Talk:Mel Gibson

Edit request: "allegations of Anti-semitism"

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change section title from "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" to "Anti-Semitic Comments" simply "Anti-Semitism"

His Anti-Semitic incident has been well documented and acknowledged by Gibson himself (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident), and is not "alleged". This would be like calling John Edwards's affair "alleged".

Please consider this change. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.189.34 (talk • contribs)

Not done. This is a judgment call and we aren't in the habit of making judgment of article subjects. See WP:NPOV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ha ha ha too funny, are you gibson's publicist? he clearly engaged in anti-Semitic talk, it's been written about in every paper in north america, and you call it "alleged" ha ha ha Gibson's publicist = 1 Wikipedia = 0 Nice work Mel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wildhart is correct. While Gibson might have made remarks that were anti-semetic, that doesn't make him an anti-semite. If someone tells a joke that uses a racial epitath or blurts out one while angry, that doesn't mean that they necessarily bear some prejudice against that group. Hell, groups even use some of them among themselves. So are you going say that if one black man calls another black man a ni*ger, that man must be racist against blacks? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If making self-acknowledged highly anti-Semitic comments doesn't make one an anti-Semite, what does (short of actually killing Jews)? Are you seriously implying that a person can tell racist jokes and make angry racial slurs, but yet not be a racist or prejudiced? If so, should you really be editing articles that touch on these subjects? Heywood J2 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'Anti Semitic' comments made by Mr Gibbson need to be seen in context with his dispute at the time with Jewish leaders over the script of 'The Passion of the Christ'. Jewish leaders felt Mr Gibson was casting them in a bad light, Mr Gibson responded that he was respecting the historical integrity of the subject matter. Had he not become embroiled in the argument over the Script for 'Passion' he would probably have never made any comments about jews.Johnwrd (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish American

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

Edit request from Octokels02, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Name: Mel "Melon" Gibson

Octokels02 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for demonstrating why this article is edit protected. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is Colum-cille hyphenated? I've never seen that anywhere else - if that really is how his name is presented the argument that he's Irish American (whatever that means) is even more nonsensical. 78.152.203.97 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How is the antisemitism alleged?

If he hiself confirmed it, then it is not alleged. Alleged means that it is an allegation, that it is not. Especially because he confirmed it. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What did he confirm? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That he made those antisemitic remarks to the cop.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Using a slur while drunk doesn't make you "antisemitic". It gave rise to allegations of it and questions about it and those allegations and questions are in the bio, as is his sober apology and denial of antisemetism. Facts are covered, not the conclusion you draw from them.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Will you please explain why you feel the section need broken into seperate sections? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I explained in my edit, the previous method of organization suggested that the comments were alleged. They were listed in "Alleged antisemitism. The antisemitism from the passion, is alleged. Confusion arises from the juxtaposition. The comments were anti-semitic, it is my opinion that he is too, but I will not impose that. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Niteshift36 here. The sections do not need to be split and it is a strong violation of WP:BLP to make a section devoted to "antisemetic remarks". A slur while drunk does not define one as anti-semetic. Splitting out the section the way it was done violates all guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, I see this as a weight issue. With your proposal, you have 2 sections labelling things as "antisemetic". It makes more sense to me to have a single section where any allegations (ie both) are dealt with, rather than throwing the term into bold printed section titles twice. The drunked comments led to allegations of anti-semetisim, so they can be properly addredd uder that heading. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Labeling his antisemitic statements as alleged is false. He did make those statements. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Again, a drunken use of an ethnic slur doesn't make him anti-semetic. What it led to, in a much bigger manner, was questions and allegations of anti-semetism by the "he really meant them" or the "you say what you really mean when you're drunk" crowds. Thus the topic of allegations of anti-semetism is addressed properly in a single section. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make him antisemitic but the statements were. It's not alleged that he made those statements. You can't label the statements as alleged.

