson and Anthony Hopkins have said the film was terrible. (92.0.58.239 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

"The film received mixed reviews, many liking the film for realism and historical accuracy as well as being an entertaining film. However, many were disappointed with the film,[who?] especially given its distinguished cast. Many critics[who?] singled out Gibson's performance as bland, particularly when compared to the performances given by Clark Gable and Marlon Brando in the two earlier MGM versions.[citation needed]". The article needs to be referenced, obviously. The Bounty's notabilty in Mel Gibson's career is not really disputable, considering his top-billing, the pairing with Anthony Hopkins, etc. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it certainly is disputable considering the film was a terrible box office flop and Gibson gave an awful performance. (92.0.58.239 (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Then it's notable for that as well. See WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether the film was horrible or the greatest thing since Being There is a moot point. Whether Gibson's performance makes Keanu Reeves look like a genius or was wonderful is a moot point. The question at hand is whether it is one of his most notable films. The current blurb here is tripe. As it currently reads, Gibson is added to the list of greats in the role, the film is the most historically acurrate, but Gibson wanted to bring out more of a character. Rather, the film seems to have received mixed reviews and has been largely forgotten, relative to the likes of Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Braveheart and such. I don't see a strong reason for including this. Gallipoli? Yes. The Bounty? Debatable. Apocalypto? No (recentism, even with its "further critical acclaim"...). - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're mentioning Being There, you're old enough to remember when The Bounty came out in the theater (I saw it on an airplane) ;> It was a big role in his early career (1984), and certainly "notable". All films receive "mixed reviews", btw. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My age and what I remember are moot. (Yeah, I'm "old enough to remember...", but the 20-somethings in my classes usually end up seeing Being There after a particular mid-term assignment.) Frankly, I vaguely recall The Bounty coming out. If it was a big film for his career, someone will have mentioned it somewhere. In addition to ending this discussion, it would give us a better connection to this biography than the current promotional blub. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, rottentomatoes' blurb on Gibson[4] makes mention of the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series, The Man Without a Face, Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ. We omit The Man... and adds Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously, Hamlet, Apocalypto and The Bounty. Out text supports Gallipoli nicely. The support for The Year... is a bit weaker. The case for Apocalypto is weak. Nothing currently included supports Hamelt or The Bounty. (The only argument I can see for The Man... is that it was Gibson's first time in the chair.) Personally, I !vote to ax Hamlet, Apocalypto and The Bounty. I'm fine with or without The Man.... - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've never even heard of The Year of Living Dangerously and The Man Without a Face is only a very minor film. Personally I think the notable film section should be removed. (92.0.58.239 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

It wasn't a big role because the film was terrible just like his performance. The 1935 version will always be the best. (92.0.58.239 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

The quality of the film and his performance is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.25.28.114, 25 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Mel is an avid student of European history. His father teaches a non-accredited class in Holocaust Studies. Mel's foundation has added the following to it's list of Financuial recpients; NOW, Anti-defamation League , NAACP, Hitler regalia fan club, White First Hooded Society of America.

75.25.28.114 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't say where you want this or what the source is. The source is the major thing needed. If you do not have a source, this may not be added but if you do, I'd be happy to add. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NOT misogynistic

Mel Gibson has never said anything misogynistic, he never stated hatred for ALL women, he clearly just made fun of his ex (one particular woman). --Nasturtiums (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying should be changed in the article and what are your sources for the proposed change? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He has made numerous misogynistic references to various females over the years, such as in his infamous interview with Playboy magazine. (92.11.180.57 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC))

Racism

The introduction should mention the fact he has been accused of racism due to his remarks. (92.11.180.57 (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC))

That he has been accused of racism is clearly documented, so I added it. (I couldn't decide on a particular reason for an order of the charges, so it's pretty much random. Any particular order anyone would care to suggest?) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism, anti-semitism, misogny and homophobia would be the correct order. (92.11.180.57 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC))

His photograph

I see a fotograph of when he was young, the picture was taken at 1990. Everyone gets old, so why not include more images of the aging process??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.67.111 (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone please change his picture to a much more recent one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.91 (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As soon as we find one with appropriate licensing, I'm sure someone will. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, it is due to licensing of the photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.171.15.183 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't someone at least crop the photo at the bottom (File:Mel Gibson with Domenica.jpg) or just use it in its entirety for the infobox in the meantime? The Air America picture is from twenty years ago - this is far too long. Doc talk 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

his age should be updated to 55 from to-day

i don't know how to do this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.52.68 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No change is needed. His age is displayed based on the birthdate given and the date your Wikipedia settings recognize (your local time zone). By the time you read this, your settings will most likely be recognizing the current date and adjusted his age to match. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Future films" section

