Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page has been archived because it was getting too long. Everything up til the discussion of his DUI has been removed. You can find the archive at Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 1

Note, this page may need to be archived again.


Holocaust denial by his father

Maybe it is worth mentioning that his father Hutton Gibson has made some comments about Holocaust denial ("(he) claims that most of the Holocaust was "fiction," that the thousands of Jews who disappeared from Poland during World War II "got up and left", taken from his page entry) Apple don't fall from the tree...

Gibson is on record already stating that he has his own opinions regarding the Holocaust, but wont criticise his father for his. He's specifically mentioned (if you read the article through to the "accusations of antisemitism" bit) that he's aware something took place but he cannot put a number on it. Whilst Apples have no ability to move themselves, the pips within them may sometimes be swallowed whole and moved sizeable distances before being desposited.--Koncorde 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His being on record stating just this should be included here. The fact of his father's holocaust denials and his own refusial to comment on this should be included here as well as his justification for not doing so ["won't criticise his father"]. Whether this is an acceptable reason or not would then be left to the reader to decide for themself. [Scott S.]


I would add his *NEW* apology specifically directed at the Jewish community he has made on august 1st, 2006, but the byline is future dated August 2nd, 2006. The current link is but it will soon be stale.

I don't know if this matters. User:Zerath13

I've added a subheading for it at the bottom, but it'll probably be worth making it even less prominent as it really isn't a 'big deal,' depending on what his punishment is. JF Mephisto 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. agreed. And have a good weekend--Scribner 11:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ruh-roh. The rumour is that Gibson was ranting about "the Jews" when he was arrested. There is absolutely no 'mainstream' confirmation of this at the moment so there isn't a chance of it going in the article, but it's definitely around.[1] [2]. Apparently it stems from a leaked police report. JF Mephisto 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you define "mainstream" and "confirmation". The article cites both the LA Times and the NY Times, both of which are typically considered mainstream media sources. Are you saying there is no confirmation because both publications cit unknown sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Each quoting each other and TMZ. It's the kind of circular logic a Catholic would be proud of :D --Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The police report is real. He's lost his fucking mind. 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The police report is alleged to be real you mean. --Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The alchohol just lets his true personality and beliefs shine through. There is no longer ANY argument about whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semetic. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, claims to own Malibu like a duck, curses jews like a duck, makes sexist remarks about "sugar tits" like a duck, tries to urinate in the jail cell and vandalize phones like a duck, then it's a duck. Anybody who can't see that is in denial, and SHOULD be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Typically when people drink alcohol it's assumed their "true" personality doesn't shine through - instead we lose the ability to control ourselves and make rational judgements - therefore, if anything, this proves Mel isn't an anti-semite as he only says these things when he has no control over himself and has a loss of rational thought.--Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty unlikely that Mel's rational judgement would deteriorate to the point where he would inexplicably decide that Jews are evil in the time period that he was intoxicated. A loss of rational judgement would explain his voicing the opinion, though.
While I agree that the statement "In Wine, Truth" holds validity, you can't say in an encyclopedia "Person X is anti-semetic" because they said an anti-semetic thing. You can only say "Person X said an anti-semetic thing." One is a fact, and one is speculation. Pacian 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true. One should also not claim that the sky is blue, just because one sees blue when one looks up. There are other possibilities: your contact lenses may have turned blue. It is only speculation to say the sky is blue. 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the sky isn't blue in an objective sense. That's simply how we perceive the play of light in the atmosphere. Gravity would probably be a better example of what you're trying to get at. JF Mephisto 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A basic idea of Wikipedia is just to leave obvious judgements out. There's no need to say that he's an anti-semite if you instead can give well-sourced quotes that clearly show he is... (well sourced being a problem with this last one, perhaps....) Evercat 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont think the "Jew" quote should be here at all until a more reliable source than turns up. Such an inflammatory claim needs a rock solid source to back it up. As a bio of a living person we are required to be more critical of sources than usual. Kevin 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


There is this PDF file [3] which is supposed to be the handwritten police report (how did they get it though?) Evercat 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my point about the source. Eventually the officer will be on Oprah saying that he did indeed say these things, but until then the reports are not well substantiated. Kevin 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There are def. a number of very reliable sources currently running Gibson's apologetic statement wherein he himself states that he said inappropriate things, and it seems highly unlikely that he would do so unless he had said them. Whether the things alleged to have been said are those things is of course in question, but it adds a great deal of credence to the accusations. Pacian 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the whole story is becoming clearer now. With current events about living people I think it's important for us to wait until the real story is settled, rather than try to write every detail instantly and in depth. In a years time the bit about DUI should probably be only a sentence or two anyway. Having it in such depth does detract from the neutrality of the article. Kevin 08:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't think the DUI arrest will become a small story in years time. It is pretty rare to have A list celebrities on record as vulgar anti-semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I clarified his quoted comments and added a line to his official statement.--Neithan84 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times now says that it has confirmed the authenticity of the police report from TMZ.[4] --JGGardiner 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact he tried to urinate on his cell floor really merit its own section? I mean, honestly. It seems like that can just go under the DUI bit, if anything. This tastes biased--like someone wanted to put the embarassing information as the most visible. It makes it sound like a trend of urinating on cell floors rather than a one time thing. Grenye

Just changed it. Urination is now included under his alcoholism and DUI arrest. Grenye

He tried to urinate? How soused do you have to be to try to pee on the floor and fail? - Nunh-huh 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article still reads like a polemical and hateful piece. If you people truly want to discredit Mel Gibson, you would do better not to crucify him!


This DUI incident is starting to take up far too much room. Gibson seems to have sobered up and shut up his mouth and unless it happens again, it will probably become a minor incident. Please reduce the size of that section down to something proportional to the rest of the prose. If you need inspiration, please look at his NNDB profile for what is proportional. -- 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
08-Aug-2006: I agree about too much on DUI, so continue to use separate DUI article. After reading the police-report excerpts & analysis, I see the pro-Jewish slant: Mel threatened a police officer's life, but the obsession was on "anti-Semitic" remarks, rather than threatening to "get even" with an officer. The DUI sections should be edited as NPOV, giving a neutral, broad coverage to what happened and downplay the "anti-Semitic" talk; perhaps the Evening News has become the "Evening Jews" but this is not Jewipedia: I don't think most people even realize how pro-Jewish the Jewish slant has been about the DUI incident, even in national news. 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
08-Aug-2006 Neutrality: Over the past week, I have added 3 times that the original, lone arresting officer was Jewish, only to have "Jewish" removed from the DUI article. Jewish officer James Mee followed Gibson, stopped him, and received the remarks, before other officers arrived. I put history comments requesting neutral POV writing on DUI. 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Is he actually Jewish? I don't think I've read anything that has confirmed his orientation.--Koncorde 11:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
10-Aug-2006 Seperate DUI Article: I have to say whether you like Mel Gibson after this or not if someone has gone through the trouble of looking up all the quotes regarding this incident and heaped up enough information to justify a seperate article then I think criticism should be directed at questionable points in the article not the existence of the article as such. After all that might look as if some people could be more interested in reducing the amount of information easily available on Wikipedia (at least regarding this incident) contrary to what Wikipedia is actually about: Sharing information.

Why censoring of "fuck"?

Liu Bei 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Did the police reporter asterisk-out the word in his report, or is it just that way here? (I get an error when I try an open the .pdf file on TMZ, so unable to verify). I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not censored for children.

JF Mephisto 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC): You're quite right. Seeing as there is an article on fuck, I see no reason why it should not be used. Unless someone can point to a particular Wikipedia policy which bans the use of the word, it should be uncensored. I'm editting it for now. 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC): But did the New York Times censor "fuck"? And, if so, what do we do about it?

Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Unlike the NYT, wikipedia is not censored. Everyone knows f--- means "fuck". Stating what would be obvious to anyone is not original research. Therefore, this quote should just say fuck.

Moon321 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC): A Hollywood moviestar said "fuck" and this is notable? Or surprising? --

Interestingstuffadder 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC): No, but the context is notable and surprising.

Blue Tie 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC): I think that if it is not necessary, the word should not be included. Even if wikipedia is not completely family rated, it does not have to be offensive needlessly. If the word F*** is used, it is sufficient -- people will know, but it is less offensive.

HumanJHawkins 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Definitely this should NOT be censored if the quote is correct. It is not the least bit profane to accurately quote profane comments for the purpose of understanding offensive behavior. And it is very important to this artical to accurately portray this offensive behavior. As for children, it is MORE harmful to shelter them from correct use of these words (i.e. such as in discussing bad behavior) than not to. Hiding this kind of thing only makes the profanity more interesting, leading to more likely use of such words in inappropriate ways. Exposing this kind of thing shows how truely ugly it is, and reminds everyone what they look like when acting profane.

Anchoress 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)I definitely think it should NOT be censored. Quote it as it was spoken.

Blue Tie -- Please read Wikipedia:Profanity. I think there are some good arguments for reducing the prominence of the "fucking Jews" quote on the page, as has been discussed below. But, are you seriously suggesting asterisks over the U, C, and K?!? Absolutely, categorically, no! I will completely eff-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk-ing tweak if that's what happens to this page. Wikipedia is not elementary school; we all know what the F-word is, so if it must be said, then say it. (Hint: There's no asterisks in it.) --Jaysweet 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the policy. Since that is the policy, it should not be F***. I regret that I see no way around this problem. I regret that people enjoy adding (or saying) such things. But it is per policy. --Blue Tie 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


I realize I may be jumping the gun a little bit here but racism is always a touchy issue and Gibson's comments have certainly been widely reported. I was surprised when I came to this article just now that it was not protected.

I was thinking it might be wise to protect it now, before the vandals even have a chance. Surely this hoopla will die down soon enough and the block will no longer be an issue.

I concur - can't editing be limited to registered users? 1Winston 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I have just requested it. IronDuke 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection should not be used: as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred; It's the first bullet on the policy page, for chrissake. Liu Bei 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Good Call. It's rather annoying to check my watchlist and see that the article has been purged of its more controversial facts by some anonymous user. Thanks for giving the powers that be a little heads up. Charles M. Reed 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Some of my contributions have been repeatedly vandalized and deleted by unregistered users. 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Brat32 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


From the early life section:

...and also because he believed that changes in American society were immoral.

Since there is no source I can't determine this for myself. Did he believe:

  1. it is immoral to change American society
  2. the changes happening to American society were immoral

Perhaps a stupid question but I don't have a single clue about Mel's father to attempt to understand what this was meant to mean... Cburnett 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading about his father then Hutton Gibson (he has his own wiki). Unfortunately people seem to be taking the opinion "Like father like son", rather than recognising they're two entirely different beings. From his bio he sounds a little wacko. I believe his traditionalist views, and the perversions of both the Catholic church and the US state made him move (but it was also probably influenced by his sons being available for the Vietnam war and him opposing it on various grounds).--Koncorde 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I love Mel Gibson

And I don't care about the media gosip. He is handsome, cute, sweet, sexy, carismatic and people are always jealous of guys like him. Any intelligent person also knows that some people always play the role of the victims. He is what they cannot be.

What's nice is how this brings out all the antisemites. The previous anon probably wouldn't even classify itself as an antisemite, let alone Gibson. When did insanity become publicly acceptable again? Gzuckier 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is all a conspiracy to force him to make anti-semitic, misogynistic and egotistical remarks and, worst of all, drive 40 mph drunk over the speed limit. Who cares that he's an out-of-control racist when he's "handsome, cute, sweet, sexy" and "charismatic"?JF Mephisto 12:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem here, if Mel on his 85 mph drunken tear happened to come up behind an obviously Orthodox Jewish family in a van doing 40, I'm sure he would have been very careful not to do anything that might put them in danger. Gzuckier 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a forum here people but JF Mephisto your comments are a bit overboard. Its obvious Mel Gibson has an problem with alcohol, something he admitted himself. He has a problem that doesn't make a person "out of control". And when did Jews become a "race". Not that his comments were acceptable but they weren't racist. -- 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they were racist. The Jews are a both an ethnicity (though this doesn't apply to converted Jews), and a religion (and this doesn't apply to non-religious Jews). Judaism is one qualification for Jewishness, belonging to descendents of the ancient Hebrews is another. Otherwise one could not be a Jew unless one was religiously observant. Please refer to Wikipedia's own article on Jews. Gibson blatantly wasn't referring to only religious Jews. As far as I'm aware, driving drunk at such a vast amount over the speed limit, then making outrageous anti-semitic comments, attempting to urinate in a cell and calling a female officer 'sugar tits' is a pretty good definition of 'out-of-control.' JF Mephisto 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when do you have to be prejudice toward a skin color or ethnicity to be racist? What he said went against an entire group of people, and hate knows no limits. Besides, Jews are a Semetic people, so, in a way, what he said was both anti-Semetic AND racist.

Leopard Gecko 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

I think it is clear that by Mr. Gibson's treatment that America is a country where the laws don't apply to the wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Race: More about the one and only human race of which we are all part on Wikipedia. Wouldn't we be much wiser if we had all taken in the valuable information available on Wikipedia.

Augustulus: I admire Mel Gibson as a filmmaker and, as a traditionalist Catholic myself, I agree with many but not all of his views. However, the DUI is mentioned in the 'controversy' section and this new section is unnesecary and just paints Mr Gibson as a bigot, which I do not believe he is. I would support removing the section and getting rid of that horrific mugshot. I agree with the first person who posted in this section.

Wikipedia is not a fan-based website. I'm sure that there are plenty of sites that exalt Mr Gibson and that would exclude the mug shot, as well as any mention of his anti-semetic and sexist comments and repeated drunk driving crimes. However, this is an encyclopedia, which is meant to cover both the ups and the downs of every entry. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a fair point. However, this site is also supposed to be neutral, and express all the facts for the reader either to decide for themselves or to simply inform. The opinions of the people who write the articles don't mean crap. I am simply trying to create a more neutral environment. Most of these users seem to be vehemently against Mr Gibson. As for the mugshot, I think it is unfair that the only picture of Gibson is one where he is completely drunk. -Augustulus

Mug shot?

Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson taken July-28-2006.jpg
Mel Gibson on July 28, 2006
Born January 3, 1956
Peekskill, New York, USA
Occupation Actor, director, producer

While I think it would be fine to have the mug shot in the section about his arrest, having it as his infobox picture is a bit much. This is an article on Mel Gibson, not Henry EarlWasabe3543 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Hugh Grant doesn't have his mugshot as his main entry (it is included later on) and I would say that was more acceptable. Much of the current piece does not meet Wikipedias "Biographies of a Living Person" standard anyway so will require much cleaning up once this hoo-ha has calmed down. At the moment there are just an awful lot of cheap shots.--Koncorde 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Folks all that the image has to do is show who Mel Gibson is. If there is a free image alternative to show who a person is then per Wikipedia:Fair Use policy that image is to be used. If an editor can find an alternative image to the mugshot that is free then by all means upload that image and replace the mugshot. (Netscott) 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


His is a dual antional then? John wesley 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson apology

Just wanted to post something here also- I've suggested at Talk:Mel Gibson apology that if we have a seperate article here, it should be about the entire DUI incident, not just the apology. As it stands right now, that article is almost entirely source material- not something we usually do here. Friday (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The entire text of the section detailing Gibson's ongoing DUI incident should be merged with the article covering his apology to create a separate article dedicated to the controversy as a whole. Azathoth68 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, even create a sub-topic article on the July 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident (with a shorter title if possible). Put it all there, until the media frenzy dies down.
Later on we can either merge it all back, or just keep a summary here and use the {{main}} template to indicate the relationship. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I added an external link to the text of the apology (no commentary), but it got deleted, citing "promotional" conflicts. Uh...EVERY link is a promotion. This topic is too politicized!
I 'spun off' the sub-topic to Mel Gibson DUI incident, in accordance with Wikipedia:How to break up a page, aka "Summary style".