(ec) Iankap is correct -- the statements are about as antisemitic as it gets, and MG agreed they were antisemitic. I believe he does not, however, think of himself as an antisemite. Therefore, it would be perhaps proper to discuss his "alleged antisemitism," but the remarks themselves are clear. IronDuke 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The remarks led to allegations of anti-semetism. Duke, are you saying leave it as is or seperate them into two sections? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

True but the remarks themselves were alleged, as it is leads to confusion of that.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The text on the the topic of the remarks is very clear: "A leaked report revealed that during Gibson's July 28, 2006, arrest for driving under the influence, he made anti-Semitic remarks to arresting officer James Mee, who is Jewish, saying, "Fucking Jews... Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"[94] Gibson issued two apologies for the incident through his publicist, and in a later interview with Diane Sawyer, he affirmed the accuracy of the quotations." In reading that section, nobody would get the impression that the remarks were "alleged". The remarks led to allegations of anti-semitism. The lead says: "Gibson has been accused of anti-Semitism over two issues" That is accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt most people read the paragraphs fully, again, it is said once that he affirmed the accuracy, but it is under a freaking title ALLEGED. --Iankap99 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think that making changes while this is being discussed is starting to look like an agenda. What is your rush? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to figure out a way to amend the issue --Iankap99 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• You "figure it out" by discussing it here, not by edit warring. I won't violate the 3RR over this, but you last edit make no sense at all. The text is perfectly clear that the remarks were made and it says in the same paragraph that Gibson confirmed the accuracy of the quote. There is no good reason to say it twice. It's redundant and completely unecessary. Maybe a different editor will revert the redundant entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The redundancy is justified in this case.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not. The (now) second part is much better written. It specifies who confirmed it (Gibson himself) and when he confirmed it (during the interview with Diane Sawyer). Again, that you insist on making changes during the discussion smacks of POV pushing. But I will take this time to point out that you are now at 3 reverts (as am I) and any further reverts on this article (ther than vandalism or BLP vios etc) will put you over the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this article, if you can edit the article in a way that demonstrates clearer that the comments were not alleged, I would be fine with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The article already did say that before you started editing. It said, quite clearly that he said them, that he admitted it on national TV and apologized for them. You didn't say anything that wasn't already said. Instead, you jammed a phrase in that simply repeats what is already said and was said better. Repeating the same thing is not an improvement, it's redundant. And I'm sorry, I don't buy the no vested interest part. You insisted on forcing the edits in, despite being asked more than once to discuss it first and get a consensus. You clearly want to highlight this issue more than it was, so you ignored the fact that the discussion was going on and just did whatever you pleased. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe there's a better way to do it... Not "Antisemitism controversies", as that is clumsy, but something that gets at that idea. IronDuke 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• So what are you suggesting then? The current title is in line with the other one about allegations of homophobia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for long delayed reply. I think that the antisemitism stuff has had far more airplay, and impact on MG's life, than the homophobia stuff. Perhaps "DUI Incident" as a header, then a subheader with "Impact of antisemitic statements." IronDuke 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

The bio box in the upper right shows Gibson married 1980 - present. He was actually divorced last year. Someone should update that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.33.141 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that confirms the divorce is final. We don't change the status until a divorce is final. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, he is still married. In practical effect, his marriage is as gone as his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But the article itself implies the divorce is final (in April 2009), and mentions nothing about it being uncertain - right now it's just confusing - surely the article should be internally consistent even if there are doubts about the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.22.157 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The caption for the photo in the philanthropy section refers to her as his former wife. 68.42.176.86 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Diablita1985, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Request apparently retracted by requester ([1]); discussed in the thread above anyway. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Skillen, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In paragraph just before the philanthropy heading, the blockquote is malformed. Search for the word blockquote in the displayed entry to find.