Can probably be left blank or deleted for the forseeable future. 89.100.15.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

The "forseeable future" was about 2 months. The Beaver comes out May 6. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sedevacantist

Where is the evidence that Gibson is a Sedevacantist. This is not the same as being a traditionalist Catholic. Sedevacantists do not recognize the current Pope. Most traditionalist Catholics have great respect for the authority of the Pope. Unless there is a citation showing Gibson is a Sedevacantist this section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.128.43 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Which section is that? I don't currently see a claim that he is a Sedevacantist in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the box on the right under his religion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.128.43 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 May 2011

I've removed it as unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was only vaguely aware of Sedevacantism, before now, but a Google news archive search of "Mel Gibson Sedevacantist" returned a handful of articles.

Whether these are reliable enough to describe Gibson as a "Sedevacantist", I don't know.  Chickenmonkey  04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The gold standard here would be self-identification. Failing that -- and for such a controversial claim -- we're going to need something really solid.
The first one smells like an editorial. We certainly wouldn't use it to report that Gibson is "a decent actor" or "a raging alcoholic".
The second, IMO, is reasonably solid support for claiming his father is a Sedevacantist. I'll seat myself firmly on the fence on Mel "reportedly" being a Sedevacantist. I think the sourcing is... meh. I question how encyclopedic it is to say he is "reportedly" anything.
The third one is clearly an editorial. At most, it supports that the individual author believes Gibson was reportedly a Sedevacantist. That's a whole pile of qualifiers: 1) the author's 2) belief 3) was 4) reportedly. Yikes.
Fortunately or un-, unless there's an old source out there somewhere, I don't think we'll find anything solid. Gibson is a huge name. Either it isn't true so we won't hear it or Gibson and his agent know better than to let something like this out. In public opinion it's one thing to have non-mainstream beliefs, it's something else entirely to be a member of a group that makes strong claims against an individual mainstream religion. Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Your reasoning sounds solid, to me.  Chickenmonkey  05:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hiroshihai, 23 May 2011

The following line(s) seem unnecessary and inappropriate:

  • Sexist Pig Award from the Alliance of Women Film Journalists (2011) [1]

Regardless of personal opinion of a public figure, the "Sexist Pig Award" does not really belong on a list of award or accomplishments as it is neither positive nor does it belong on a list of accolades. The sections regarding Gibsons personal troubles speak well enough on the facts and issues without the addition of personal opinion such as this.

Hiroshihai (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, not a real award, I removed it. --Daniel 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone make this date format consistent with others? "On July 8, 2010, Gibson was alleged to have made an ethnic slur against Latinos..." Should be 8 July 2010. 74.231.46.68 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to make the edit. Go to the "Racism" section. To the right, Click on [edit]. If you need more assistance, I would be happy to help. --Javaweb (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
The article is semi-protected. IPs cannot edit the article at the moment. I've made the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Next time I will look for a lock icon on the top right hand side. I mistakenly checked for a text box. --Javaweb (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

West Plea needed explanation

I referenced the case # in the article that I got here which is not a wonderful source. --Javaweb (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Marriage

The "Spouse" portion of the box under Mr. Gibson's picture says "Robyn Moore Gibson (m. 1980–present)," but under the "Family" section of the article it says that he split with his wife in 2009. Can someone please verify his current relationship status (if anybody actually cares)." Lee (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sordini2, 9 September 2011 - New Movie

{{edit semi-protected}} According to Deadline.com Mel Gibson is working on a new film about Jewish hero Judah MaccabeeMel Gibson And Joe Eszterhas To Collaborate On Film Telling Jewish Hero Judah Maccabee Story For Warner Bros. It is a currently untitled drama that teams Gibson and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas.Mel Gibson Making Judah Maccabee Film With Warner Bros.