Fair Use image

Folks please familarize yourselves with Wikipedia's fair use policy. Images that are not directly related to this article are not to be used in it. Images that are screen captures from his films are to be used in their corresponding articles (like Lethal Weapon). Please do not revert Fair use reduction edits. Thanks. (Netscott) 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not post an acceptable photo yourself? I do not understand fair use, or I'd do so myself. I think it's clear that a majority disapprove of the mugshot.DBaba 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a consensus issue... consensus never trumps policy. There is now a free image of Mel Gibson... therefore it can be used... I experienced this same issue myself on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I sourced a free image for her. By all means do the same here. (Netscott) 18:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I must not have been clear; I wasn't challenging policy. You've asserted that "there's no reason that the image taken on July 28, 2006 is any more inappropriate": this is what I have disputed, not policy. Are you saying that this is the only photo you can find that you consider to be in keeping with Wikipedia policy? Or are you obliquely conferring unwillingness to work with fellow editors in reconciling policy with objective encyclopedic structure? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who claims to know what the heck you're talking about vis a vis "free" and "fair" images, and you're the only one who hasn't yet accepted a solution that is contextually reasonable.DBaba 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Editors are to edit according to policy. Policy does not require a given editor to go searching for alternative material when alternate material not in accord with policy has been removed. You have no logic in your argument. By all means find an alternative image. For now there are no fair use images displayed on this article again in accord with policy. If there is to be an image displayed of Mel Gibson to show who he is and editors have the option to use a free image for such puposes they are required to utilize such an image and not some fair use image instead. (Netscott) 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted an image originally released for use with Promotional work to media sources and web outlets. I believe it is a "Fair Use" image, does not break any copyrights and such etc and is relevant to the subject (Mr.Gibson).--Koncorde 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you could please check the image again Netscott and inform me whether it fulfils criteria now please.--Koncorde 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've mentioned on your talk page... all that is needed is the source detail for the image Koncorde. With a free image of Mel Gibson available for use on this article however there is no valid reason to use a fair use image in its place. Thanks. (Netscott) 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I think the free image available does not represent the career of Mel Gibson correctly. And the free status of mugshots have been disputed. Stellatomailing 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the career of Mel Gibson but about him. All that is needed is an image that shows who he is. If a free example of such an image exists it is always to be used in place of a fair use image. (Netscott) 21:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I find that ridiculous. Bill Gates doesn't have his mugshot, nor does Hugh Grant or the dozens upon dozens of people (sportsmen, artists and actors alike) who have been booked by the Police in the last 50 years - they all utilise some form of 'fair use' image or otherwise to head their article, and the Mugshot is used (or in the case of Gates 'not used' at all) only in cases were details are given later in the text. If it's purely a case of 'free' images, then The Smoking Gun has a fine collection for you to start placing within the Biographies of each offender. --Koncorde 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the mugshot isn't actually a bad picture. If it is fair use, it might be a good idea to use it and simply not mention that it is a mugshot. I mean, it's a very clear picture and I wouldn't say is at all unflattering. Unless it's so instantly recognisable as a mugshot that it could be taken as a personal attack, I think its use should be considered. JF Mephisto 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "bad picture" in terms of lighting and appearance, but it does single Gibson out for unfair treatment when compared to similar "felons" (as mentioned above and contained within Smokingguns mugshot archive). When it's Tookie Williams or Charles Manson it's almost expected that the image will be a mugshot, or a mugshot will be contained. But for someones Biography main image (which is supposed to be done in something approaching neutrality and dealt with sensitivity) I don't believe it is suitable. By all means it should be included, but it should be included with his crime. As an actor his initial/primary image should represent his profession just as OJ Simpsons represents his, and Freddie Mercury his. "Personal Attack" might be too harsh of a term, but I do think the "Free Image" rule is being used here in a fashion that's really out of sorts.--Koncorde 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if you could find an image with a valid, cited fair use rationale. Until that time, this image is all we have. Interestingstuffadder 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted one, and am trying to fathom out just which hoops Netscott requires me to leap through (so sue me, I've never done an image in a topic like this before). However his argument is still even if it was a "fair use" it is superceded by a "free use" image. My suggestion was --Koncorde 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Interestingstuffadder, do you have a similar example of one for somebody else? Why isn't the one i put a good rationale? and all the publicity stills from movies, wouldn't they be valid? Maybe not the screenshots, but on the set stills, etc. Thanks! Stellatomailing 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be better than a soap box. Even if you do not like Mel Gibson, it would be better to DISCUSS possible charges of anti-semitism in the article than to label him an anti-semite as though it were undisputed fact. The labels should only be for confirmed identification. --Blue Tie 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved!

I just uploaded a new image which is neither copyrighted nor a mug shot, and which will therefore, I hope, prove acceptable to everyone.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

request for citation re 'Liquid violence'

"I used to be a real hard case, a wild boy," he has recalled, "knocking back lager and whiskey -- liquid violence, I call it."

from -

is quoted in several places on the net which may be the origin of these comments but doen't quite match the article text.

Johnmarkh 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

lager and whisky, liquid violence, eh? gee, most places that's just called a boilermaker. good grief. Gzuckier 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlock this article immediately

Locking this article now, especially with the current events surrounding Mel Gibson, is akin to censorship and highly contrary to the founding principles of the Wikipedia. No doubt there are many of us that would like to add information to this article, as current events unfold, and new information is disseminated. I demand immediately that this article be unlocked so that us non-administrators may contribute to an encyclopedia that purports to be "free" and "open". Scott 110 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Demand, indeed! Nice use of the sarcasm. 7/10, I'd have given you a 9 but the "founding principles" bit made me snort coca cola up the back of my nose.--Koncorde 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Joke? Eh? I mean, it's only "locked" if you don't have an account or can't READ: Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled (see semi-protection policy). Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account. 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy and you are in no position to make demands. There was vandalism, they unlock it now, whatever you have to say will get muddled by immature kids. Wait until it's safe and the mods will unlock it themselves. Yes, Wikipedia is a dictatorship! Where the working classes are subjugated to extreme suffering. Who is it that wields supreme executive power?? Come on, guys. You're taking wikipedia too seriously. It's neither, it's just a bloody encyclopedia. - Augustulus

As an editor here, I take it seriously. I do not like vandalism or unencyclopedic contributions. I think that actually people do NOT take it seriously enough sometimes and so they want to treat it like a tabloid or a kind of agenda pushing blog. --Blue Tie 16:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that people should take wikipedia THAT liberally ... they should just keep in mind that it's just a web-site and nothing hugely special. A great resource, yes, and a valuable commodity, surely, but it is not life itself. That's all I'm saying. Know before you blab away. -Augustulus

Peggy Noonan for Readers Digest

From Fox News:,2933,206639,00.html

Of the Holocaust, Gibson told Noonan: "I mean when the war, was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game …"

Which Gibson said that Hutton or Mel?!
Mel. (RD isn't going to interview, Hutton, fer crissakes)Gzuckier 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibson told Noonan he thought the Holocaust actually happened, refuting his father’s belief that it didn’t occur at all. But Gibson equivocated, citing a friend who’d been in the Holocaust because "he worked in a concentration camp." 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson actually said what any Revisionist would believes as well("atrocities happened"). While one can of course should have serious doubts about the Holocaust tales. Possibly he noticed that.
The problem with the Holocaust "numbers game" is that it is physically impossible to put a number upon it. Maybe 60 million people were displaced across Europe and all, some or none died as part of the Holocaust. The general acceptance is that some people died as the result of the Holocaust, whilst others simply died, and others disappeared, and more still died fighting. Improper record keeping before and after the war, the destruction of many public records during bombings etc will forever mean that the numbers will vary depending on interpretation. Some people for instance (such as myself, of Polish and Lithuanian heritage) would say that 4 million Polish people were executed for any number of reasons from being Jewish, through to being Gay or Intellectuals etc of which a majority may/probably where Jewish or of slovak descent. Others would take the 4 million and postulate that the majority were casualties of war and few should be included as part of the Jewish holocaust. Others would say "well it's possible the Nazis could have executed them all as part of their Holocaust - therefore the total must be 12million!". It's all a matter of perspective. Holocaust deniers refute anything took place, and that it's all a big sham or a Zionist plot. There's a big difference between his fathers opinion (which is on the far right of Holocaust revisionism) and his own acceptance that millions died and it's not for him to say how many.--Koncorde 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster

I noticed a pretty substantial error on the Mel Gibson page, under the Accusations of Homophobia heading. Edward II was not the puppet of Thomas of Lancaster; Lancaster was Edward's first cousin and mortal enemy, whom Edward eventually defeated. His assumed homosexual lovers were Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser the Younger, though I don't think there's conclusive evidence of his having had a romantic relationship with either.

Augustulus: Well, yes there is. The evidence, as with Richard the Lionheart and William Rufus, is pretty overwhelming. However, he was not a puppet, yes. But he was weak and soft and pitiful, as shown in the film (but perhaps not as effemenate).


Is that really the best picture anyone could find? I mean, sure it's kinda funny looking, but if we could just get past these unfounded claims of anti-semitism, maybe we could get on to being a little more professional. Ytookay 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not really a good picture. Intangible 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then find another fair use image. Until that happens, this will have to do. Interestingstuffadder 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Discussions

The Red Herring of Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitism

It's as ridiculous to accuse Mel Gibson of anti-semitism based on his portrayal of the death of Jesus in the Passion of the Christ as it would be to accuse someone of being anti-German for portraying the murder of so many million Jewish people during the Holocaust. So the guy is Catholic. Get over it.

His father is a Holocaust denier.

It's possible for a person to hold different views than his parents. We should say,

  • Unlike his father (name), a Holocaust denier, Mel Gibson has shown respect and sensitivity to Jewish people.
    • Or something like that. --Uncle Ed 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems perfectly fine to me as is. It's alot easier to back a claim saying his father was a denier than to prove he's "shown respect and sensitivity to the jewish people", which is pretty flowery. Liu Bei 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As there is now an official police report which documents that the police officer who arrested Gibson claims Gibson spouted anti-Jewish sentiments during his arrest, I would say that at the very least it is now fair to say, with citation, that Gibson has expressed said sentiments. Pacian 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not a good enough argument to convince the other anti-semetic drunks that Mel Gibson is either anti-semetic, or a drunk. Their circular argument will be: He spewed forth anti-semetic hate speech, because he was drunk. He was drunk because the Jews drove him to drink. Funny how some Mel Gibson supporters are in denial about two traits they share with him.
Your comment is agreeable but irrelevant. If someone says "Jews are evil", and then comes back and says "I didn't mean it, I was drunk," that doesn't change the fact that they said it. Ergo the fact would be "Person said anti-semetic thing." Thus it is okay to say that in an article about said person. Pacian 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, he never said he didn't mean it, he merely said he was drunk. Gzuckier 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Who cares if he was drunk? The guy is anti-Semetic, saying they caused all the wars, using the words "f--king Jews". I used to think the guy was alright, but ... he just went too far.

Leopard Gecko 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

How antisemitic do you have to be to suspect a random cop might be a Jew? Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Very anti-Semetic. He claims that racism and prejudice is against his beliefs, but his own personal views got in the way of that.

Leopard Gecko 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leoapard Gecko

Plus he needs history lessons, or he would know for example, the Jews had nothing to do with the Mongol invasions of Japan.
Well, the cop WAS Jewish... a REAL anti-Semite could spot a Jew from a mile away. Flannel 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. The cop who did arrest him FORGAVE him. A wonderful word. He said so himself that alcohol amplifies your personality. If Mel Gibson doesn't like the fact that certain radical Jews are using the Church as a scapegoat for the Holocaust (which, as many would tell you, was a deer hunt compared to other huge scale massacres, like the Crusades), and they are, then this might come out into a anti-Jewish rampage. Move the bloody article! - Augustulus

Why is it when anyone uses the epithet "bloody", odds are they are saying something antisemitic, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted? Gzuckier 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I will use 'bloody' until hell freezes over, and it is not your place to accuse me of homophobia, anti semetism, or anything else for that matter. -Augustulus

Accusations of anti-Semitism

Can someone explain to me why the anti-Semitic remarks Gibson made are not quoted, while his apology is? --MZMcBride 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this comment: "The comments themselves, and the insuring aftermath, show the incredible power that large Jewish-controlled media conglomerates have over the American public and media." Is that really appropriate? Someone explain it to me, if it is. Eggos 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
All I can say to that is, "the illiterati speak!"... what on God's green earth is "the insuring aftermath" supposed to mean? Not only is the edit inappropriate, it bespeaks inexcusable ignorance. [I assume the illiterate contributor meant ensuing aftermath, but the edit had no redeeming value whatsoever, even had its spelling been correct...] Tomertalk 06:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
They are not quoted in order to maintain neutrality (they are listed under his DUI, and available in news sources and the like). For an encyclopedia the entry need only note he said antisemitic things, and apologised and retracted those antisemitic things. The apology is quoted so as to make 'reparations' to his public image on the back of his apology. In all likelihood the apology will even be trimmed away in time but for now it is required in order to defend him not being included in an antisemite category amongst other things.--Koncorde 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"for an encyclopedia" it might be more informative to the reader to read whether he said "sometimes i feel that some jews irritate me a bit" or "i think all jews should die, hitler was right, kill them all, i donate tons of money to hezbollah". What is this trend on wikipedia of late to "help" the reader by removing as much information as possible so that they might have the joy of looking elsewhere to fill in the blanks? Gzuckier 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an entry for the DUI linked directly from the topic in question. It was created so that the main wiki didn't have to contain all the gory details. Wasn't my choice I must add.--Koncorde 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously still clinging to the belief that Mr. Gibson does not hold anti-Semitic views? Because otherwise, I can't imagine why you would encourage undermining the utility of this article by withholding his sourced, referenced, and confirmed statements regarding Jews from the section specifically concerning these statements (“Alleged anti-Semitism”). Sorry if I’m coming across here as impatient, but this is really getting absurd.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not for you or I to decide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public poll or oracle. If you can quantify and insert an NPOV part of the article that would justify his inclusion as an antisemite then feel free to do so. There is a single source of "antisemitism", which is balanced out by his retraction. Therefore the weight of the article is neutral. If there were more accusations, more statements, no retraction, no promised reparations, no "mitigating" circumstances etc then you could (and I'd be happy for you to) include him alongside Adolf Hitler as you seem so determined to do.--Koncorde 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand that Godwin's Law stuff any more ... I like Burke's Peerage 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, his denials "balance out" his earlier anti-Semitic remarks no more than calling Baruch Goldstein a "saint" whose "hands are innocent and... heart is pure," as his apologists have done, justifies removing him from Category:Mass murderers or Category:Hate crimes. That is: not at all.
Because the article now seems to include as much evidence to support Gibson's inclusion in Category:Anti-Semitic people as is typical of that category, I'll go ahead and make the edit right now.
 —Banzai! (talk) @ 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry your comparison doesn't work there. Did Baruch Goldstein deny it himself, or not publicly identify with those beliefs? Gibson publicly does not identify with those beliefs and as part of Wiki's policy on Living Persons Biographies should not be included in the category until he does so. I have no idea where you're getting the "as others have pointed out" as nobody has pointed anything that could be construed as saying that. This topic seems destined for arbitration.--Koncorde 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Denying that you are an anti-Semite does not make it so. All else aside, is this not the essence of your argument against including him in this category? Could we agree to include Mr. Gibson in Category:Anti-Semites instead of Category:Anti-Semitic people (the two categories have different criteria for inclusion)?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a poll of public opinion. And I have no idea what you said in your second sentence. The essence of my argument is that Wikipedia specifically states articles should be NPOV. His antisemitism is a POV! You are purposely pushing your opinion onto the document whereas I am simply trying to maintain the documents neutrality. I don't much care if he is or isn't antisemitic - but I cannot in good faith allow him to be titled one because someone believes he is.
Attempting to fudge the category hardly strengthens your argument as it merely looks like you're just desperate. I've told you there is a category for "allegedly antisemitic person" which is where Eugene Robinsons quotes would come into play. He's still only an opinion though.
On another note a topic should only include a quote once - not in two seperate sections (or in 3 if you include the seperate DUI section) unless you intend to include the entirity of both apologies alongside.--Koncorde 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The quotes in the quotes do not include the entirety of his rantings and ravings, so unclear why the entirety of his ap;logogies would need to be included. Feel free to include a key excerpt from his apology in the quotes section, though...I agree that this would make the quotes section more balanced and I certainly wouldnt revert it. Interestingstuffadder 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add the entirity of the rantings and ravings if you wish. The objection is merely to repeated use of the same quotes within 1 document, without affording the same courtesy to his apology. Personally I wouldn't include either merely a reference to his antisemitic words, and antisemitic apology - the reader can then pursue the details in the DUI. This solves any arguments over neutrality of this article.
Oh, and for Banzai - please stop adding the category. You should not defame or libel a person on wikipedia and the "discussion" line is simply a delaying tactic. How about you don't put the category in until it has been "discussed".--Koncorde 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, the view that "denials don't make it so" has ample precedent, even right here on Wikipedia. Abu Daoud denies being a terrorist, for example, yet he's listed in Category:Terrorists. Would you remove him from this category because you think it's any more POV than anything else on this site? How about because it's defamatory? Before doing so, I'd suggest you read WP:POINT.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read the WP:POINT bit yourself, there's a section for arguing over acts of "terrorism". I don't believe it is defamatory to accuse Abu Daoud of committing murder whilst part of DSO. He actively identified himself with an organisation that is/was officially recognised as a Terrorist or Militant group that conducted acts of Terrorism. Mel Gibson doesn't actively identify himself with antisemitic beliefs (and therefore under wikipedia policy for categories should not be included, as has been pointed out by myself and Elliskev along with other counts).--Koncorde 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Gibson doesn't "actively identify himself" with anti-Semitic beliefs, whereas Abu Daoud actively used to identify himself with a terrorist organization; therefore, Gibson should not be listed under anti-Semites, while the latter is a terrorist? C'mon—this is a stretch. This line of argumentation sounds like Johnnie Cochran grabbing at straws.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm. I never said he was a Terrorist or what category he should be in, but I can see the argument as to why he is included. I can't see the argument as to why Gibson is included. I don't believe Abu's fine name is being besmirched by being connected with the slaughter of a dozen athletes. I do think Gibson is being besmirched if he's included in a section including Adolf Hitler, Goerring and the leaders of the Holocaust. I believe it is an over the top reaction to his statements that cannot be justified, nor should it be under wiki rules. If you wish to clear Abu's name feel free.--Koncorde 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is about Mr. Gibson, not Abu Daoud, and I have no particular interest in clearing the latter’s name. But nor do I have any interest in defending Gibson’s name. Why not put him in a category to which, according to verifiable statements in the article, he would appear to belong? Why does it even matter who else is listed there alongside him?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Because he could sue wikipedia?--Koncorde 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am referring specifically to the quotes in the "quotes" section. Including all of the ranting and ravings would be inconsistent with the quotes sections format; this section consists of one or two sentence snippets (see the other quotes). As for including these quotes at all in this section, it seems difficult to argue that they are less notable than the other quotes included in this section. Interestingstuffadder 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's entirely likely the "quotes" in the quotes section could/should be either inserted into the relevant parts of the article itself and removed from the quotes section (the quote section I would presume should be for snippets that do not fit into the train of the article, or would disrupt the flow). I haven't checked to see if this is possible or if the other non-antisemitic/apology quotes are repeats also (it's possible that they are). However the page runs the risk of overlapping/reincorporating much of what is already recorded in the seperate DUI wiki.--Koncorde 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, haven't these quotes been removed from the DUI section and relegated to a seperate article? (i admit I'm not certain, with the ever changing nature of this article) Interestingstuffadder 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That is what I said. :D the page runs the risk of overlapping/reincorporating much of what is already recorded in the seperate DUI wiki --Koncorde 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly (sorry for not reading varefully)....there is some utility to having a list of seperate notable quotes on a celebrity's main article, particularly those quotes that are not mentioned elsewhere in that main article. Interestingstuffadder 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I mentioned that somewhere else amongst the discussion also. There would be no problem including a seperate wiki for his quotes as under other famous person articles. I have no idea what the template is however.--Koncorde 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Why this insistence on putting everything potentially controversial in seperate wikis? relative to lots of articles in the encyclopedia, this article isnt overly long. Let's just keep the quotes where they are? Interestingstuffadder 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No insistence from me. I was actually referring to the quotes that do not fit within the flow of the article. Controversial is fine, providing it remains NPOV--Koncorde 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So you have no problem with the correctly cited "jews cause wars" and "sugar tits" quotes remaining in the seperate quotes section? Interestingstuffadder 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer them to be in context with the actual story and apology (the majority of quotes included in that section are movie based or regarding his faith - other quotes, such as regarding homosexuality etc are included as part of the case). I don't believe it is right to simply give one side of the situation as it instantly sets a bias POV. The Eugene Robinson quote for me is also POV, and is 'leading' the reader to his POV. Is Eugene a qualified doctor, psychiatrist, counsellor or in fact anything to do with the medical profession or an expert in the field of alcoholic studies? Really it should simply say something akin to "some critics have made the case alcohol would not implant antisemitic ideas in his head" rather than going into an unfounded, and unsourced diatrabe of what alcohol does and doesn't do or can achieve.--Koncorde 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But these are quotes and they are notable. yes, most of these quotes are from movies; he is a movie star, what do you expect. And I would argue that if any snappy one liners about homsexuality that hhe has made and which have gotten substantial media attention would definitely be includable in the quotes section. As for NPOV, he said these things and sources are provided; if you are arguing that it is pov to include these but not his retraction, as I already said, I would have no problem with you or another user adding a key line from the retraction to the quotes section. Interestingstuffadder 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
They are indeed quotes and notable. But they're out of context. If he hadn't made an apology, twice, then there wouldn't be any case for me to argue that they're out of context.
  • I believe really the Vatican II quote could be included as part of his views on the church.
  • His "it was me in the cross" should probably be part of his Passion of the Christ section dealing with his cameo.
  • Holocaust part of the overall piece on the holocaust (i.e. with the other quote he makes regarding people he knew working in the camps).
  • The "Industry" quote stands alone as it has no predecessing section.
  • Hamlet quote should probably be tied into the Halmet section.
  • Family, probably should go in his Family section.
  • Screw ups stands alone, though probably can be tied into his bar fights and alcoholism.
  • Sugar Tits = part of the DUI section
  • Fucking Jews = part of the DUI section.
I think the quote section is somewhat superfluous and detracts from the topic as a whole.
Oh and the new quote from Bryon Adinoff carries more weight and justification than Eugene Robinson I must say (one is pointless ranting from a unqualified source, the other is at least a specialist in the field - though the BAC section under Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body could do with a mention to provide counter point and balance.--Koncorde 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semetic category