Skillen (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Algebraist 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of "n------"

If it must be used in this form because the use of the actual word is unsourced, then it can't link to Nigger, because that doesn't make any sense, it implies that he said "niggers" even though the sources don't explicitly say so. The use of "n------" which links to Nigger is just a sneaky way to accuse him of saying it without having the word itself in the article. The implication suggested by the link is unsourced in the same sense that use of the word in the first place would be. If it must be sourced, then the link should be removed. Information implied by links is no different than actual text. If someone linked "jews" to "devil" that's no different than writing "jews are the devil".

Or the word should be simply used in its normal form, because this is a case of people going over the top with the policy on sources.

Some sources do quote the word uncensored, such as Gawker [2]; that justifies our doing so. I think it's a bit odd to argue that 'n-----s' could refer to any other word, but as some sources have made it clear what it (allegedly) was, we don't have to worry about it. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, I'm the one who put in the uncensored version. My comment was a reaction to the editor before me who censored the word because of a lack of a source, but linked it to Nigger, as if that was somehow different. There is no reason to apply a different standard of evidence to information implied through links (which should IMO be avoided in the first place) and information that is explicitly written. The link implied he said "niggers" just as strongly as stating it outright does.

Undue weight issues?

I've just been reading through the article and from here down seems like too much weight given to the diffent topics (up to the table). Does anyone else see issues with these sections in a biography of a living person? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Personal life" section seems to go into things in unnecessary detail. Repeating the content of a 15-year-old interview in Playboy in which he called someone a cunt seem gratuitous. And flying to Mexico for a religious ceremony - so what? And since when did we regard WorldNetDaily as a suitable source for biographies, with its speculation about support for him running for President? And denying a rumour that his daughter was going to become a nun - is this at all relevant to a biog of Gibson? And citing TMZ, a gossip rag? This whole section needs looking at again for sourcing, weight and neutrality. Could post to the BLP/N to see if anyone has the will and energy to give it a go. Fences&Windows 14:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one agree with you totally, thank you for looking into this. I don't have time right now to pursue this further, see my notice on my talk page. If no one else follows up on this then I will. I think what you talk about should be removed immediately per biographies of a living person. Would someone please remove the ones here that have bad sources and anything else that breached this policy? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up the whole section, removed overlinking and excess quotes, dodgy sourcing, synthesis, and undue weight to minor events. Hopefully it is more balanced now. Fences&Windows 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Misogyny?

From the article: "In July 2010, it was reported that he had been caught on voicemail making misogynistic and racist remarks"

I'm unclear how anything he said to that Russian woman was misogynistic. He clearly was feeling hatred for that one particular woman, but its far from clear that anything he said had an objectively anti-woman meaning. Hatred for one woman is not hatred for all of them. Its certainly true that mainstream media outlets have characterized his remarks as misogynistic, but shouldn't the article reflect the fact that some people interpret his remarks that way, rather than that they necessarily have such a meaning? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling a woman 'cunt' as many times as Mel Gibson did is undoubtedly misogynistic.SlamBurger (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, to suggest that a woman might get raped because it was her fault, due to the way she was dressed, is also undoubtedly misogynistic. The attitude that a woman 'is asking for it' and somehow provokes a rape, rather than a rape being the responsibility of the perpetrator, is a typically misogynistic view. 86.150.97.102 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SlamBurger and 86.150.97.102. These are multiple examples of misogynist behavior. I don't understand why someone deleted the section, despite ample sources and quotes indicating this was very serious. The issue of misogyny deserves equal attention to racism and homophobia, they are equally serious allegations, especially since the sexist quotes were accompanied with threats of violence and actual violence, thus I have restored the section.Agiseb (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove "White Supremacist" from near top of article. Unless someone can give a Quality source for it.