Sordini2 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Casting him as a director or perhaps as the star of Judah Maccabee is like casting Madoff to be the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a white supremacist as trying to portray Martin Luther King Jr." Ugh - this is gonna be fun ;> Doc talk 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"deadline.com" is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  03:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


"Political Views" section

Resolved

The first quote about Gibson being described as "ultraconservative" is not backed up by the source. It may be entirely made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.136.2 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The cite links to the second page of the source. On the first page of the same source, we find this: "The Passion experience--especially the part in which critics hurled anti-Semitism charges at Gibson, an ultraconservative Roman Catholic whose father has questioned whether the Holocaust happened--thickened Gibson's hide along with his wallet." - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship

Mel Gibson was born in upstate New York and moved to Australia as a child. At no time has he ever had Australian citizenship. Previous versions of this page have listed him as "Australian-American," which is inaccurate as it connotes immigration from Australia. He simply resumed living in the United States as an adult, so he should be referenced as "American" and not "Australian-American."[2]Johnnyvaillan (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Gibson's nationality has been a very popular topic of discussion on this talk page. Although the basic facts of his life don't seem disputed, there is disagreement about whether he is "Australian-American", "Irish-American", "Australian", or whatever. The article already talks about his birthplace, his family heritage, where he grew up, his citizenship, and so on. Therefore, I see little value in giving a potentially misleading one- or two-word summary. For now I've removed the (contradictory) claims of his nationality from the lead and infobox. I would suggest leaving them omitted unless we get either (1) a consensus with a sound basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines or (2) agreement among reliable sources. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to Irish-American since this is what the article states and supports. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
...And Windyjarhead changed it to American without comment, and I've removed it again. I don't see how "Irish-American" is justifiable given that his father was born in the US and his paternal grandmother in Australia. He doesn't fit neatly into any simple category, and we've no business forcing one upon him. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Which citizenship(s) does he currently hold? Jim Michael (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Irish-American is more justifiable since his mother was from Ireland and he holds Irish citizenship! His father's mother is irrelevant. Obviously he does fit into a neat category since he has dual citizenship -- Irish and American...not Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.121.7.43 (talk) 5:57, 14 August 2011

Why so harsh re: Mel?

Wow! Seems like Wikipedia really has it in for Mel! It's like everything little negative thing you could find about him, you put on his Wiki page. I mean stupid little stuff!!! Who hasn't made said something dumb before? Really? We don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.10.95 (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, anonymous. However, every "dumb" thing you've said before hasn't been the subject of extensive press coverage. If it had, we'd be writing about you. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Anonymous, thank you for sharing your opinion. Have you ever said this:

Winona Ryder, talking about Mel Gibson::

I remember, like, fifteen years ago, I was at one of those big Hollywood parties. And he was really drunk. I was with my friend, who's gay. He made a really horrible gay joke. And somehow it came up that I was Jewish. He said something about 'oven dodgers,' but I didn't get it. I'd never heard that before. It was just this weird, weird moment. I was like, 'He's anti-Semitic and he's homophobic.' No one believed me!

— Winona Ryder, Alex Pappademas (January 2011). "Winona Forever". GQ.

So, not every "dumb" thing he has said is in the article. I don't know that dumb is an accurate way to describe him and the word "dumb" does not appear in the article. --Javaweb (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Irish American

What's with the Irish thing? Australian...also his ancestry is Scottish/Irish, he is a member of Clan Bunchannan (# ^ Derek Lambie, ‘Sporran Legion’, The Express on Sunday (30 May 2004), p. 49.) I think its miss leading putting Irish, Australian-American would be a better suit...

Isn't Mel Gibson Irish American? He has an Irish mother, & an American father and just happened to live in Australia...

incorrect, Mel's mother is Australian who is of irish ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.126.39 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The text says he holds both Irish and US citizenship, but the info box claims his nationality is Australian/US. Which is it?

How is he Irish-American if he's born in New York? American of Irish ancestry/descent perhaps, but not Irish-American. 66.9.167.110 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC) jAN 20, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.167.110 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 89.126.56.62 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying he's Irish American is stupid, everyone knows he's an Australian-American —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.83.164 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not "Australian-American', his father Hutton's mother Eva Mylott was Australian which allowed Hutton to immigrate to Australia at one point. Mel was born in the US and never an Australian citizen.(24.62.224.219 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Why Irish-American he was born in the U.S and he lives there! --Pioelad (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be changed it's quite silly actually, he has ever been identified as an Irish American. It should either say 'Australian-American' or simply just 'American' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.248.67 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would it say 'Australian-American' just because he lived in Australia for a number of years and was never a citizen (!??) That makes Zero sense! Living someplace does not make you a citizen, so what are you basing the Australian thing on? He was not born there, he was never a citizen, and only his grandmother was Australian! He did not qualify for citizenship by birth (though his father did!) and has always been a US citizen! The term 'Australian' does not even fit here in the slightest despite idiotic pronouncements such as "everyone knows he's an Australian-American". Wikipedia is predicated on facts. People thinking he should be called Australian with no real reason behind it is what's "stupid". (24.62.224.219 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from BpNinaP, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Mel Gibson is not ROMAN Catholic. He is in communion with a traditionalist Latin Rite independent catholic jurisdiction like the Society of St. Pius X or the Society of St. Pius V. His jurisdiction is not in union with the Roman Catholic Church.