I think it's unfair to label Gibson as an anti-semite when he made a huge apology and went so far as to say he has disgraced himself and his family and sincerely asks for the Jewish community's forgiveness. That seems to be enough to remove him from this category. Anybody agree?Karatenerd 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of his purposefully misleading statements wrt The Passion of the Christ and his father's history of antisemitism [not to blame the sins of the father on the son, but Gibson himself is on record as stating that his father has had a tremendously influential rôle in his life...whether because he disagrees or agrees with his dad, I'm not going to presume to judge...], I have to admit, although he may not be a vitriolic or outspoken antisemite, I have pretty good reason to believe he's no philosemite. Tomertalk 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Crying out to the Jewish community for help after a sincere appology that has been accepted by the Anti-Defamation League seems like the behavior of somebody who is not anti-semetic. Whether you think he is a philosemite or not, he certainly cannot be grouped into the anti-semite category.Karatenerd 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Much as how a person who gets drunk and browbeats his wife and children, then sobers up, apologizes, and professes his love for them cannot be said to have any hostility issues with regard to his family. Gzuckier 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
He should not have apologized at all, except perhabs to the policemen arresting him. The whole issue strikingly demonstrates the influence hate groups like the ADL do wield.
No! The policeman should have apologized to him!Gzuckier 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Nor have I advocated that he be. I thought you were looking for feedback, not pandering for support. My bad. Tomertalk 08:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To add to that, the ADL is hardly the ultimate arbiter of whether or not someone is an antisemite. The organization has long since lost any due respect outside the far left wing of American Jewish circles [occupied, sadly, by a distinct majority of American Jews]... But that's just my POV, hardly worthy of consideration in this article or any other...Tomertalk 08:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to re-do this statement. I think that looking from a non-POV perspective that Gibson should not be in the Anti-Semetic category. I am not "pandering for support" but rather trying to discuss things. My un-biased opinion is that he is not an Anti-Semite.Karatenerd 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Aside from his adherence to Traditionalist Catholicism and his recent drunken antisemitic rant, I don't know of any other tangible evidence to support putting him in that category. I can, however, understand whence comes the assertion that he fits like a round peg into the round hole of that category. Tomertalk 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You talk as if his connection to Traditionalist Catholicism and his recent statements to a police officer are insignificant, not enough to suggest Gibson is anti-Semitic. I disagree. The views of Traditionalist Catholicism are well known, and alcohol is well know to lower inhebitions: Of course he wouldn't have said if sober. But clearly it was a thought in his mind. Sober, he had better sense than to say what he really felt. It didn't just materialize out of smoke just because he was drunk, it was there all along. 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
See, if the thought "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" occurs to you even without speaking it, you are an antisemite. Gzuckier 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Gzuckier, I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. But of course you are right, it does not take verbalizing a belief to make it yours. Just because a person doesn’t publicly admit, or openly talk about their anti-Semitic views doesn’t mean they don’t have them. In Mel’s case, many of his views are “spoken” through his actions, the projects he supports. Now we have his words as well, so his views on Jews in more or less perfectly clear. Therefore, as a factual thing, it has a place in the Wikipedia article. Jake b 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
no, for once i'm not being sarcastic. this is like one of those "you might be a redneck if..." things. In fact, to enlarge, if you think it's evident that "racial/religious/or other group X" is responsible for all "bad thing Y", you're a bigot; and if you think you're not a bigot because it's so obviously true, then you are REALLY REALLY a bigot.Gzuckier 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it that making anti-semitic remarks and incorporating anti-semitic elements in a motion picture does not make one an anti-semite? Fishhead64 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He has categorically denied being an anti-Semite. I'd say that doesn't count as self-identification. --Elliskev 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If I make derogatory comments about an identifiable group, and then deny being bigoted towards that group, does that mean I am, ergo, not bigoted towards them? Surely it is the comments and actions that count, not whether or not one fesses up to what those comments and actions mean about my beliefs. Fishhead64 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"see "I am not a Nazi polka" Gzuckier 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. The key here is that he is a living person and so, special rules apply. Negative statements about a living person must be FULLY Sourced. That means that if he IS an Anti-semite, this FACT must be shown per a source. Not the fact that someone SAYS he is an anti-semite. But the fact that he is one. This is a matter of LAW. If some items that you want to post are disputed by the living person, at BEST they can only be included in terms of statement of fact, i.e. So and so says Mel Gibson is an anti-semite, but Mel Gibson denies it. Both statements must be sourced. Wikipedia can NOT take sides on this EXCEPT possibly to AVOID negative material about living people. That is the answer to your "So What?" question.

--Blue Tie 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all Wikipedia is, and that's all it can ever be: opinions. I suppose nobody would object to my delisting most of the living people on Category:Terrorists, since Wikipedia "can't take sides" on whether or not they are, in fact, terrorists?
No, of course not. A better solution would be just to accept the fact that Wikipedia will be stating an opinion one way or another no matter what it does, and so we might as well state the verifiable, sourced opinion that Gibson is an anti-semite.
 —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Banzai, see the list below. Add to it WP:POINT. --Elliskev 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm already familiar with these guidelines. And I'm unsure how placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semitic people can be construed as unproductive pointmaking—such categorization is the reason categories exist to begin with, to be helpful to readers.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested reading

--Elliskev 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"

Terrorists would also not apologize for what they did and admit to disgracing themselves and request to meet with our leaders to help them find the path of healing.Karatenerd 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If they had lucrative film careers they might. Interestingstuffadder 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think his apology has to do with money? He has hundreds of millions of dollars. Clearly he sincerely is sorry for his actions and wants to make things right with the Jewish community and you should respect that and take him seriously.Karatenerd 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that "Karatenerd" appears to be unfamiliar with the history of terrorist groups, many of whom do exactly what he presumes they don't (PKK, IRA, &c.)? And back on topic, it matters not one bit that Gibson claims not to be an anti-semite, or even that he apologizes for being an anti-semite. There's a reason for that Wikipedia policy against autobiographies, after all. As far as concerns those of us uninterested third parties editing this page, all signs point to the appropriateness of his inclusion in Category:Anti-Semitic people.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleary we have a disagreement here. It is difficult to count how many people are on each side, how good their rationales are, and how experienced they are as editors. How about we have a "vote" (I use quotes because I mean not so much an election as an AFD-style debate using terms such as Support and Oppose to see if we can arrive at consensus on this. The question is: Do you think Mel Gibson should be included in the anti-semite category? Why or why note? Hope this helps clear things up, or at lease gives us a sense of which way consensus is going. Interestingstuffadder 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to vote. He openly denied, apologised and disowned the words he had said as neither being representative of himself, or of his beliefs. For instance you could include Category:Criminals (providing the case is stated clearly within the bio). The sections posted by Elliskev clearly point out the various reasons for why he should not be placed within the categories. "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" (under use of categories, also covered in Invasion of Privacy#False light). In which case Mel does not publicly self identify with the belief as he refutes it entirely.--Koncorde 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: inclusion in Category:Criminals, that's actually not a bad idea, if indeed he's found (or pleads) guilty to driving while intoxicated. I realize you were just trying to make a point, but now that you've suggested it, I'll be sure to add him to that category if (when) he's convicted.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was being serious. He could well be included in that if anyone wished. But not the antisemitic due to wikipedia regulations.--Koncorde 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree with a vote. Official policy:
Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).
Jimmy Wales has said:
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]
He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [2] --Elliskev 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" should be in quotes as well. As should "debate" and "clear things up."  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean Scare quotes? Anyway, I agree that we should stick with policy -- be an encyclopedia not a tabloid. --Blue Tie 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I've got it!

Since reasonable people may differ about his alleged anti-Semitism, in the interest of completeness, we should include him in both Category:Anti-Semitic people and Category:Non-anti-Semitic people. Problem solved.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are being funny and not serious. --Blue Tie 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely serious. If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it in a few minutes.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I POINT you to the suggested reading list. Please don't be disruptive. --Elliskev 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax. Including Gibson in both categories would be justified, seeing as how there appears to be ample sentiment to make the case for either. This would be analogous to fleshing out all perspectives in a contentious article.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It'd be analogous to ridiculous. --Elliskev 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a winning argument right there. (rolls eyes) Unless someone can offer a coherent counterargument, I'll take care of this later tonight.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this compromise. Interestingstuffadder 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a compromise. A compromise is something two sides agree on or by the dictionary definition: "a middle way between two extremes". This is neither a compromise by definition, or a compromise between the two component arguments - particularly when one side of the argument has the full weight of Wikipedia guidlines behind it.--Koncorde 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ummm...I think that the course of this discussion has more than demonstrated that this situation falls within ambiguities in wikipedia policy, eg what constitutes self identification and what can be taken back by a self-identifier, so, friend, it is not as clear cut as you suggest. Also, this seems to me to be very much a "middle way between two extremes". Interestingstuffadder
Two wrongs don't make a right. Two extremes don't make a middle ground. It makes for an erratic and unprofessional document. As for it not being "clear cut". It is. The biography guidelines ask for Sensitivity and that they should "adhere strictly" to wikipedia content policies - particularly the wikipedia:libel page. "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". Mel Gibson denies being antisemitic. It is therefore defamatory to include him in that category regardless of "verifiability" or "truth" of the matter. You cannot be two diametrically opposed things.
"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
*The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
*The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light."
If the man was convicted, charged and/or unrepentant a case could be made. In this case he denies all association with the category, apologises profusely, and it is (if not libellous) at least not the place of a NPOV Article to make that judgement call.--Koncorde 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that the case for Mr. Gibson's inclusion in such a category is made in the article text, the facts are included, and the facts are sourced. In addition, in the case of controversial, pejoratively-named categories, it's appropriate to explain the criteria for inclusion on the category page itself. See, for example, Category:Murderers, Category:Rapists, Category:Pederasts. There's no reason the same couldn't be done with Category:Anti-Semites; a copy-paste job from Category:Terrorists would be a good place to start.
So which is it? Explain criteria for inclusion on the category page, or simply include Mr. Gibson in both Anti-Semites and Non-anti-Semites? Come to think of it, why not do both?
 —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're reading because the case isn't made for him to be included in either. There are, of course, his private statements made into public record whilst drunk - but then there is his actual publicly issued retraction of those statements and apology. He is therefore not an "antisemite". If you wish then there is a subcategory Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people, but the same restrictions regarding defamatory statements remain. I repeat - Mel Gibson has apologised, has formally stated that he is not antisemitic, that he is ashamed of what he said, and that he does not believe in what he said. He therefore does not "publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question", in fact publicly he is on record as standing against it religiously.
Not to suggest the degree of offense is similar, but there are plenty of convicted murderers who deny being murderers. Does that denial remove them from the category? Particularly since occasionally one or them is proved to be correct in the denial? Gzuckier 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Conviction is a matter of public record. It's somewhat hard to deny you're a murderer when you're convicted and serving a life sentence (unless a sub category "convicted people who maintain innocence" is created). When they're vindicated publicly then they have the category removed. Personally I don't overly like the whole category system when it lumps people all together. When you include Murder in Cold blood alongside accidental death, alongside mass murder, alongside murder in self defence etc it gets a bit much.--Koncorde 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No case can be made for him being philosemitic as there's no credible source, denying antisemitism does not make philosemitic.--Koncorde 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a mockery. You're actually supporting the idea of creating a category of "non-anti-semites" just so Mel Gibson can be added to an anti-semites category? First, the new category would never survive CfD. Second, it's just plain ridiculous. Non-anti-semite?! Give me a break. This is WP:POINT in action. --Elliskev 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep to the subject folks

The purpose of this section of the discussion regards the appropriateness of placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semites. Since he specifically denies being an antisemite, and has, in his open apology to Jews, I have to say, insisting that putting him into this category, while it may very well be accurate, requires a bit of divination for support, as the above [relevant] discussion makes quite clear. That is not what the category is for, and, in fact, constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. While it's nearly undeniable that coming up with and expressing the ideas he reportedly did cannot occur in a non-anti-semitic mind, he has specifically denied being an antisemite [to repeat myself a bit]. This is not analogous to Michael Jackson [hypothetically] declaring "I AM NOT BLACK, DAMMIT!!!", or whatever. What it is anti-analogous to, is editors insisting that that hypothetical declaration is an unequivocable basis for putting Michael Jackson into the similarly hypothetical Category:White pedophiles. While I personally believe Gibson really is an antisemite, I also believe he doesn't want to be. Insisting on putting him in this category, in light of this information, looks a lot like pointmaking POV-pushing... Tomertalk 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

David Ahenakew disavowed his anti-semitic remarks and was still convicted of wilfully promoting hatred and is listed in the category of anti-semitic people. If the category's good enough for Ahenakew, it's good enough for Gibson. Fishhead64 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read Ahenakew's text you'll see why he is included in that category: "At his trial, he later recanted his apology and blamed his outburst on his diabetes, some wine, and a change in medication, a defense that was rejected by the Court. Strangely, however, he also testified that he still believed Jews had started the Second World War". So he recanted his apology for saying what he said, he did not deny being an antisemite, and then he went on to say during his defence that he believed the Jews were responsible for WW2 and therefore their own destruction.
Now whilst his initial interview with the press raises a few verifiable points (i.e. Jewish control over German industry/commerce prior to WW2) that alone doesn't justify having them wiped out in order to re-assert Nationalistic control, nor does it mean they "started it". Nor does referring to them as a disease garner any great sympathy for his ideas.
His appeal will be interesting to read. But until then it is right that he is included as an antisemite.--Koncorde 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal that a new "People accused of anti-Semitism" category be created