While it is undoubtedly true that Mr. Gibson has melted down invarious times and places, and has said some foolish and even grossly insulting things, (some under the influence of alcohol) he is not a "White Supremacist". If someone wishes to offer a solid source showing he is a member of such a white supremacist group, that would justify use of that phrase. This "white supremacist" ephithet does not meet with the standards for living persons. I will attempt to remove it.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.236.30.149, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove "White Supremacist" from the first paragraph. This is inappropriate and libelous without a credible reference. 129.236.30.149 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would someone explain to my why the addition of youtube.com here is acceptable? My understanding is that site is not acceptable for most things due to copyright issues. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is OK, it's on a university's channel. There's a draught proposal on this issue at WP:VIDEOLINK. Whether it's a good source or important to include is another matter. It's a panel discussion of his film, The Passion of Christ. Fences&Windows 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I don't think the source is good enough to put into a BLP article but that my opinion. I think there is way too much stuff that is negative about him, and I'n no fan of his behaviors, but as an actor he is good and more balance needs to be added about his work. Maybe I'm wrong about this but while I was posting the note to you this was added to the article. I looked at the reference and there was no demanding. He stated he would get a blow job. I think way to much undo weight is be used in this article about his negatives. Thoughts? I also think same about the added comments about youtube.com. Moonriddengirl is excellent about about copyright things, do you think I should invite her to comment here? Thanks again for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored that link simply because it was a deadlink that needed fixing. I have no particular attachment to it. If folks want to delete the material as irrelevant I won't be upset. But in its defense, it's a neutral comment by a notable person who is apparently well-acquainted with the subject. I only listened to the relevant passage, so I don't know what else is said in the video. As for the copyright, it's the USC/Annenberg channel, and they put on the event, so I presume the copyright should be OK.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization

I'm not sure about splitting the fallout from the phone call between "Family" and "Allegations of racism." It seems to me that the leak of the recording, and subsequent fallout, should all be in one place. It has already had a major impact on MG, in that his agency dropped him. Thoughts? IronDuke 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If your saying this should be consolidated together under the family title, I agree. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. This goes way beyond the topic of family. IronDuke 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of...

I removed the sections titled 'Allegation of'. He either did it or he didn't, so allegation is not appropriate imho. I do have a problem with these three sections though since they are covered extensively in other articles about his anti-semitism, homophobia and racism. Someone did clean them out so they weren't so bloated but do they really need to be in this article this way? Can't they be put under a neutral termology and put together instead of spread out like they are? It just seems wrong for a BLP to have so much negative information added in this way. There seems to be more negatives then positives in this article. I don't approve at all with his behavior but still there has to be way to make mention of the negatives so that it doesn't overwhelm this articles. Anyone have any suggestion?

Also there is an article about his DUI, this section needs to be scaled down a lot I think. I would like opinions about hsi too please. If there is an article about something, which there are since the articles are shown in the different sections, then usually only a sentence or two in the main artilce is usually mentioned, right? Thanks for any attentions to this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this after your note at my talk page, I've restored the "Allegation of..." language for now, as I'm afraid that baldly titling the sections might suggest that we do believe they're true. One can be guilty of DUI, but we can't really conclude that somebody is guilty of homophobia unless he admits it himself. We can assess their behavior, but we can't definitively pin down the attitude that caused it. Anyway, I'll seek feedback at WP:BLPN. Maybe some of the editors there can help find a way to convey the controversies without over-emphasizing them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your promptness. No problem with reverting me either. I sure hope someone has an idea about how to fix this. I don't which is why I am asking for help about this. Thanks again, I'll be sure to keep an eye on things. I'm not here that often lately due to RL situations but I do try to check in. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-semitism

This section does not discuss allegations - it details the subject admitting anti-Semitic remarks. Any reason not to re-title? Leegee23 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we need suggestions. I also thing the allegtion of needs to consolidated or something because it's to mush undue weight in my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The section should simply be titled "Anti-semitism". (92.5.16.189 (talk) 17:12, 14 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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? --CrohnieGal^Talk 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? --CrohnieGal^Talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Demanding oral sex"

I'm not sure that's the best way to interpret "Smile and blow me". I'm pretty sure it was just an insult, not an actual demand for sex. So, maybe that bit should be rephrased? 70.43.199.66 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should give his actual words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't there be a current picture of Gibson on here, rather than one twenty years old? I could see if he was dead, putting a picture up from when his career was at its peak. Maybe it's because his career is dead? 174.91.0.57 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find one that is not copyright protected, give a link and it will be added, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