BpNinaP (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan Talk Contributions 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Arderydd, 23 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


Nationality in first praragph is Australian-American Nationality, not Irish-America. Noticed this had been changed to "Irish-American" from "Australian-American" after last visit.


Arderydd (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please see the section immediately below. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Television and Cinema

ADDITION needed in 2nd Paragraph?: "...IN 1979, after Mad Max, Gibson also played a mentally slow youth in the film "Tim," A FILM WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY MICHAEL PATE, BASED ON THE 1974 NOVEL BY COLLEEN MCCULLOUGH, AND FOR WHICH GIBSON RECEIVED THE AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR. I found this information on your page for "Tim." 76.244.162.2 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

Section AWARDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: shouldn't you add, "1979, Best Actor Award by the Australian Film Institute for the film, "Tim." I found this on your page for MEL GIBSON. Thank you.76.244.162.2 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DUI section

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Gibson's anti-semitic tirade occured during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War? (92.7.25.234 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Why? --Daniel 22:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish reaction to "Passion" play movie

The article does a poor job of recording the Jewish reaction to the movie. A typical reaction from William Safire (March 1, 2004). "Not Peace, but a Sword". New York Times.:

What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?

Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault

The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers...

— William Safire


This article does not need a "Jewish reaction" to a film by Mel Gibson nor does it need a Hindu reaction to any of his films. This article already has a disproportionate amount of criticism (compared to other actors who have said racist/hateful things) and it needs condensed. 150.212.46.144 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason the criticism section is so extensive is the reliable sources have given a lot of coverage to his ... um ... behavior. Condensing the section because you feel he's been criticized too much is not justified. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

sexist pig award

does the sexist pig award need to be mentioned? I mean, it looks quite snarky stacked up against the academy awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.202.18 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call - doesn't seem notable at all. Removed. Doc talk 09:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Should've kept it. It fits, he received it and now this looks like a puff piece for the guy. Typical wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This "puff piece for the guy" says a whole lot of things I wouldn't want said about me...
In any case, the question is not whether it "fits" (there's no space limit). The question is whether this is an important distinction. Gibson is famous. Lots of people say lots of things about him. Most of those things aren't worth mentioning. Widely held opinions that are worth including will be well documented in reliable sources. Notable people saying something significant about him may or may not be worth including. How do we tell? Those worth including will be well documented in reliable sources. Lots of organizations give lots of awards. Some of those may be worth including. How do we tell? Those worth including will be well documented in reliable sources. Notice a pattern? In this case, the award has received no coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. If you can find such a source, feel free to add it. That is typical Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of citations

Info on his filmography differs from other film sites so where did yours come from? It doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

His filmography is briefly summarized (and well sourced) in this article. His complete filmography is at Mel Gibson filmography. If you have questions about that one, please ask there. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Name should be sourced

These ones [5] [6] says "Columcille" while this one [7] says "Colmcille", neither says "Colm-Cille" but why not? The rest is as in the current intro. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