As I've already written above, I oppose placing Gibson's bio in the 'Anti-Semitic People' category because he vigorously denies the charge and listing him as such, without qualification, is tantamount to calling him a liar. Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge, and Wikipedia should categorically label a person as anti-Semitic only in cases where the person either admits to being anti-Semitic or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views. Gibson has done neither and in fact vigorously denies both charges. I do, however, sympathize with people who continue to add the 'anti-Semitic People' tag to his page. I therefore propose the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge that he is anti-Semitic. Thoughts? Azathoth68 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no immediate objection, but I'd prefer to hear from the mediators first (see below section, Elliskev's application for mediation).--Koncorde 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There already is a Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. JarlaxleArtemis 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal from Anti-Semetic category

While Mr. Gibson did make wrong, anti-semetic comments, he did so drunk, and he does not speak openly about any kind of anti-semetic views when sober. He also does not advocate his views or pursues them past a drunken rant. I think he needs to be removed from wikipedia's Anti-Semetic category. What do you guys think. Karatenerd 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's an adult. The law doesn't make a distinction betwen words & acts said and committed when drunk and when sober; neither should we. He is quoted on a police report as making remarks that are undeniably anti semitic. Therefore, he is anti-semitic. Interestingstuffadder 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Like all material here, just provide sources saying that Gibson is anti-semetic and you can add it in. Thanks--Tom 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, the NYT quotes him as making comments about the "fucking jews". Is this not a sufficient source for you? Interestingstuffadder 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In which case, this little ditty from the article also seems to help...a prominent jewish leader calling him an anti-semite: In response, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who was one of The Passion's most vocal critics, released a statement saying that Gibson's apology was "unremorseful and insufficient" and that the group hoped that "Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite." [5]
Gibson said that he has disgraced himself and his family and he is sorry for what he did. What more do does Foxman want? Yes, and hollywood has such high standards to hold up...this is the kind of ammunition Foxman craved as soon as he started criticizing the Passion. I'm not anti-semetic in anyway, and Gibson SHOULD be ashamed. I just don't like people being unfair. I also think the mugshot is unfair and I will be changing it.Karatenerd 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the mugshot may be unfair as a primary image for this article. but it should be included near the discussion of this incident. Interestingstuffadder 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The ADL has been sued for defamation for unfairly accusing people of anti-Semitism before and has been mired in a number of controversies. I would hardly consider them a reliable source. Deuterium 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like George Bush might get drunk and suddenly shout out "I love Islam!" because when you're drunk you typically say the opposite of what you believe? Gzuckier 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny to read the arguments here about if Mr. Gibson is anti-Semitic or not given the known views of his "Traditionalist" Catholic church. Clearly he is anti-Semitic, and in another time, he would probably say so "proudly". Call a spade a spade, if it quacks, it’s a duck. Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic. Can there really be any question among intelligent people? And if this is so, than clearly it has a place in the article. Jake b 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insult us with your damned sneering arrogance, Jake B. Or some of us may argue that there is no question amongst "intelligent people" that many Israelis and right-leaning Jews amongst the diaspora are racists and gentile haters who campaign in a McCarthyist style (just look at the reaction to this case - utterly hysterical). I tell you what: I can provide more evidence to support my assertion than you can to support yours (cf ADL). And by the way, according to the ADL every single gentile in the world who isn't an Israel supporter is a Jew hater and racist who should be condemned and ostracised, so quoting one of the leaders is like quoting Hitler in an article on Jews. Many gentiles see the ADL as nasty, racist and very dangerous. And by the way, compare Gibson's comments with some of those posted by Jews on the Ha'aretz online forums: he's positively liberal compared to them (I quote from recent posts: .....99.99% of Arabs are terrorists [does this one sound familiar?].....let's just nuke them all and stop wasting our soldiers' can't trust Muslims to hold to peace.....Mel Gibson is a Nazi.....etc etc ad infinitum, plus hundreds of comments saying the civilians of the Qana massacre got what they deserved. Try posting a comment there in which you ask for Israel to be calm, not over-react, and spare civilians - without actually taking a side - and quickly and inevitably you'll be called a Jew-hater, anti-semite and supporter of Hamas, Hizballah, Al Qaida, blah blah blah - and this is Israel's liberal media.) 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"And by the way, according to the ADL every single gentile in the world who isn't an Israel supporter is a Jew hater and racist who should be condemned and ostracised," That simply isn't true. And what do the postings on Ha'aretz have to do with the fact that Gibson is an anti-semite and probably has been since childhood? His father is a Holocaust denier, and it doesn't look like the apple fell far from the tree. The basic gist of your point is that it doesn't matter what Gibson says, he doesn't deserve this fallout, because the Jews are nasty as well? Why not just outright endorse what he's saying, and come straight out with it? JF Mephisto 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Here we go yet again, the inevitable false dichotomy and infantile, paranoid McCarthyist logic (sic) as demonstrated by JF Mephisto: If you don't agree with a Jew or support the Jews then you simply must be a Jew hater, blah blah blah etc ad infinitum. I do not agree with a word he [Gibson] says, though I defend absolutely his right to free speech. Your interpretation of my post and assumption of my underlying views is as sophisticated and scientific as an essay by a five year old child. Go away, back to primary school where the world is a much simpler place and everything so black and white. PS Unfortunately for you Mephisto, my name is Joe (Joseph) Werthmuller: my Grandfather survived Auschwitz though lost his parents and sister there. Did yours? This gives me every right to comment on anti-Semitism in any way I want. Yes, we Jews who reject Zionism, colonial war and right-wing Jewish hatred and propoganda do exist, though we seem to be more hated than Adolf Hitler...... 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly over-sesitivity here with Mr Gibson's remarks, he shows he is human and makes mistakes, especially when drunk. What he has actually shown is that he is compassionate and remorseful for his actions, he would'nt have apologised otherwise. If he was anti-Semetic he would never have apologised. Is someone branded an alcoholic due to excessive drinking on the odd occasion, I dont think so. Religion is always an emotive topic, what I see in Gibson is a strong and passionate faith and I personal wish there were more like him:-- 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Phil 1 August 2006.

When did he apologize? He apologized for being drunk, not for accusing that the Jews start all the wars. Presumably, he believes the Jews started WWII. Frankly, I'd prefer a nonbigoted drunk over a sober bigot any day.Gzuckier 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the article "and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable".--Koncorde 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let’s put things in perspective here: Gibson is an admitted alcoholic who apparently was on quite a tear the night he got arrested. He was drunk, made anti-Semitic comments, threatened to fuck over a police officer, and then tried to piss on the police station floor. Needless to say, he wasn’t playing with a full deck that night. As soon as he sobered up, he released a statement apologizing for the entire affair, and now he’s apparently in some type of AA program. Does his drunken tirade really justify putting his name on a list that includes Osama bin Laden and David Duke? Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge. As such, it should only be applied as a formal classification when the person in question either admits outright to being anti-Semitic, or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views (as his father Hutton does). Mel Gibson has done neither. In fact, he has vigorously denied both charges. There is strong evidence the he privately embraces anti-Semitic views, but as long as he publicly denies doing so and denounces such views, then listing him without qualification as an anti-Semite represents something of a value judgment on the part of Wikipedia’s editors. As far as I’m concerned, let people read Gibson’s words, let them read the statements from the ADL, and then let them decide for themselves. Putting his name on the list of anti-Semites makes that decision for them. Azathoth68 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In vino veritas. No matter how drunk and belligerent I get, I never start raving about blacks or gays. Because that isn't how I think - stuff like that doesn't come to mind. If what he's said is true - "fucking Jews," "the Jews are responsible for all the wars int he world," and asking the deputy if he was a Jew - taken into account with the past controversies regarding Passion, then he does need to be on the list. JF Mephisto 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"In vino veritas" is a subjective judgment. Maybe he said what he really feels, maybe he didn't. Unless he owns up to what he said, then it's simply a matter of your opinion versus what he says his true feelings are. His quotes, assuming they're accurate (and my guess is that they are), are in the article, as is his apology. Let people read both and decide for themselves. Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to divine what he "really" thinks. Azathoth68 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we shouldnt try to divine what he really thinks. Instead, as he is a non-insane adult we should go by what he says. saying "the fucking jews cause all the wars" is undeniably anti-semitic. the fact that he was drunk has no bearing on this -- adults are held accountable for hat they say and do regardless of whether they are intoxicated. Interestingstuffadder 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He also tried to piss on the jail room floor. As I said, he wasn't playing with a full deck of cards that night. His quotes are in the article (and all over the TV), so let people make up their own minds. I wish people would stop trying to get Wikipedia to render official judgments on living people. Bill O'Reilly has the audacity to claim that he isn't a conservative, and Wikipedia doesn't render judgment on him and call him a liar. Instead, it lists his political positions and lets readers make up their own minds how to classify him. Azathoth68 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And, as I said, the law makes no distinctions base don intoxication and we shouldnt either. Interestingstuffadder 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This is an encyclopedia, not a court attempting to render a verdict. Wikipedia is not here to pass judgment on living people. (Your argument, by the way, is invalid for other reasons as well. First, anti-Semitism by itself is not a crime or punishable offense in the United States, so there is no “legal standard” that can be applied. Second, if you were trying to establish anti-Semitism as a motive for another crime in a court of law, then the defense would have absolutely every right to introduce evidence that Gibson was drunk and acting irrationally, and it would be up to the jury to decide whether he was truly anti-Semitic. Wikipedia, however, is not a jury.) Azathoth68 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody still seems to be forgetting that genuine, and reliable non-tabloid junky news sources state everything as "Alleged". As yet there has been no formal confirmation of the details. Everybody is simply jumping the gun, desperate for their pound of flesh - including the ADL which is probably the worst self aggrandizing self publicizing load of tat I've ever seen. This is all based upon an unconfirmed Police Report that somehow made its way to TMZ and is now being taken as 'gospel'.--Koncorde 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The report has been confirmed privately to the New York times on the condition of anyonymity from people close to the case. LA Times I think too. You also have to factor in Gibson's apology for saying "despicable things." It isn't gospel, but it's pretty damning. JF Mephisto 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It remains conjecture based upon a supposition of guilt because he apologised for saying or doing something he shouldn't have? I have no problem with the text if he is guilty, but as yet the report is alleged, the sources are alleged, and the Officers and Spokespeople involved all maintain nothing will be removed or censored. His "despicable things" could be anything from the alleged "sugar tits" through to urinating on the floor. It doesn't necessarily prove guilt when it comes to the alleged anti-semitic statements. Until a reliable source such as the BBC actually specifically make the reach to accuse Gibson then I'm very much going to stay my hand, as should everybody else (rather than gleefully latching onto it like a bunch of harpies). What was included in Wikipedia was hardly in good taste that's for sure.--Koncorde 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously he apologized -- his career depends on it. The fact is, he has been quoted by a police report and in the newspaper of record as ranting and raving on about "the fucking jews". he may have been drunk, but 1) in vino veritas 2) intoxication is not a defense in a court of law and should not be here. It is unclear to me how a well cited drunken rant about "the jews" is not sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Interestingstuffadder 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the citing is alleged. For instance I could produce a document that states Interestingstuffadder said "Jews all suck" and post it up. This would then be used as sufficient evidence of anti-semitism on your part regardless of if you apologised for something you did or didn't do. The Police Report has not been confirmed by a valid source (only the usual 'silent' types, which could mean anyone or no-one) whilst the Newspapers are basing all their responses upon 1 original source which cannot and has not proved its authenticity in the first place (or even the entire report - where's the other pages?)--Koncorde 13:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If interestingstuffadder was quoted as saying this in the newspaper of record (the NYT) and the newspaper said it had corrobating evidence that this he said this, you would be absolutely justified in calling him an anti-semite. later aplologies don't matter -- he said it...this is particularly true in light of the numerous pieces of less direct evidence of his anti-semitism. now we have him making it absolutely plain on a police report. Interestingstuffadder 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Woah, bit of a leap there. His "less direct" evidence I suppose is "The Passion" (contentious at best) and refusal to badmouth his father (don't air your dirty linen in public). Otherwise he has repeatedly denied and justified his beliefs to the extent of saying that if he believed any anti-semitic ideas he would be going against the Catholic Church. This entire piece is based on TMZ's ability to get hold of an "alleged" police report in which various accusations are made against Gibson. As yet this single piece of evidence (and the only apparent piece) has not been corraborated by a single named source. The NYT, TMZ, LA Times etc have simply quoted each other (and subsequently other news sources have quoted them). At no point has the original source been questioned. The acid test for me is the fact that the BBC has kept its hand close to its chest throughout this, refusing to pillory a man before all the facts are available. Your logic crucifies a man in public long before the facts are revealed--Koncorde 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, NYT and LA Times verfied the documents independently. And so did the Chicago Tribute. And AP has reported independently that Gibson's comments are in an offical police report.[6] Crumbsucker 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Verified documents independently" = gave TMZ a ring/anonymous "law enforcement" official. The "official police report" still relies on an anonymous "law enforcement" source. That AP also changes TMZ's position from one of "the source has been redacted" to "considering eliminating the anti-Semitic remarks from its official report". It's all just repeating itself in a very cyclical way, self perpetuating news.--Koncorde 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you listened properly. Private sources within the Malibu PD have confirmed the contents of TMZ's report. It is not a seperate allegation. JF Mephisto 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Short of Mel Gibson holding a press conference and stating that he is in fact anti-Semitic, it is incorrect to say he is anti-Semitic. Unless people on this forum possess some innate ability to perceive what is in somebody’s nature, it is speculation pure and simple and doesn't belong in his Wiki profile. What would be proper and acceptable would be to state that he was arrested in July 2006 and made anti-Semitic statements, recorded on audio and video. That would be a factual statement and able to be proven. People here seem to have lost sight of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and only want to muckrake and smear. It is impossible to know for fact that he is anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is a factual database.

Well said. Wikipedia is not a news resource. Wikinews is. If/When he is found guilty and the charges are confirmed then it can be said there have been "substantiated claims" regarding his anti-semitism. I find the holier than thou attitude (particularly with regards to the effects of alcohol - I think we've all said things we didn't mean to, or actually 'mean' when drunk) so far displayed somewhat disagreeable and not very becoming.--Koncorde 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
At least he is still listed in Category:Humanitarians....for now... :) --Tom 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-semitic" today is like "Communist" in the 1950s. It is shameful that Wikipedia should even have such a list. What is the purpose, other than to single people out and denounce them? Wasn't there already enough denunciation in Nazi Germany?