TMZ has some very good quality photos of Mel that are all recent. Maybe they would allow Wiki to use one. Can someone like me write TMZ and just ask permission to use one of their photos for our article? I bet they'd be happy to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think writing TMZ to ask permission to copy one of their photos will be productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

why mel left wife #1

in the tape mel says "“I left my wife because we had no spiritual common ground.”" should that go in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean in the "alleged tape"? It's alleged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really a tape. The voice on it is alleged (and widely accepted) to be that of Mel Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't his voice then his spokesman would have denied it by now. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Wildhartlivie makes a good point, has she claimed the voices are hers and his? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

She has indeed confirmed that they are. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Attack BLP

This article is awful, allegations and attack commentary. It is in need of a rewrite. There is also a thread at the BLP noticeboard regarding the article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, or to do a decent rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's all true and sourced actually. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Even sourced items can go against biographies of a living person and not belong do to undo weight issues. Most of what Off2riorob and others are saying, including me, is that this article needs to be rewritten so it follows BLP, weight issues and other policies which right now it doesn't do. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, could you offer some specifics? Articles like this one often garner critics due to what they perceive as a negative tone of the subject matter. Everything in this article is well sourced. All of the "alleged" this and "alleged" that does seem odd, not the allegations or documentation, but the formatting seems odd. He is also a talented director and actor and I think the article does a good job of bringing all these things to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibson is far more famous for all the terrible things he has done than for his long-gone "acting" career. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree. Everything in this article is true. It just happens to incredibly negative, but it is what it is; you can't change it, that's what has happened in his life. These allegations almost absolutely overshadow his acting career. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We still have to follow policies, esp. BLP. Claims that his acting career us over has been said before and he still had people coming to watch him. So don't say it over until it's really over. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a few IP accounts here that think this is a wikipedia good article, if I didn't like this living person I would be happy with it, that is not what we are looking for, perhaps in a tabloid rag mag but we have higher standards than that and our article should reflect those standards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this but what is untrue or gossip in this article? The allegations are supported with reliable sources without any other unnecessary commentary. If you have specific examples then perhaps we can reach a consensus but as of now most people are just saying the article is "too negative". Well what do you expect when the latest and now probably most memorable period of his life is shrowed in so much negativity. And I never said his acting career is over, it just happens that it is very unlikely people will ever remember him for much more than these recent racist, sexist, and profane outbursts of his.

If anything the "Allegations of" sections should be condensed into fewer section(s), especially the recent stuff dealing with what he said on the tapes. Perhaps condensing the information and removing repeat information will bring the article more in line with what you seem to be looking for. A possibility would be to create a "Controversies" section and include subsections there for his separate incidents. But by no means should these sections just be deleted. What he said and the fact that he said these things is now well documented by reliable sources, not mentioning these recent news stories would be lunacy. This is not tabloid trash anymore, it is the truth. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All the reliable sources are doing is pointing out that tabloids and gossip columns are quoting what are alleged to be tapes of Gibson. If you read them, you will see that this is true. The facts have not been verified by the reliable sources, and those sources are using the word "alleged" frequently. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps these sources should be updated. The Los Angeles Times source does not use the word alleged in the entire article and treats the rants as fact. Yahoo, AOL, Fox News, CNN among others are reporting these rants as fact now. At this later date it is now well established that the man on the tapes is in fact Gibson. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So you say. I notice that you didn't link any of these alleged sources so they can be examined for reliability. Yworo (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1