American-born Australian actor

I've added sourcing for this and also point out that EB's entry on him uses this wording. I think it is a nice compromise. He became notable as an Australian actor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do you define citizenship? By listing him as an American-born Australian actor it connotes that he possesses Australian citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that persons born in the United States have American citizenship. When exactly did Mr. Gibson renounce his American citizenship and obtain Australian citizenship? This is not an acceptable compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyvaillan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Australian is being used as an identifying adjective and does not necessarily denote citizenship. He had the legal standing of permanent resident of Australia when he began his acting career. Nonetheless, we use what is published in reliable sources and this is one of the ways that he is referred to. Other sources that I'm looking at list "American-born but Australian-reared actor" and "American-born Australian-claimed actor. I can produce these if we decide that one of those is more appropriate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that he was a permanent resident of Australia when he began his acting career, but your use of "American-born Australian" is misleading in my opinion. Use of the word "Australian" at all connotes citizenship. By my use of the simple term "American" I am describing his citizenship status, which is correct--he is still an American. Why are you so insistent on using "Australian"? And why can't we use "American-born but Australian-reared" here? That would be a much more acceptable compromise in my opinion.Johnnyvaillan (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
When you made that adjustment the other day, I took the time to look around at different sources to see how he was described and thought it was more accurate. As for "American-born but Australian-reared"...we could use that; I'm the one who suggested it as an alternative. :) Before making such a change, however, I think that we should allow other editors to comment so that we can form a consensus. I'd suggest giving it a couple of days.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the source, btw.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I know you suggested it, that's why I said it:) Thought I was giving you credit. Good call on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyvaillan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As of now the article states that he is a US citizen by birth and an Irish citizen by decent from his Irish born mother. Is he also an Australian citizen? The article and this talk page isn't clear. It would improve the article if his possible Australian status was clarified. Thanks.--TGC55 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Honors says: On 25 July 1997, Gibson was named an honorary Officer of the Order of Australia (AO), in recognition of his "service to the Australian film industry". The award was honorary because substantive awards are made only to Australian citizens.
That virtually says he is not an Australian citizen. Or wasn't in 1997; but I'm not aware of any change since then. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jack. I had seen the Honors section and the word "honorary" but wasn't sure of its relationship to OZ citizenship. Thanks for the clarification -- as of 1997 at any rate. Up until today, I thought that he was Australian and had really developed a good American accent, not realizing that it was the other way around.--TGC55 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
See Order of Australia#Honorary awards for more detail on this. Regardless of the citizenship issue, we always regarded Gibson as an Australian (certainly by residence, acculturation and training) who just happened to be an American citizen. But these days, after all the anti-semitic bullshit, we don't really want to know him. The best we'll say is he's an American who just happened to spend a few years in Australia. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Future films citation 84

Nowhere in the primary document does it mention cast or crew of Hangover 2 objecting to Mel's appearance in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legit edit (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"'I thought Mel would have been great in the movie and I had the full backing of Jeff Robinov and his team,' Mr. Phillips said ... 'I realize film-making is a collaborative effort, and this decision ultimately did not have the full support of my entire cast and crew.'" How would you suggest we word it? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Hes irish american his father is Irish american and his mother was Irish there should be more info for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.10.166 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder?

I can't help but notice that the category, "People with bipolar disorder", has been added to the article, except it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Are there some sources for this? Otherwise, it needs to be removed immediately. 69.165.140.210 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad people are spotting things like this, but in fact, it is mentioned and sourced in the article, in the second sentence under Mel_Gibson#Alcohol_abuse_and_legal_issues. It's referred to by its historical name of "manic depression". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does everyone jump to hold the Bi Polar card when they happen to be complete wankers? I'm serious. Its descriminatory to insinuate that people with BP are prone to abusive or out of order behaviour. If your a celeb you can buy a diagnosis for milk tokens.

VinDibs (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's mother's birthplace

We are told she was born in County Longford, Ireland, and then we are told The move to Hutton's mother's native Australia.... Which is it, anybody know? JohnClarknew (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see where the confusion is occurring. Gibson's mother was born in County Longford, Ireland. His grandmother was born in Australia. "Hutton's mother" is Mel Gibson's grandmother.  Chickenmonkey  06:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy

I am requesting to add an addition to Mel Gibson's page in Philanthropy under Personal Life. I wish to add "Gibson is also a supporter of 'Angels at Risk', a nonprofit organization highlighting prevention education for drug and alcohol use and abuse with teens and their families." Source:http://angelsatrisk.com/

I wish to add this because Mel Gibson and his previous wife were primary supporters and are still members of the "Angels at Risk Crew" Source:http://angelsatrisk.com/?page_id=894

Cameron Love (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done That source isn't ideal - if we could find another, better one, that would be great. However, it seems very brief mention of this would be ok. I've added it to the article, trimmed a bit. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks

Yeah how about when he said he wanted to fuck his wife oksana up the ass while stabbing her to death? Why isn't that one in here? I do not see this section in other actors Wikipedia note (and please don't say other actors did not make controversial remarks)- one would have to have IQ of a peanut to include this section or author/authors of this section must be an alleged racist/racists. Wikipedia more and more is a garbage information - when even high school dropouts are ridiculing Wikipedia as the most unreliable and biased source of information on Internet - it is time to worry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.28.92 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "'Sexist Pig' Mel Gibson Sneaks Into Awards Race". movieline.com.
  2. ^ http://www.popeater.com/2010/07/25/australian-celebrities/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mel_Gibson/Archive_4&oldid=1142770028"