People should remember that Gibson's blood alcohol level was %.12, where the limit is %.08. That isn't enough to make someone psychotically drunk. Most adult males would only be "tipsy" at that level. He ranted about Jews ("fucking Jews," "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world"), and it also has to be considered that his father is a Holocaust denier. One shouldn't condemn the son because of the father, but it's certainly good evidence that his anti-semitism is more than a single outburst, especially when considered in light of contentious accusations of anti-semitism regarding The Passion. He has now as much as admitted to making anti-semitic remarks, and is asking the Jewish community for help. If there has to be a list of anti-semites on Wikipedia - and I don't say there should - Gibson is a definite candidate. JF Mephisto 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Say what? --Lukobe 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gibson, as well as his father are clearly snti-semetic. The DUI incedent is only one example of many where Gibson has made hatefull statements about Jews. He has slipped many anti-semetic commments out, and I can only wonder what he says in those rare moments away from the public. His father, a Holocast denier, has always been a big influence on him and it is clear he has a warped view of Christianlty and Judaism. His portayal of Jews in th PASSION OF THE CHRIST was a little of a stretch too. The Romans had much more to do with Jesus' death sentence than the Jews. He needs to wake up and embrace diversity. - JKRUP4

One example of many? Care to source the "many" and insert it into the article? Also stretching the Jews to be innocent, or less innocent than the Romans (who had no interest in Jesus until he was drawn to their attention) is a bit much. The Jewish "responsibility" for Jesus death is founded well and truly in the Bible with the proclamation that "his blood be on our heads, and that of our children" - though typically it is supposed to be interpreted as everybody, not just the Jewish.--Koncorde 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks! I am here as part of the Mediation Cabal. In an attempt to resolve this issue, please continue all future discussion in the section on this page titled "Mediation Cabal." Thanks! --LawrenceTrevallion 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have requested informal mediation on whether or not the category is appropriate. Let's get an outside opinion. --Elliskev 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking somewhat seriously, one problem is that antisemitism is kind of a broad category. Perhaps we could subdivide it into practicing antisemites, theoretical antisemites, and antisemitic when drunk. lumping gibson in with hitler does seem a bit absurd, but ignoring something that is and has been discussed at great length doesn't seem right. Gzuckier 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an category. However I feel you could have the same problems as with the main antisemite categories.--Koncorde 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be just as problematic to include him in some qualified category. Regardless of how it's qualified, it's a characterization based on opinion. This is not the place for opinions on labelling living people. --Elliskev 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Everything is an opinion. We have Gibson's birthdate based on what we believe to be reliable sources. I suppose maybe the question is not so much "is he an antisemite", as it is "is he antisemitic enough so as to make that something worth labelling him as", since I am pretty sure if you followed most people around, you could find evidence for some degree of bigotry, antisemitism, etc. In keeping with the general question, do you characterize people by the worst things they've ever done, the best things they've ever done, or by their average behavior? Gzuckier 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
or option 4; Benefit of the doubt in a case where they might sue you :D I think it would be harsh to label him as such given this is hopefully the only time he will mount such an outburst.--Koncorde 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't having a cat based on opinions expressed by notable/verifiable sources protect us? Interestingstuffadder 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be out of fear of a lawsuit and CYA. How about common deceny? --Elliskev 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The guy has been accused of anti-semitism by a high official at arguably the most prominent US opponent of anti-semitism. This is notable and it is verifiable. Therefore it makes sense to put him in a category of folks who have been accused of anti-semitism. Your conception of "common decency" seems like POV here, as this is clearly notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is responsible for repeating/publishing their allegations (and the responsibility is taken on by the person adding the category). It's why they say not to do it unless a persons public opinion is in support of that belief. Given his apology it's not exactly crystal clear that it is his opinion (seeing as he absolutely refutes it, and denies believing the "despicable" things he said). The accusations are verifiable, the quotes are verifiable - but so is are his defensive quotes, and the accusations do not qualify as guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.--Koncorde 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Resetting indent. RE: POV question. It depends on what category we're talking about. Category:People accused of anti-Semitism, as I say on the request for mediation page is not technically objectionable to me (although, I think it's a bad idea). However, Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people and Category:Anti-Semitic people are right out. Now, if we have to go searching for some way to label Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite, but keep running into ethical ang legal objections, maybe the whole idea is misguided. Just my opinion. --Elliskev 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ahenakew precedent

David Ahenakew made anti-semitic remarks, apologised for them, was convicted (in Canada) of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, and is listed under Category:Anti-Semitic people. Does Mel Gibson somehow warrant special exemption, or is Ahenakew unfairly convicted and designated? Fishhead64 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The closest analogue in the US justice system are convictions for commissions of "hate crimes". In this instance, unless someone can demonstrate that Gibson's drunken driving and fleeing arrest were a result of hatred for Jews, there's no grounds to convict him of a hate crime. Statements in unspeakably bad taste, for sure, but that's not against the law in the US. Ahenakew's conviction was specifically for his antisemitic remarks. If citation-worthy evidence can be brought that Ahenakew is not antisemitic, I'd fully support removing him from the category as well. Tomertalk 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between the two. First, as TShilo12 mentioned, making anti-Semitic comments is not by itself a crime in the United States. Second, Ahenakew was not drunk and acting irrationally when he made his statements. He publicly offered up his views, and moreover, he did so as a political figure. Finally, he was formally convicted of promoting anti-Semitism. Wikipedia did not pass judgement on him; a court of law did. Mel Gibson has not been formally convicted of anything, and he vigorously denies being anti-Semitic. To label him an anti-Semite without qualification is tantamount to Wikipedia calling him a liar and convicting him in the court of public opinion. His comments and his apology speak for themselves; let people read both and make up their own minds. Azathoth68 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We're not discussing "convicted of antisemitic speech crime". his behavior in the form of speech is antisemitic; as i said above, any sentence of the form "all members of this racial/religious/etc. group are something bad" is bigoted, and anybody who says that is bigoted. in fact, anybody who thinks that is bigoted, but we don't have access to that data the way we do to recorded public utterances. denying bigotry is hardly proof of not being bigoted, even when it is sincere. some of the worst southern bigots truly believed they were/are not bigoted, and that they are in fact great friends of the "colored". as i said above, however, one problem is the overly broad category; frankly, if all mr. gibson ever expresses in terms of antisemitism is a short drunken tirade and a snuff film where jews are the bad guys, his antisemitism is basically his own business, as far as I'm concerned, even though I couldn't in honesty deny its existence. Gzuckier 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Is a fair and justified point. We all know George Bush doesn't like Black People, but we don't see him categorised as such :D--Koncorde 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, as your smiley suggests, Bush is nowhere recorded as ever uttering epithets against blacks. My point in citing Ahenakew is not, as Gzuckier rightly notes, the conviction - all the conviction highlights is the courts ajudicated that his remarks were anti-semitic, and that his pre-trial apology did not mitigate the fact that they "wilfully promoted" hatred against an identifiable group. My main point was his categorisation as an anti-semitic person, which (I assume) are based upon the remarks themselves, not whether Ahenakew actually owns up to being bigoted against Jews. As the conviction demonstrates, even subsequent remorse doesn't drain the comments of their meaning.
Finally, as for the idea of categorising Gibson as allegedly anti-semitic - surely many people are "allegedly" anti-Semitic. For example, Martin Luther and Martin Niemöller, now being dead, are unable to respond to subsequent charges: Their anti-semitism is deduced from their utterances. In a similar vein, Jean-Marie Le Pen is also categorised as anti-semitic, yet the WP article does not cite his response to the charge, if indeed he has ever made any. Fishhead64 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Less 'snark', more 'levity'. Hence ":D". We cannot tar with a broad brush as we risk drawing in people who have merely been accused off the cuff (such as Bush). I responded to Ahenakew elsewhere in this Talk page (to quote myself):
If you read Ahenakew's text you'll see why he is included in that category: "At his trial, he later recanted his apology and blamed his outburst on his diabetes, some wine, and a change in medication, a defense that was rejected by the Court. Strangely, however, he also testified that he still believed Jews had started the Second World War". So he recanted his apology for saying what he said, he did not deny being an antisemite, and then he went on to say during his defence that he believed the Jews were responsible for WW2 and therefore their own destruction.
Now whilst his initial interview with the press raises a few verifiable points (i.e. Jewish control over German industry/commerce prior to WW2) that alone doesn't justify having them wiped out in order to re-assert Nationalistic control, nor does it mean they "started it". Nor does referring to them as a disease garner any great sympathy for his ideas.
His appeal will be interesting to read. But until then it is right that he is included as an antisemite
As for the "allegedly" bit, that was also my concern and Elliskev - but at least it was more accurate than simply palming Gibson in with antisemites in a way that is against Wiki policy on living person biographies.--Koncorde 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Can Gibson be Categorized as anti-Semitic?

Hello all! I am here at the request of Elliskev to aid in resolving this dispute. I respectfully ask that all future comments about whether to include Mel Gibson in the anti-Semite category be made here. That said, I will try to guide our discussion along. From the arguments above, it seems clear that all are agreed Gibson's comments were anti-Semitic. However, Gibson has denied his anti-Semitism and actually apologized for those remarks. Now, do the original comments justify labeling Gibson as an anti-Semite? I agree that if Gibson went around making such comments repeatedly and never apologized, then the label of anti-Semite would stick. I think we all can agree that people make mistakes, and if someone apologizes it is not for us, especially on Wikipedia, to refute their apology, particularly when we have no solid evidence to contradict it. I know I would not want to be known by some of the mistakes I have repented of in the past. In addition, Gibson's apology brings up Wiki policy. According to the guidelines for biographies, religious or sexual preferences are not to be ascribed to a person if the person does not publicly acknowledge them. Now, admittedly, anti-Semitism is neither a sexual preference or a religion (though it may be part of some religious beliefs). The principle involved here, however, can be transferred to this discussion. We are to accept claims made by individuals unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I remind everyone that my mediation is informal, so do not take this as the final word. If you disagree with my attempt at resolution, please write below. --LawrenceTrevallion 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One additional point. Much has been made of Gibson being drunk at the time he spoke and the axiom of truth in wine. While Gibson may have anti-Semitic thoughts/tendencies, we should not judge him too harshly. Every person who controls their temper understands that kind of situation. --LawrenceTrevallion 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We have had a couple of days and no further discussion about the issue. Unless you feel that the discussion should continue, I am going to call the case closed and put the proposal in the Mediation Cabal to rest. If you still feel strongly about it, please comment here. Also, if anyone is interested, I am willing to get a poll going about the mediation I proposed. --LawrenceTrevallion 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been off for a few days entertaining guests. It seems that there hasn't been any discussion on this. Do we have an understanding one way or the other? I'm inclined to believe that a consenus exists to keep the anti-Semitic people category out of here. As far as the derivative categories go, I'm against them, but not on the basis of official policy. I think we can deal with any of those on a case-by-case basis with "votes" and whatnot. Disagreements welcome. --Elliskev 01:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is a matter of concensus or vote. This is simply a matter of policy. Avoid these speculative labels in the face of a living person's denial. --Blue Tie 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to keep an eye on this discussion, but I am going to put the case to bed in the Cabal. This, however, is by no means the end of the discussion, should someone so desire ... --LawrenceTrevallion 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked me to comment about placing Mel Gibson in the category of accused of anti-Semitism. I see two problems with that: 1.) We return to the same problem about judging the validity of his apology. Placing him in a possibly anti-semitic category seems to say that his apology was not good enough. 2.) His apology was accepted by the Anti-Defamation League. Ultimately, I do not believe it is our place to try to sort this issue out on an encyclopedia. Unless Gibson announces his anti-Semitism, or starts acting like one without apologies, I do not think we should categorize him in this manner. I noticed that Gibson was given the category of accused of anti-Semitism by an anonymous user. I am reverting it pending more discussion about the issue. --LawrenceTrevallion 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that someone added the anti-Semitic category to the page. I have removed it, pending discussion. My arbitration is not binding, but in the days that have gone by the absence of the category seems to have been acceptable. Rather than simply adding the category again, please discuss the issue here. If continued debate is not the answer, I can request official mediation. But, please, do not simply add the category without more discussion and input. --LawrenceTrevallion 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed nationality

I changed the statement on his nationality from American-born Australian to simply American. Thus far nobody has provided any evidence (that I know of ) to prove that Gibson is an Australian citizen or a dual citizen of both countries. And since the only people who can be considered ethnic Australians are aboriginal and Gibson surely isn't one I can't see much of a basis for calling him Australian. Whether or not he lived in Australia from age 12 to his 20s is irrelevant, that just makes him an American who lived in Australia and not an Australian. As the husband of an Australian wife and somebody who lived there so long he could have applied for dual Australian citizenship decades ago, if he doesn't have an Australian passport then there is absolutely no reason to call him Australian. So does anyone actually know, based on good sources, if he has Australian citizenship or not. Until there is proof of that he should be called what we know he is, an American. --Westee 10:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point that there is an Australian culture which operates independently of citizenship and race. Livivng in one country between the ages of 12 and 20 is highly significant. Given his recent antics I don't think many of my fellow Australians would want to claim him anyway *lol*. Grant65 | Talk 10:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm of Italian ancestry. But really, I'm just a plain old American White Guy. Now, my father, at one time, worked for The Government. Suppose like many American White Guys, as a child I had spent 10 or 15, maybe even 20 years in Asia with my father who maybe worked there. Would I be Asian? Asian-American, even? Of course not, don't be silly. The Australians may have a fondness for Mel, but that doesn't make him Australian. Jake b 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are missing the point. Living in one country for so long is significant but it does not make a person a national or citizen of that country. This is an encyclopedia and it deals with providing facts about various subjects; the fact appears to be that Mel Gibson is an American and not an Australian or dual national. Calling him an Australian is both inaccurate and misleading, regardless of his "cultural background". Also as I said Mel Gibson could have surely chosen to become Australian decades ago based on his ancestry, his wife's nationality, or his long period of residency in the country. If he hasn't done that then he simply isn't Australian and he chose not to be. Mentioning his time and upbringing in Australia is important, calling him an Austalia is just not accurate or true. Also I don't care about anyone claiming him or not but the article needs to be as accurate as possible. I wouldn't care what nationality he is personally; its accuracy and truth that count --Westee 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He was born in the U.S. and spends most of his time there, yet he grew up in Australia, began his film career in Australia, earned his early awards in Australia, and was introduced to worldwide audiences as an Australian actor, part of the so-called "Australian New Wave." So include both. Call him an American-born Australian, if need be. Or call him Australian-American. It would be misleading to omit either.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I go with american-born australian. he's immediately classified by most people as australian, and people are surprised to learn he was born in america. Gzuckier 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But he isn't American-born Australian, that simply isn't factually accurate. Jake b 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Westee seems to think that people get to chose what they are by virtue of their legal citizenship. As much as I and other Australians would like Rupert Murdoch to have become totally "American" when he abandoned his Australian citizenship, nothing could be further from the truth. Gibson is a less clear-cut case. There are many different reasons why people retain or change citizenship and Gibson has never been anything other than a U.S. citizen. Nevertheless, as Gzuckier says, Gibson is generally regarded as Australian. As Banzai said, his career started in Australia. He had a strong Australian accent in his first nine feature films, and he has strong family ties here (going back to his paternal grandmother). He did also own significant real estate in Australia but I'm not sure if he still has that.Grant65 | Talk 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And he doesn't like Bush, so he can't be a real American. He's just lucky the wikirightians aren't labelling him here as a terrorist.Gzuckier 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's neither WP:CIVIL or relevant. --Elliskev 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Grant65, Westee (myself) seems to think this is an encyclopedia with the purpose of providing factually acurate information to its users. This isn't a forum to discuss what or what does not make an Australian. Mel Gibson isn't an Australian according to just about every reasonable modern standard, plain and simple. Does he have Australian citizenship: NO NO NO. As far as family ties go well can you seriously argue that one paternal grandparent makes him an Australian (come on), and at least half of all Americans and Australians probably has at least one grandparent born somewhere else, that doesn't make a Russian American a Russian or an Irish-Australian an Irishman. And Mel Gibson is 50, he spent most of his life, including most of his childhood in the United States and not Australia; but thats all besides the point anyway. I am sorry but I see no real reason to debate this here. Lets just follow the normal objective conventions for an encyclopedia. Can't we just agree to list his nationality (American) at the top and then discuss his youth and career beginnings in Australia in the biographical section. He just isn't an American-born Australian. Also the current formulation American-born, Australian raised actor is just akward and not exactly true since as I said he spent most of his childhood in the US. Like I said I am not trying to "claim" him for America (as if I care!) but the article needs to be accurate. --Westee 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


It has been suggested that Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident be merged here. I simply report this; but this is the place for discussing it.

  • This seems strikingly premature. This is still a current event, and the article consists of a lot of contested statements. Let's wait a few weeks and see if anything dramatic happens, or if reliable sources reach a consensus, before attempting to squeeze it in here. Septentrionalis 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a current event yes, but one completely lacking in substance. It had arrests, it had anti-semitic remarks. These things do not justify a spin-off article. We didn't have one for John Rocker. A celebrity arrest is not notable enough for its own article unless the arrest would be notable enough without the celebrity. If Cher were arrested smuggling a bomb onto a cruise ship, id say yes, if Cer were arrested for snagging some drugs, I'd say no. The same standard applies here. -Mask 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best to have a very short summary of what happened in Mel Gibson's actual article and then supply a link to the article about his drunk driving arrest. Maintaining two articles (1 article and one section as big as an article) about essentially the same thing is kinda pointless.Karatenerd 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the two seperate articles. The DUI article is too long to be added here in full as a section and I don't think it would possible to make the article very short and brief without leaving out important details and facts around the incident. Maybe at some point in the future when the issue is not so current it can be merged but right now I think keeping two seperate articles is the right decision. --Westee 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep them separate for now and re-evaluate in two or three weeks.--Anchoress 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nah, merge them. It's a very trivial thing. Just zis Guy you know? 08:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The DUI incident is far too long to be incorporated. It'd take over his entire biography.--Koncorde 11:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate for now, and reassess down the track. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keek them separate. In fact, this section in the Mel Gibson article is already too long with unnecessary opinions of people who are not involved in the accident. These should be moved to the DUI article and kept under title Reaction or something like that. Mhym 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This information is ALSO in the the Mel Gibson article? --HResearcher 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect desire to keep unpleasant info about Mel off of his main article is an underlying reason why the details of the DUI incident are included in a seperate article. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A somewhat simplistic view. If each section had an equally devoted amount of time and effort sourcing then it would fit right in. Unfortunately it doesn't and currently (as a piece of 'news' rather than encyclopedic evidence) it runs to over 2000 words, nevermind once you include the two seperate totals of quotes/reaction etc. Currently the topic is very reactionary, and to me seems to be getting more attention for its "notoriety" and a chance to put the boot in, than any real attempt to create a working encyclopedic entry.--Koncorde 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong in my case.--Anchoress 19:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The DUI article is lengthy, detailed, and well-cited; to put it in the main article would give up much of its length and detail, and I don't think we should be looking to remove factual, cited information from Wikipedia. The arrest is very notable; you can't watch any news program for five minutes without hearing a Mel Gibson story. Will the arrest be notable in five years? I don't know and neither do you -- let's revisit it then. For now, there's too much info there to put under a subheading, so to keep this article manageable, let's leave the arrest one separate. It's not about making Mel Gibson look good, it's about making Wikipedia easy to use. --SuperNova |T|C| 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This doesn't need it's own article. It's not that lengthy. --HResearcher 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's almost 2000 words and 30 references and citations. That's quite "lengthy" especially when compared with the amount of space afforded to equally important topics (i.e. his 30 year career in the movies vs 10 seconds worth of angry slurs).--Koncorde 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The DUI stuff is too long for an article about Mel Gibson. It overpowers. Which may be what some people want. But it is inappropriate to the article -- its unencyclopedic. --Blue Tie 17:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Far too much information to cover. It's best if a small synopsis of the events are placed on Gibson's article (how it is now) then link to the main article above that section. Throw 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but look at the comparative sizes of the articles we're on about. Joel has 4 lines dedicated to his accidents. Gibson has over 14 already, and if you incorporated the 1980 words and 34 references from the DUI wiki then you'd literally take over his entire bio. 30 year career > 10 seconds of madness. Perspective is required.--Koncorde 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Can we say piling on? Let's see Roman Polanski sexually abused a 13 year old girl and yet that incident does not get its own article. Should we make separate articles for every DUI incident in which a celebrity is involved?? I think not.--Getaway 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You would compare sexual abuse with a man shooting his mouth off when drunk? Polanski's act has changed his entire life. Mels is merely 'another' DUI in a list. Misdemeanour vs capital (or at least a more harsh) offence by a man who absconded from justice and has still not been punished?--Koncorde 10:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for unwittingly making my point for me. Duh, of course they are not of the same level. --Getaway 13:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not unwitting. Polanski's choice formed and influenced the remainder of his career. Gibsons is background noise. The seperate DUI incident keeps a whole oot of chaff and unnecessary (and unencyclopedic) entries out of the main bio until such time as it can be condensed down to what is important.--Koncorde 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge info could easily be summarized in Mel's article. Cvene64 08:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: SuperNova gives a good summary of reasons above —and all those reasons will still apply in the indefinite future. To remove information about the incident to make it fit here would be truly perverse. —Toby Bartels 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Judging by the size, thoroughness, and overall quality of the article, I believe the subject needs its own article to treat it adequately. The main article is already sufficiently developed to not be able to accommodate a merger of this size. To reduce the content would reduce the quality of the article and leave the subject inadequately treated. :) Dlohcierekim 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Votes

The request for merger was made on 22:25, 3 August 2006. Here is the tally so far.