2

3

There's a few. The LA Times one is already in the article. The point I'm trying to make is that I am not defending or attacking Mel Gibson. The point I'm trying to make is that these allegations have been made is now a fact. Whether these allegations are true is a different story. But in my opinion they are serious and memorable enough to warrant inclusion. I'm not sure if I made that clear before.148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The first is a gossip column blog post. Not reliable. The other two use "alleged" or "purported", etc. They all clearly source their material to an unreliable source. You claimed there were reliable sources that don't distance themselves from making direct statements, but the links you'd provided don't support that contention. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what 148.129.129.154 is trying to point out is simply that the allegations were made, not that there is any truth to them. Sure the sources are all saying Mel was "alleged" to have said this and that, which is pretty much accepted at this point. But if that's all he's talking about then I think he's proved his point. I think a lot of this discussion is unnecessary right now. I think we can all agree that the man on the tapes is indeed Gibson and that this story isn't going away. The problem is that every source is going to say "alleged" until Mel or a representative comes out and indeed confirms that Mel is in fact the person on the tape. Therefore we are left with a shortage of sources 100% confirming that Gibson did indeed make these comments. I suggest everyone just wait a few days or so until more information comes to light, which will likely happen soon. As for the article in the meantime, I don't have a huge problem with it as it is right now as it is clearly fact that the allegations have been made and it is confirmed that Gibson is indeed under investigation. But I do agree that the article will need a rewrite soon after to consolidate all of this information instead of creating a new section everytime Gibson says something sexist or racist. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bblcreator8790. In a week or so this should all be cleared up. Gibson will have to address this in some fashion sooner or later. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gibson is all over the media on the latest recording. His agent dropped him. I don't see what's wrong. Figureofnine (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't deal in truth we deal with reliable sources and as Yworo says everything links back to an unreliable source. I think it should all be removed at least the ones titled alleged. If it comes out in the next few days or more with better sources then we add what the sources say. We don't leave things like this in a biography of a living person. If you read that policy it says to delete this kind of matterial immediately. We can't continue to leave in items that say he is alleged to do this and alleged to do that, not in a BLP. The main source shown on this page that gave this information is not a reliable source for this project. If if doubt with a BLP delete and then discuss. How about we take the sections out and put them on this talk page and talk about them here? That is kind of stretching the rules of BLP too but each section needs to be thrashed out until we hopefully get some kind of a consensus. Does this sound like an acceptable way on how to deal with this? --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP explicitly permits sourced allegations to be included in article. See WP:WELLKNOWN (part of WP:BLP, mind you), which makes a very relevant example about that: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. --Cyclopia^talk 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: the "links back to an unreliable source" is a false argument. The point is not the veridicity or reliability of the original source. The point is that when RS pick up something, we cannot deny the fact that RS have discussed the thing and as such their discussion can deserve a place in an article. We don't go through the chain of sourcing (otherwise we would arrive to the paradox that every source is in the end unreliable, being after all the result of someone having made original research) --Cyclopia^talk 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is similar to my original position: we can report that reliable sources are reporting on this, and describe it in general terms. If the sources say alleged, we should report it that way. I don't think we should be using quotes from the tapes, though, until they are reliably verified. Yworo (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. If multiple RS report quotes, we can use these quotes saying "Some of the alleged quotes are..." , making it clear that it is still not known if they are true or not. --Cyclopia^talk 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But why would we? We are not a gossip column, so we don't actually need to repeat the quotes to report the news. Yworo (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to think that providing a specific example of a slur he made or something to that affect could illustrate the harshness of his remarks. I have no preference either way though. Thank you for clearing this up Cyclopia, this was all I was trying to point out above. The point is that these allegations are real and have been widely reported by the press. They are certainly significant enough to warrant inclusion in the manner in which Yworo has described. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• -— 92.5.16.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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))

• -— 92.5.16.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

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. --Cyclopia^talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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.

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

• WP:WTA

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)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:16, 17 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)

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? --CrohnieGal^Talk 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? --CrohnieGal^Talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 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)

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 Gleaming^talk 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)

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. [3], [4], [5]. 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 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 in the Personal life section, everything from allegations of homophobia on should be in a section called Controversy. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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, especially given its distinguished cast. Many critics 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.". 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[6] 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)