  • Oppose Votes =10
  • Merge Votes =7
  • Wait Votes =2

Most of the Merge Votes seemed to support or were based on the notion that the DUI incident deserved only minor treatment.

There is no concensus for the Merge. I note that for adminship a concensus is typically over 75% in favor. --Blue Tie 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric Cartman Comments in Trvia Section

"He is Eric Cartman's favorite actor on South Park. Cartman mentions him several times, and in one episode he finally gets to meet Gibson, but (in the episode) Gibson is insane and defecates on Cartman. It is strongly suggested that Cartman likes Gibson because of his perceived anti-Semitism. "

It is speculation to say that Cartman likes Gibson because of auti-Semitism, this needs to be removed or it's just a case of Weasel Words--Bchaffin 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sure looks like a case of Weasel Words. I second it being removed.Karatenerd 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about weasel words, it looks like plain old-fashioned cruft to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, folks, it may come as a shock to you, bt Eric Cartman is a fictional character. Eric Cartman "does" things because the animators and directors make "him" do things. It seems that some of you people are watching a litle too much TV. Even if there were a real person named Eric Cartman who said those things, then he would barely merit one sentence in Mr. Gibson's biography. -- 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The DUI and Jew thing

Folks, I know that this is Wikipedia and all, but I think that this DUI and Jew thing is getting disproportionate space in Mr. Gibson's biography. It might currently be newsworthy, but that does not make it so notable that it deserves more than 50% of the room in Gibson's biography. -- 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the remark early on that there is Wikinews, and then there is Wikipedia. There's a blurring of the line somewhere but not to the extent some would have it.--Koncorde 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think somebody hasn't grasped the concept of the dui thing having moved to its own page. Gzuckier 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point: emphasize separate DUI article to focus attention/edits there. 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can help reach consensus on whether to include the Quotes from recent DUI

There seems to be a revert war going on over whether the "sugar-tits" and "fucking Jews" quotes belong on the "Quotes" section. Revert wars are pointless, fellas, let's knock it off and discuss it civilly here, then reach a concensus on their inclusion.

Personally, I think it would be fair to include one well-verified quote from the arrest (since there is already a long-standing quote from his 1984 DUI included in the quotes section). More than one quote is giving undue space to a single incident -- but I do think one quote is appropriate, since what Gibson said during his arrest is going to be a very significant moment in his career -- maybe even more significant than the DUI itself.

That is my opinion. Would others now please offer their opinion in a calm and rational manner? ---Jaysweet 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep quotes: I say keep both quotes. Each of these quotes received quite a bit of media attention (notability) and are verifiable. They are thematically different -- one has to do with alleged anti-semitic thoughts, the other one is just drunken foolishness. And if the consensus is to keep one, I say we should keep the sugar tits quote, as the anti-semitic issue is discussed elsewhere. Interestingstuffadder 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote it all. He said it. There is a verifiable source. Apologizing doesn't suck the words back into his mouth. BabuBhatt 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but his apology should at least be posted with them so as to not cast them in an "unfair" light then in that case. After all his apology is just as deserving and verifiable a source.--Koncorde 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, I would support inserting a succinct little snippet from his apology into the quotes section to provide balance. Interestingstuffadder 22:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would, but someone keeps removing the other quotes that you keep re-adding (and I think they'd be better served as part of the article than just sticking out). Waiting for the furore to die away is prudent for all concerned probably.--Koncorde 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- Why don't we add add a quote section for Adolf Hitler as well regarding Jews? --ResurgamII 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If the quote is notable and verifiable, go right ahead. Interestingstuffadder
Hitler has an entire seperate wikiquote section dedicated to his many verbose statements about Jews.--Koncorde 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

add an equal number of quotes from his apologies for balance. 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a growing concensus. It is maybe against the spirit of the Quotes section (after all "Jews are responsible for all the wars" is a little more memorable than "I'm sorry I said stupid things when I was drunk.." I've said the latter many times, but never the former ;p ) but it's probably the best way to acheive NPOV. --Jaysweet 06:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I say no quotes, just mentioning the incident is fine. Omarthesecound 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Use one quote- I think one quote should be sufficient for the reasons quoted above. Dont want to make this a Mel Gibson bashing page--Sopranosmob781 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can people please check the text of the wiki before adding a QUOTE, for instances of it already being in use in context (i.e. Antisemitic heading). The wiki is running the risk of repeating itself.--Koncorde 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Koncorde makes a good point. The "fucking Jews" quote is redundant because it's already mentioned anti-Semitism. Including just the "sugar-tits" quote is probably the fairest compromise. It's both memorable and relevant.
That's how the page is right now. Any objections to that? --Jaysweet 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections, though I would prefer some of those quotes from various other parts to be part of the overall text rather than thrown in at the end out of context.--Koncorde 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Still no clear consensus. I don't like the idea of merging all of these quotes back into the article / not incuding notable quotes that are also included in the main article. A seperate quotes section has utility: it collects notable little snippets for easy access. Again, I completely agree with including a quote from his apolology in the quotes section for balance. Interestingstuffadder 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia shouldn't repeat itself just to include "snippets for easy access". The Quotes section should be for quotes that do not fit into the main bulk of the text (i.e. unrelated quips such as "actors write books..." or similar) or would significantly detract from the flow of the text (i.e. sizeable quotes, or irrelevant ones) or quotes not included amongst the rest of the text (otherwise his bio would be drowned by a quotes section at the bottom).--Koncorde 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to fear an ovelong quotes section. If this section only contains quotes that have received documented media attention as memorable one liners (like the jew quote), this section will not grow overlong. Also, a seperate quote section, even if it has some material repeated from article space, does have utility...sometimes folks are just interested in notable things said by famous people. Interestingstuffadder 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem over the size of the Quote section if it's filled with valid stuff not simply repeated from elsewhere. However I think it's overused for what are (for the most part) completely trivial things, and/or repeating itself. Originally it was even worse with people quoting the Fucking Jews part in the Antisemitic, DUI and Quotes portions. The current balance (with the Sugar Tits [possibly the most trivial thing in the universe] included in the Quotes [as there's no "tie in" unless someone wants to start a misogeny section] whilst the Fucking Jews part goes in the actual Anti Semitic section as it's a valid/linked topic). The soundbites can be found in thousands of other sources and references. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes for the sake of it.--Koncorde 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Koncorde. I don't mind a quote in the anti semitic section, but to double it in the quotes section too seems to be too much. Actually I think the quote section should be moved to Wikiquote. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I still like it with one quote, the "sugar-tits" one (it's non-redundant, memorable, relavant, and also kinda funny) -- but you are absoluetely right, IntStufAdd, that there is no clear concensus. Let's here from some more users! ---Jaysweet 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I kind of agree with you. Run one "DUI arrest" quote, and have it represent the incident. We should probably include one of the Jewish quotes, and I suppose maybe "sugartits" if it becomes quotable. Honestly, can we just leave these quotes on the DUI incident page? I hate to make this look less than encyclopedic. If we get a few more quotes, I'm making a Wikiquote page if it doesn't exist already (I didn't see a link on the page.) -Umdunno 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Minimize quotes Just because he said something does not make it particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article. I particularly think that these quotes should be deleted as trivial:
  • "I regard Mad Max as a Star Wars in the gutter." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 91.
  • "Actors only write books when they run out of money." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page ix.
  • "The worst thing that can happen to you is you can screw up. I've done that before and it's not too damning. I've done some real stinkers. Luckily, most were early on." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 64.
  • "Hey, I'm for love, not war. How about we have a beer?" An inebriated Gibson to the infuriated driver he had just rear ended in Toronto. In 1984 he pleaded guilty to drunk driving and was fined $300 and banned from driving in Canada for 3 months. Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 175.

I also think that words like F**K should be kept off the main page if possible. Wikipedia should be as G rated as possible. --Blue Tie 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki isn't supposed to be censored at all, even for "G" ratings. I made a similar point regarding many of his quotes previously. Some are interesting, others should be part of the article they refer to, others are completely irrelevant and trivial of note.--Koncorde 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct, see also Wikipedia:Profanity. Concerning the other quotes, I also wonder if that book "living dangerously" is a reliable source. It seems more like a gossip book from looking at some of the reviews. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think only deliberate and meaningful quotes belong the quote section. The DUI incident is dealt with elsewhere. Fwend 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote it all. He said it. There is a verifiable source. Apologizing doesn't suck the words back into his mouth. BabuBhatt 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind if it's quoted, but it should be quoted in the context of the DUI incident. A statement made when you're drunk and upset just isn't the same thing as a sober and deliberate one. Fwend 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, I wonder if the following policy could get concensus: "quote in context if possible, if not, place notable quotes in quote section. If quote section becomes too large, move to wikiquote, along with integrated quotes that also have a standalone value"? Fwend 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One DUI Quote is enough. They are really better on the DUI page though, where they could all be presented--Blue Tie 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC). --19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of DUI Quotes Votes

Reading the comments I get this as the positions of different people (in sequence).

  • One Quote from DUI Incident
  • Keep All Quotes
  • Keep All Quotes
  • Oppose DUI Quotes
  • Only include Noteable and verifiable Quotes
  • No Quotes
  • One Quote from DUI
  • Move DUI Quotes to DUI Page – not here
  • Minimize Quotes
  • Only Deliberate and Meaningful Quotes
  • One DUI Quote

I summarize as follows:

  • Use no DUI Quotes = 1 vote
  • Use only One Quote from DUI Incident = 3 votes
  • Do not have Quotes = 1 vote
  • Move DUI Quotes to DUI Page = 1 Vote
  • Minimize Quotes = 1 Vote
  • Only Deliberate, Meaningful, Noteable, Verifiable Quotes = 2 Votes
  • Keep all Quotes = 3 Votes

Relative to the quote about owning Malibu, here are the results as I read them:

These votes would clearly support REMOVING that quote:

  • Use no DUI Quotes = 1 vote
  • Use only One Quote from DUI Incident = 3 votes (Since there is already a Sugar Tits Quote)
  • Do not have Quotes = 1 vote
  • Move DUI Quotes to DUI Page = 1 Vote
  • Total = 6 votes

These votes would clearly support KEEPING that quote:

  • Keep all Quotes = 3 Votes

These votes are unclear in this regard but seem to suggest conservative approaches, minimizing Quotes:

  • Minimize Quotes = 1 Vote
  • Only Deliberate, Meaningful, Noteable, Verifiable Quotes = 2 Votes

Total = 3 Votes

I consider the "I own Malibu" to be verifiable but not deliberate, meaningful or Noteable and I expect the authors of those opinions would agree.

Hence, there is a clear 2 to 1 agreement to not use the Malibu Quote and there may be as much as a 3 to 1 agreement.

Furthermore, it is simply unencyclopedic to include the nonsense ramblings of a man when he is drunk. --Blue Tie 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Antisemetic remarks are true!!!

Why after someone is pulled over for DUI would start going off on Jews is beyond me. He does not like Jews-Period... Mel lets here it out of your mouth!!! Remember we are the chosen people Don't forget that. We will never disappear and who helped you with your career. You blew it pal!!! We all thought with the movie you made of Christ the passion that you might be but now its decisive that you are.

Nice contribution. I'm sure Mel routinely checks here on the off chance you may post your opinion.--Koncorde 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's be fair and assume good faith. I empathise with this poster's concern. The reality is, however, this is not a forum. --Elliskev 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--Elliskev 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While his comments were in very bad judgement and should not ever be repeated by anyone, I just cannot help but wonder what everyone would be saying now if he had insulted Chinese people or Islamic people or Africans for that matter anyone else but the Jewish community?

I think this issue has been blown way out of proportion just like most matters in direct conflict with the Jewish faith. I am sure that everyone of us on this planet has made poor judgement calls when we have had a bit too much to drink or for some, even when we are sober. (Please note that I am not defending his actions in any waI just believe that they are of no consequence to worldly matters.)

It is time to put this issue to bed and let Mel get on with his life and career and make ammends with people of the Jewish faith. His comments will only be negative to his own career as many people will now not support his movies any more, its not as if he physically injured someone it was only by the words he used and he will hopefully remember to bite his tongue in the future. (RvK 9:00am PST August 5th 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You are living in a dream world if you think a comment about Chinese, Islamic, or black people would garner less attention. I agree with you that people shouldn't care, but not because his comments weren't stupid, instead because nobody should focus this much time on what actors (people who lie for a living) say and do. You show your own antipathy for Jews with your ridiculous and unfounded suggestions that everyone shows them a nicer time than all other "less-than" races. But it's ok...I understand...your bias is clearly shown and the basis for your point of view is adequately demonstrated by your blatant Christianity. I refuse to get into arguments with people like you. Here's a good page for you: Deductive reasoning. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
See here for an example of celebrity whose silly racist remarks (not about Jews, amazing!) caused his career to implode. Or how about this example of someone whose career took a major downturn for insulting Christians? And as far as insulting Islam, forget about it! Face it, this would be major news no matter which group of people Gibson chose to insult. --Jaysweet 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(It's also probably worth noting that both the John Rocker and Sinéad O'Connor controversies get their own section on the relevant Wikipedia page, another argument for keeping the DUI incident in Gibson's main page...) --Jaysweet 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The DUI is within Gibsons wiki. However it is not the role of an encyclopedia to cite every quote and detail that spills from an incident (or else each wiki would be bogged down by needless verbiage and opinion) hence keeping the seperate entry until such time as the facts deemed encyclopedic can be used (if any, all, or none).--Koncorde 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone here please make sure to add Mr. Gibson to "Category:Anti-Semitic people" whenever you get a chance -- I can't because I'm an Anon user. Tell the truth! Add him to this category promptly! -- 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That topic already went through mediation and has been rejected. Take up the issue with the mediator under the Mediation Cabal section.--Koncorde 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian Sunday Herald and "League of Rights" accusation

I edited this bit out:

  • On August 6, 2006 the Australian publication Sunday Sun Herald published claims that Mel and his father have been associated with the Australian League of Rights, an anti-Semitic, right-wing, Holocaust-denier group.[1]

Due to the POV/conjecture nature and the fact it is more relevant to Hutton Gibson than it is to Mel (does not define which "ideas" Mel and/or his father were interested in therefore lumping it into the Antisemitic section "leads" the reader to a conclusion by placing him in False Light). See: This document

  • "I told him he was being used as a stooge for some very far-out views that could harm his film career, and took him aside to show him pamphlets that were circulating at the edges of rallies he attended. They were full of conspiracy theories and hate slogans. Gibson professed he had known nothing of these dirty little leaflets, that he was simply for the family and a moral society"

Along with Taylor (an independent) himself denying any affiliation (the demographic of supporters does not define his affiliation, nor should it therefore be reflected more so onto Mel Gibson) and the League of Rights stating it has no official membership even in the Herald, it's conjecture and POV to use the piece. I have no problem with it being edited back in, but perhaps it should be included in Personal Views along with his other "politics" as there is no obvious statement on the part of Mel that he followed the antisemitic wing of a party he wasn't part of or supporting.--Koncorde 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I question its inclusion as well. At the very least, it should include summation of the quote about how he didn't know it was an anti-Semite group.
But, it did give me a chance to practice how to do citations properly! :) :) --Jaysweet 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Citations are a pain in the bum. I tend to just copy what someone else did and edit in the new URL :D. The document I put up has a very interesting bit on his conspiracy theory background involving Clinton though. Really 'out there' stuff. --Koncorde 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OT= Off topic, but it also = "OUT THERE"?!? Didn't you see Conspiracy Theory?! :D --Elliskev 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Films Section needs Mad Max series

I do not have time to do it today, but the Mad Max series really needs its own entry here in Mel Gibson's career summary along with Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Lethal Weapon, etc. It was a significant film series both for theater in general and for Mel Gibson in particular. --Blue Tie 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote Section Clean-Up A Must

I'm sure we all know about Gibson's anti-semetic comments, and most of us know about his sexist comments toward a female officer. Howeevr, we must be reasonable. This guy is an actor, which means that his quotes notable are ones that have to do on comments with movies, certain directors and actors, or maybe on how it's like to act. What isn't good is seeing this quote in the section "Quotations":

"What are you looking at, sugar tits?"

A quotation is a notable saying from someone that contributes importance. We all know that he was drunk, though some belive that when he said his remarks, it was some kind of "truth serum". Whatever, it doesn't matter, but the fact is the guy was drunk. DRUNK! This isn't something he MEANT to SAY! Because even if he truly thinks it, he was still DRUNK. That may not be a worthy-sounding reason now, but it should later on. I'm not sticking up for him (well, being half-Jewish myself, I'm obligated to say I don't care for him anymore [and I really don't]), but this is not a NOTABLE QUOTATION.

Leopard Gecko 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

While you may be right that it's not a notable quotation, I disagree with you that because he's an actor, the quotes included in his article should be restricted to his professional life.--Anchoress 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't even really a quote at all. I could insult someone to their face, but that doesn't make it a quote.

Leopard Gecko 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Of course it is. In fact some of the most famous quotes in the world are insults.--Anchoress 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please give an example of such a quote, then, if you may.

Leopard Gecko 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Check out the Wikiquotes for [Winston Churchill], [Groucho Marx], [Richard Nixon]? There are so many.--Anchoress 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Those insulting quotes may be known to many people, but consider this: they were sober. And it was something they really felt. They weren't by some drunk person saying,"What are you looking at, sugar tits?".

Leopard Gecko 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Neither was this quote by "some drunk person." It was by a drunk Mel Gibson, and that's what makes it significant. Also, I get drunk (too drunk) all the time, and though I have made rather rude comments to women in that state, I sure as hell have never called a female cop "sugar-tits"! Egads... --Jaysweet 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So is all this hype really necessary? Everyday, I've heard updates on the so-called "controversy". There's lots of people "like that" out there in the big, bad world. I mean, so what? They're just words. He's not stabbing anyone personally in the back. I'm not saying what he said and did was right, what I'm saying is that being intoxicated like he had will never result in anything good. What about Farrakhan? He's the head of an entire religion, and he's always making hate speeches toward whites and Jews! He means what he says! And all of a sudden Mel Gibson spews out a couple of stupid remarks, while drunk! Of course you're going to say something stupid when you're drunk, unless you get killed in an auto accident first! He even wants to apologize to leaders of the Jewish community, that's something. After all, his father has been spewing hatred towards Jews and denying the Holocaust, so Mel wanting to make an apology would probably be against "daddy's orders". But whatever, he made a mistake. He did not mean what he said, and this whole thing has blown out of proportion.

Leopard Gecko 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Did you read the Farrakhan article? The percent of that article dedicated to his anti-Semitism is quite high, appropriately so. Just because somebody else is worse, well, that's irrelevant.
I'm not so sure the prominence of the DUI article on this page is appropriate, but it's sort of silly to pretend like it isn't newsworthy. Name the last time a celebrity went on a rant, even a drunken one, against a particular race or ethnicity or other group, and it didn't result in a huge controversy destructive to his or her career?
Or do you still remember John Rocker for his baseball ability?  ;p --Jaysweet 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Man, I had never even HEARD of John Rocker before until his rant about New York City, but that's not the point. He was obviously a famous enough baseball player to even BE interviewed. We all have our own opinions, there have always been hateful people in the world, what makes Mel Gibson so surprising? --Leopard Gecko 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Homophobia in Braveheart.

"Although Gibson did not write the screenplay for Braveheart[27], the depiction of a homosexual character in the film drew accusations of homophobia."

Nevertheless, Gibson directed the scene. The way it was directed is the primal cause for controversy, not what was in the script. --BKmetic 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? Direction has little to do with it. Their pretty clothes were made by the costume designer, their pitifullness and girliness created by the actors, and their weak-willed everything was the work of the screenplay. Direction is blocking, camera angles and lenses, and a general command of everything. Second of all, defenestrating a gay guy clearly isn't discrimination - in the Middle Ages plenty of people were killed, many of them homosexual. I'm sure that Peter Basil wouldn't have said, 'Oh, he's gay! I better not kill him.' when he was aiming a crossbow at Richard the Lionheart. They both get it, gay and straight. Hell, Wallace gets tortured for ten minutes and Murron nearly gets raped.

Isn't his father family too?

Mel Gibson's father is notable. Why does the section on Mel Gibson's family not mention him? I propose that a line be added stating that "Gibson is the son of Hutton Gibson, an Australian-based sedevacantist and holocaust revisionist". --Adam Brink 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually his father is already mentioned in the early life section and I beleive that is enough mention of him, I see no reason to mention him again in the family section which deals with his wife and children. Also his father líves in Pennsylvania and not Australia, at least according to the Wikipedia article on him. --Westee 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I aggree. Let's not swamp the article with information about Gibson's father. It seems like that is an attempt to sneak in bias.Karatenerd 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the idea to mention his father"s ideas. It is obviously a good reason for Mel Gibson's political positions and also his alcoholism. Mel Gibson and his fans are politically conservative.

It is a traditional bia for conservatives to "distinct" or "hide" related aspects of a conservative personality. For example, for them, if G.W. Bush is a conservative politician, helping extreme-right regimes in the worls and supporting the weapons lobby, for them also it should have no link to Prescott Bush, who was active in the weapons commerce and a banker for NSDAP and Hitler. No, again, here we are trying to document and help science, so please mention Gibson's father opinions. They are needed for any serious and scientific research. PierreLarcin2 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's POV regarding conservatives for starters. Just because a man wont openly lambast his own fathers beliefs does not mean he supports them (particularly when other evidence and statements are to the contrary).--Koncorde 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What says Koncorde is the usual argument of right conservative wing : of course political positions are taught from father to son : a good example is Bush grand senior [Prescott, nazis american banker], Bush senior [who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein] and Bush junior

Of course, conservators will always argue that a fact is POV. Let's look for VietNam : selling weapons is POV, Tonkin's incident plot is POV, Phoenix's slaughter is POV. Simple : what is non-conservative is POV : abortion, disarmament, capitalism, freedom of the peoples, antisemistism of Gibson's, links of Gisbon with Rotary, non-existence of God... And of course, they are ready to make WAR to us [with guns and real bullets] to wipe-off our [anticonservative] POV : Gibson and his father are conservatives, antisemistic, homophobic, AND IT IS A TRUTH THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA. BECAUSE it is a proven FACT . PierreLarcin2 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, because I vote Socialist Labour and am a "staunch" liberal of the very real kind (not some pretend American one), therefore your rant it somewhat misguided. :) Gibsons father is Gibsons father, they are not the same man. Whilst Gibsons father may have had an influence on him until that influence can be sourced then it's neither here nor there (unless you want to go back through every document of every historical figure and include similar details). Gibson has distanced himself from his fathers beliefs on a number of occasions. You have to remember that Gibson, if he did lambast his father, would be giving more air time to his fathers thoughts and ideas - and instantly drag his entire murky past into the limelight (something Mel has tried to get away from). Your argument regarding "scientific research" is laudable (how is it scientific?) and your subsequent demands including myself and others who disagree with you as "Conservatives" that would "make WAR to us [with guns and real bullets] to wipe-off our [anticonservative] POV" was entirely irrational and without basis.--Koncorde 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Conservative hypocrisy, al usual. I'll answer on tomorrow.. or later. I am fed up by conservative persons and they "fadeToGrey" ways to hide truth and BRING EDIT WARS.
That's what you did by coming dirtying my perso page ? You know, as every stalinian may know : the only way to answer is non-violence. Have a good evening and make a good digestion of your violence and hypocrisy. 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Err, dirty? No, you personally attacked me and any editor on Wiki by accusing us all of being gun toting murderous conservatives. Your personal page is there for comments/talk, and it seems this is not the first incident in which you have been involved.
I have absolutely no idea what a "fadeToGrey" is, or what that means I or anyone else has supposed to have done, nor have I taken part in any "edit wars" or have any wish to start one. Quite why you chose "Stalin" I'm not sure. Do all socialists follow Stalin?--Koncorde 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust quote

The reader's digest quote is taken out of context and represents a POV. The quote as it stands now, with the context removed, looks as if he is denying the holocaust - when, in fact, he was refering to his father's statements. It should be removed or enlarged to encompass the context and the question he was asked.98percenthuman 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman

again a Conservative defending Gibson...Why shouldn't we ALSO add a context around the holocaust, explaining why the term is good, or not, making correlation to possible slaughters which should be, or not holocausts.. Well Gibson is antisemistic, and then ? OF COURSE he said that for that point. I understand that for white race-suprematists like Disney or pro-Bush, or bureaucrats, Gibson is NOW a problem. Anyway, the truth is that he and his fathers said such horrors.. and think it. So....Why should we HIDE and TEMPER the pure truth ? Always this conservative trend to HIDE things... 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither conservative nor defending Mel Gibson. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia a quality entity, taking quotes unfairly out of context for the sake of arriving at a point of view is not encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure that you are beyond debating with since your tyraid against things like Disney and a conservative agenda to hide things is tempered with your cowardice at not signing your posts! Fight the power unisigned person! 98percenthuman 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman

I am a coward.. so.. I signed.. so.. and then ? The loose of my ID comes from your stupid [superb] technology where a French wiki login cookie is loosed when surfing on American version...

and then : what does it change ? You can show bollocks and not be more clever... Of course you're conservative : always hiding facts ! Always "keeping wikipedia clean" "Wiki is not a soapbox and you are a coward" or "you French bastard are scientific idiots", etc, etc. You do not need to be member of the Communist Parti of America to have a label not-to-be-a-conservative, you know... There are people hiding the facts everywhere and specially in communist parties... That's all what you found to hide the preds and facts about Gibson ? Always the same positions since Vietnam war... and of course Americans [parangons of freedom, science and technologies as we all know around the world] forgot to pay indemnities for crimes in Vietnam... I suppose that Gibson will never pay for his insults and ideologistic films...Of course he askef for pardon... and paid conservative politicians and conservative clubs [Rotary] GIBSON AND HIS FATHER ARE GOOD AMERICAN BOYS BECAUSE THEY HEAR GOD SPEAKING AND VOTE REPUBLICAN. REPUBLICAN IS NOT CONSERVATIVE : it is the party of freedom and war. Right ? PierreLarcin2 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your obsession with Vietnam or belief that everybody is being "Conservative" if they want an encyclopedic entry? There's the rest of the internet for your conspiracy theories regarding the Rotary club, Republicans and Americans. Mel Gibsons entry is not one.
Your attack on 98percenthuman was unwarranted as he made a very valid point, that a quote out of context can be used to attack or besmirch or mislead. That doesn't make his opinion "conservative".--Koncorde 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
FIRST. I have no obsession. BUT you, YOU project opinions on me that, according to your mind, I would have in my brains. This is a theist position. I am not supposed to be like your decide I should be.
SECOND, I criticize this coward manner, for conservatives, to invert positions.
What do conservatives and bureaucrats actually on worldwide medias  :-) ?
1/ For example, pro-American bring a war under the name of freedom. I[rak, Lebanon]
2/ They reinforce the deviation of vote under the name of democracy [Congo, Mexico]
3/ They censure information, reinforce Government control under the name of Encyclopedia and objectivity [wiki, army-"embedded" / journalists and newspapers] ["Patriot act", "Echelon"]/
4/ They evangelize abroad under the name of freedom to think [Christian "Missions" in Cote d'Ivoire and Palestine, Irak and Nigeria]
On the long term, pervert concepts on such a worlwide scale will not be good for American positions. For info, actuality does not seem that terrorism has been pacified...
THIRD. Of course there is an obvious link between Gibson, Rotary and Conservatives.
IF YOU WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES INSTEAD PROJECTING YOUR VISIONS ON MY BRAINS AND PERSON, you would simply query Google on "Rotary Gibson conservative" and find strange that Gibson gave 1 Million USD to Mexico, through ROTARY network, just before elections that were won "with a few votes of advance" by the conservative and pro-american new Mexican President...And this money for a "social" program.... through a conservative network [whaahahahahhaahahhahahaahahahahhaahah].
But your did not query Google of course, you better imagined, as a lazy person, that you had the truth... it is so easy to threat an opponent as a coward and being afraid to search a library...
FOUR, Rotary does support conservatives and only conservatives [Dianne Feinstein is a question and Democrat Party is a question regarding left-wing politics...]. Gibson support conservatives.
There are few Jews in Rotary and Gibson likes Jews a few. I am just amazed that Gibson is not OFFICIALLY and SINCE A LONG TIME an active member of the Rotary...
FITH, Regarding Gibson, friends, family and politic positions, Gibson and all his environment are conservatives and racists. The fact that you try to smooth that is simply a way to force your visions onto a real world. You should stop thinking you are an intellectual. You are just a violent, who came on my personal page for showing your violence. As Gibson does. PierreLarcin 09:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
First, it would be best if everyone here would be civil and avoid personal attacks. Second,, can you please cite some reliable sources, so that we can verify that your recent claims aren't original research? I'd be much obliged, thanks. Luna Santin 09:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is about how to improve the Mel Gibson article, not to express ones own views about anything under the sun. If you have sourced information about all the claims you make regarding other issues, please go to the articles in question, using this talk page only for discussing how to improve this article. --Iafrate 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Theist? I have no belief in any God. If you think you rants above, and in previous arguments you have had, are not obsessive; then I'm William Shatner. Quite what any of it has to do with Hutton Gibson being included on Mel Gibsons page I have no idea.--Koncorde 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


There's been new information added, but is a satirical website a prank? I think perhaps this should be included with either the trivia or "His critics", so I shall move it to the latter.--Koncorde 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Given Mel Gibson's vocal anti-semitism and Holocaust denial over the years, as well as his refusal to condemn his father's even more vocal anti-semitism, should we include him in the category "Nazi actors"? Revision as of 15:58, 13 August 2006 (edit) (Talk)

Certainly not. If your father, who raised and loved you, had one strange belief, would you really grind him into the dirt? And the 'numbers game' comment is accurate. -Augustulus

He doesn't subcribe to being a member of the "Nazy" party, therefore how can he be a Nazi actor? See earlier category discussion for guidance.--Koncorde 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is systematically destroying a city full of civilians (e.g. Tyre, Lebanon) a nazi thing to do? Or banning interracial marriage a supremacist thing? Should we include that under the "Nazi states" with racial supremacy laws? Revision as of 02:07, 14 August 2006 (edit) (Talk)
Anti-Semitism is not the same thing as Nazism; while we're at it, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks. Luna Santin 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely amazing suggestion. I was just editing the Günter Grass article, a writer who just admitted that he was a member of the Third Reich's Waffen-SS during the WWII and the editors over there are of the opinion that Mr. Grass should not even be called a Nazi, but yet Mel Gibson shoots off his mouth, says some moronic comments while he was pulled over during a DUI traffic stop and there are folks over here that want to label him a "Nazi actor"!!! Amazing! The double standard is tremendous. You don't suppose that since Gibson is conservative and Grass is a liberal has anything to do with the unequal treatment, do you?--Getaway 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Gunter shouldn't be called a Nazi, being part of the Waffen SS (as part of the school kid division sent to Dresden with Germany on its last legs and desperate for anyone fit enough to stand on two legs) after conscription doesn't make him a subscriber to the Nazi party, and nor does Mels antisemitic remark.--Koncorde 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibson isn't a conservative at all. He's against the Iraq war, and he hates George W. Bush. Anti-semitism traditionally comes from the Left. Mel is also a friend of Michael Moore, and nearly financed his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004. Mel is a Nazi actor, just like his fellow left-winger Errol Flynn.

I'm confused. The Nazi's were "Left Wing", antisemitism traditionally comes from the left, and Errol Flynn was a left wing Nazi just like Mel Gibson? Wow.--Koncorde 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hitler was a leftist. Errol was left-wing because he openly supported Castro, and was a supporter of the Spanish Republic in the Civil War. Mel may be right-wing on social issues like abortion and euthanasia, but he's left-wing on almost everything else.
Considering Nazi'sm is distinctly against Liberalism of any sort, I find it hard to see how Errol or Mel could be seen as such. If you check Hitlers background you'll find that his "socialism" was a front for engineering Germany's climb out of the doldrums by using free labour and energising the masses of unemployed by offering work, he himself was an expansionalist nationalist. Quite how that relates to Mel or even Errol is beyond me.--Koncorde 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal protection

Since this article is vandalized several times a day, perhaps we need to protect it from edits from non-registered users?98percenthuman 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that really him in the picture?

That drawing doesn't look remotely like Mel Gibson. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use an actual photograph? Throw 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means. Please source a free photo that shows what he looks like. With this image that shows what he looks like already available any additional image'll need to not be used under "fair use". (Netscott) 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think his mugshot should be the main picture, because he looks so drunk and ugly.

That may be but that would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV. Wikipedia isn't to criticize, it's to give the facts neutrally.Throw 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
How can it defeat the purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV when it is the most current publicly available picture? Are you saying it's not him? The picture has been "Photoshopped"? If that's the way he looks, that's the way he looks. Jake b 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not saying Gibson's mugshot isn't him or than it has been photoshopped. It does, however, pit Gibson in a negative light, as being arrested for DUI isn't flattering. Sure, that's the way he looks – piss drunk; it isn't a photograph he would hand on his wall. A picture that shows him clearly as the subject of his Wikipedia article is more appropriate that doesn't have any connotations behind it. Throw 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Gibson is indeed a Republican Party supporter, as this article proves. He has been very active behind the scenes for years, although it's only in recent years that he has been more vocal in his support.

That's not entirely true. He supported that candidate because the candidate appealed to his "Conservative" side (in particular the return to Christian values). That's not to say if a "Christian values" espousing democrat came along he wouldn't support them also. Even that article itself states that he usually "Gibson said he doesn't usually support political candidates", but did so in this case. Why did he do it? Because he was probably worried about Arnie getting in during what was a complete joke of an election.--Koncorde 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
What he means is he doesn't usually support candidates publicly. Gibson is more right-wing than Schwarzenegger, who is considered a RINO by most real conservatives.
That's surely your interpretation/POV than actual factual/verifiable evidence? If you take "Republicans" to be solely on the 'party line' then you'd find an awful lot of RINO, there's sizeable dissent (even with Cheney) within the party to the popular view just as there are conservative Democrats (DINO's). I'm not sure who the Democrat party put forward for the position or what they stood for during that particular election.
Gibson is only "right wing" with regards to his religiously indoctrinated views - however he has never publically (to my knowledge) attacked the civil rights of any person (though has expressed his own personal disgust/dislike) and supports many causes that are traditionally liberal (i.e. gun laws, freedom of the press/media) and opposed military action (i.e. Iraq) and been critical of sensationalism and the behaviour of Bush's regime (revealed during his Apocalypto interviews) to make it difficult simply to tar him as one particular party follower. Chances are no party particularly appeals nor would be a viable option lest he commit his beliefs to public scrutiny even more than they already are.--Koncorde 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comments have very little to do with how the article can be improved. Also, if you ARE going to talk politics then I want to point out that it is ludicrous to argue that Republicans attack "the civil rights of any person." Also, it also ludicrous to argue that Republicans do not believe in "freedom of the press" and it is ludicrous to argue that only Democrats believe in freedom of the press. These are merely your incorrect take on what the Democrat and Republican parties stand for. As for the article, I agree we just don't know if Gibson is a Republican or not, but he has made it very clear that he is a conservative, not a liberal by any hopefully stretch of the imagination. --Getaway 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Errr, keep your hat on; I was defending Mel against the insuation he was "Right Wing" and therefore must be a Republican (so it was our anonymous friend making the two analogous) and had specifically made the point on more than two seperate occasions that 'Conservatives' exist on both sides of the political spectrum (of which Republican and Democrat aren't technically diametrically opposed). I said "traditionally liberal" I never said which side of the line that fell on (as "Liberal" technically used to be part of the Republican agenda) as I thought would be obvious seeing as I included two completely contrary examples of what is "liberal" that I know Gibson has supported i.e. "gun laws" (Republican typically, but also some Democrats) and "freedom of the press" (universal - I never even insinuated one side would be against it) and utilised the "civil rights" to emphasise that whilst he may have conservative views he hasn't to my knowledge attempted to have them enforced as per being "Right Wing".
They have everything to do with keeping the article NPOV, which is "improved" IMO rather than casting political aspersions based on his support of a candidate without any quantifying reasons from the man himself.
I suggest you take a chill pill.--Koncorde 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually since Gibson owns a vast collection of guns and encourages his children to shoot each other with paint ball guns in the woods around his mansion, I very much doubt he supports gun control. Gibson is certainly a Republican, but like Schwarzenegger he is liberal on some issues.

I said Gun Laws, not gun control or that he wanted it restricted. He's on record as supporting the legal right to bear arms (hence including it as a "traditional" liberal subject).--Koncorde 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's Blog (see Accusations of anti-Semitism)

Is this "blog" notable enough to be listed? Or is this link spam? The text suggests that the owner of the "blog" received a nasty-gram from Gibson's lawyers, but the link goes to the "blog" itself where there is no evidence other than the "blog" owner's word. Googleing for this didn't turn up anything for me in the way of a news account. I'm sure there are a ton of "funny" web sites out there about Gibson, and in my opinion he deserves all the shit that comes his way, but this "blog" text seems very marginal to me as far as offering any facts or value to the article. In my opinion, this is link spam. Jake b 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally linked it specifically to a copy of the letter from Gibsons lawyers, but it appears someone changed the link to the main page for some reason.--Koncorde 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in its current state, it's link spam. Removed. Jake b 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


If the article does not describe his "Humanitarianism" or efforts that could be called Humanitarian Acts, then how can he be labeled as one? I think the article used to have some of humanitarian acts listed but these seem removed now. If these are so slim that they do not merit mention, I do not think he should be called an American Humanitarian. --Blue Tie 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Fwend 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was previously mentioned (something to do with charity events in Mexico and various other south american, plus donations to other charities) but has been deleted at some point.--Koncorde 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted because it was "poorly sourced" according to another editor I talked to. If you delete everything that's poorly sourced from Wikipedia you might as well delete half the content, I guess. I thought the policy was to add "citation needed" tags, unless the content was libellous or otherwise unacceptable. Anyway, I'll see if I can find some sources. Fwend 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but the only thing that we're really worried about is negative material. Hbdragon88 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


What the hell is up with the picture business? Can't we just find a picture which we can put up as fair use and leave it there? The idea that we can't use a fair use image because we could alternately use either fan art or his mugshot, which are in the public domain, is ridiculous. john k 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not put in a question to the folks over on Wikipedia:Fair use? (Netscott) 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The current rule seems sufficient to me to say that we're okay without further discussion. I shall quote. Fair use images are acceptable if:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.

The mugshot and the fan art do not adequately give the same information, as the fan art does not actually look like Gibson, while the mugshot is both POV and a bad picture. john k 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What information does a picture of Mel Gibson convey? (Netscott) 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What Mel Gibson looks like, surely? He doesn't look like the fan art image, and the mug shot shows what he looked like at one particular, extraordinary moment, not what he normally looks like. john k 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed what Mel Gibson looks like. No one would argue that Mel Gibson wasn't identifiable from this image. You might have a look at this talk. User:Blue Tie and I discussed (lower in the thread) an exception to the fair use rule that would not permit the usage of booking photos. I would suggest editing Wikipedia:Fair use towards such ends. (Netscott) 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use already provides an exception, in that the POV problems of a mugshot mean that it does not "adequately give the same information" as a non-mugshot fair use image would. john k 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't... and the reason it doesn't is that the same argument could be said for a "positive" picture of him. (Netscott) 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the mugshot is already in the article, next to the DUI section, so a regular picture at the top would be defensible, wouldn't it? I agree with the OP that this picture removing is getting absurd. Fwend 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The absolute best solution would be for a fan to upload a decent image they took of him and release it under GFDL (a free license) and then add it to the article. (Netscott) 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that would not be the best solution, because a picture taken by a fan would be unlikely to be of decent quality. What the hell is wrong with a fair use picture? Wikipedia's pathological aversion to fair use is incredibly annoying. john k 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not think wikipedia has an aversion to fair use, but some editors go too far in being concerned about it. A publicity photo that is INTENDED to be used for publication purposes, and brought in with fair use rationale should be fine. --05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent point, what about publicity photos? Is there a spacific policy on this particular type of photo? Jake b 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) does have an aversion to fair use, guys, and they try to use it only when necessary. The German and Swedish Wikipedias even prohibit fair use images. The PlayStation 3 page had a massive editwar over free shot vs. publicity photo. A decent free image will almost always take precedence over a publicty shot, as that photo is fair use and not completely free. Hbdragon88 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.--Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this.98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I just took the first three with references. If someone thinks that they should be switched for something else that's fine too.--Twintone 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And now it's been reverted back. Wikipedia is used for encyclopedic entries and WikiQuote is used for the quotes. Other bios have just a few or no quotes at all even from people more famous for their quotes (i.e. Winston Churchill, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg) If it's not limited then there is no reasons to not put up every verifiable thing Gibson said. I think we should consider reverting back to just a few quotes and linking to WikiQuote for the rest. It keeps Wikipedia more encyclepedic. Also if you incorporated specific things he said relating to areas in the article (i.e. his controversies etc) it would be more appropriate. Having a blanket section for all of the things of note he said doesn't seem to fit with other bios on Wikipedia (I mean they don't even have quote sections for Churchill or FDR and didn't they say more important things of note?)

I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:

Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:

"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.--Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Awards? aqua teen hunger force?

can someone explain the "freed the slaves award" listed under awards with characters of the tcv show aqua teen hunger force being other winners of this award? if not it gets removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?

In trivia: "In the February 7, 1983 edition of People magazine, actor/comedian Jerry Lewis claimed that he was outraged by a slew of anti-Semitic epithets that actor Robert De Niro directed at him during an exercise in method acting during the filming of a movie." What does this have to do with Mel Gibson? 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I just removed it earlier today for the second time.Nightscream 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense because the above entry had the important part edited out which was that the offending words of De Niro's were virtually identical to what Gibson said to the Malibu policeman. Don't you think that is information that is valuable for the reader to have? Perhaps not in trivia but in the section about Gibson's anti-semitic comments? I'll await your response before I reinsert... (sorry if I'm not doing this comment right as I'm new at this!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkondaks (talkcontribs) 14:06, 19 May 2007

That is completely irrelevant to this article. Why not quote the millions of other anti-smites? Ridiculous.
--Faithlessthewonderboy 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Faithless is right as far as they go, but says far too little:
    Lewis might well resent whatever R.deN. said to him, but saying deN. saying it in an acting exercise is worlds away from sincerity, and probably from trying demean Lewis for its own sake, as opposed to putting Lewis into a useful state of awareness about how Lewis would feel about being sincerely demeaned. DeNiro may have made an error in judgment, and there's a presumption that he did if (as it sounds) Lewis went away mad, but even if that's the case, the incident probably says far more about either Lewis or the hazards of method acting than about DeNiro's.
    Now, if Gibson knew that story (apparently not in evidence), that would raise the fascinating question of whether Gibson, when drunk, reads his lines from DeNiro-written speeches that he stashes in his limbic system. But WP is NOR.
    So it was wisely removed.
    --Jerzyt 03:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

I think the article is far too uncritical of Gibson's stated opinions. It reads like it was closely combed through by his PR people, which is exactly what I would insist on if I was in Gibson's position. How can this be avoided? Certainly not by locking out editorial contributions from other parties who may have something to add to the article. He's controversial, so let the controversy run. And don't forget that Gibson will steer it and profit from it if he can. He's rich enough to bring a hundred libel suits.

Hi. First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~), as it is customary. If you want to discus this issue, we encourage you to do so in a more relevant section on this page, and if there isn't one, create one. Make sure you do so at the top of the page, and place two "equal" signs on either side of the new section title, as I have done here. As to your question, can you cite passages that you feel reflect a lack of criticism and a bias in his favor? There is an entire section on things for which he is controversial and criticized, including several subsections each devoted to accusations leveled at him regarding his film work. Nightscream 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.--Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this.98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I just took the first three with references. If someone thinks that they should be switched for something else that's fine too.--Twintone 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And now it's been reverted back. Wikipedia is used for encyclopedic entries and WikiQuote is used for the quotes. Other bios have just a few or no quotes at all even from people more famous for their quotes (i.e. Winston Churchill, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg) If it's not limited then there is no reasons to not put up every verifiable thing Gibson said. I think we should consider reverting back to just a few quotes and linking to WikiQuote for the rest. It keeps Wikipedia more encyclepedic. Also if you incorporated specific things he said relating to areas in the article (i.e. his controversies etc) it would be more appropriate. Having a blanket section for all of the things of note he said doesn't seem to fit with other bios on Wikipedia (I mean they don't even have quote sections for Churchill or FDR and didn't they say more important things of note?)

I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:

Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:

"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.--Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Can we open the discussion of a picture up. This is one of the only articles of a major celeb without a headshot of some sort. Again, the DUI photo shouldn't be used because its POV and that drawing looks more like John Stamos than Mel Gibson. RiverCampa 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some people here only want to accept a picture that's in the public domain, like a photo made by a fan. Anything else gets deleted (or commented out). Fwend 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added an appropriately-licensed photo that hopefully won't meet with too many objections. —Chowbok 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Great! Good job on finding that one. Garion96 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good, goody. Keep it. ResurgamII 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I contend that there is nothing wrong with using the mug shot. It is recent and accurately depicts the individual. That is has negative connotations is a subjective attribute that is in the eye of the beholder, and as such is an attribute that applies to any and every picture. The latest available picture should be used. If it's the mug shot, so be it. If Mr. Gibson or his publicity organ would like to provide a copyright acceptable pic, or there is some other source, that would be better. But I see nothing wrong with the mug shot, as I said it is an accurate depiction, how can that be POV? Jake b 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The current photo is far too old; 17 years is a long time. A new picture really ought to be found. Eedo Bee 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mad Max

This was mentioned before somewhere in some past discussion. The Gibson article really needs a specific section regarding the film, as that what really brought him so much "fame". It deserves an equal amount of mention just like the Hamlet/Braveheart/PotC stuff found in the article itself. Can someone please write something for it? I have not seen the film in quite a while so I'm afraid I can't do so. --ResurgamII 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Australian connection

As some of you may have noticed user Sliat_1981 (talk) is unhappy about Gibson's Australian roots not being mentioned at the top of the article. He's added the phrase "Australian-raised" to the opening sentence several times, and after it kept being deleted because it made the sentence too wordy, he's resorted to simply changing Gibson's nationality to Australian altogether.

The fact that Gibson was raised in Australia is arguably important. That's why I would like to propose a compromise solution: putting the info immediately after the opening line, like :

"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer, who was raised in Australia."

If that's not acceptable, then maybe we could place it at the beginning of the second sentence:

"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer. Being raised in Australia..."

Fwend 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

- How about the term American-Australian or Australian-American? I mean, c'mon, the guy is an Australian citizen. Don't forget his earlier films had him with an Australian accent (some Lethal Weapon movie; I don't remember which one).ResurgamII 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is he an Australian citizen? Does he have two citizenships? I don't know the guy well enough :-) Fwend 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • - Yes, actually.

(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine Fwend, not to mention he received the Officer of the Order of Australia (which is given only to Australian citizens) in 97'.

ResurgamII 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Officer of the Order of Australia is awarded to non-Australians as well, not just citizens. I would also point out that for Mel Gibson to be a citizen of Australia he would have had to have been naturalized, which was a somewhat difficult process in Australia. I do not think Mel had this at the top of his head when he was a young man, drinking, whoring and carousing around. I suspect that he does not have dual citizenship. He did not say he had dual citizenship, he called himself a "hybrid". And I guess technically he is. His mother is Australian I understand, but his Dad is American. I do not believe that any evidence is available showing that he is a citizen of Australia. Any such information in wikipedia should be deleted. However, it is appropriate to mention that he was raised in Australia. The article already does mention that. --Blue Tie 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Honorary awards of the Order of Australia are made to persons who are not Australian citizens. JackofOz 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following rule: for the purposes of such categorization (that has very little to do with science or objective truth) someone is to be considered primarily X-ian if he/she was born in X-land and did not explicitely renounce the quality of "citizen of X-land." Will hence be reverting to American. --Aqualung 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my original question. I wasn't proposing to change his nationality, but to stop this edit war with a compromise. (Also you haven't signed your name) Fwend 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's a dual citizen and he has said it himself: *(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine

Error in the code

The link in footnote 9 doesn't work. It points to "'s", from which the last part, "Mel's" should be deleted. 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Nick)

Finding Nemo controversial?

Actually, there was a slight problem after Finding Nemo was released, where kids were flushing their fish down the toilet thinking it would free them to the ocean. So I suppose you could call that "controversial"... ;)

But yes, I absolutely agree: While in many cases tagging something as "controversial" is somewhat arbitrary, I think in the case of Passion of the Christ there is not much room to argue. I mean, people were calling it anti-Semitic before the filming had even finished. If that's not controversy, I don't know what is. --Jaysweet 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial" is one of those incredibly sneaky words that mascarades as objective (it has a definite "objective" ring to it), when in fact is incredibly subjective, and it is definitely not bestowed in good faith. Take for example S.B. Cohen's (aka Borat) latest film: it makes a complete mockery of the whole nation of Khazahstan, however I haven't heard anybody calling it and/or him "controversial." Now I'll let you draw the requisite moral out of this, out of why "Passions" is controversial, and Borat's film isn't. I hence think that Wikipedia should stick to objective facts, not subjective interpretations, however popular and widespread in the media they may be. After all, media in general, and American media in particular, is by far the epitomy of idiocy and cliché.
If you want to kill somebody, you call him/her on one or two public occasions "controversial:" he/she will never get rid of it. He/she will be "controversial" for the rest of his/her life. We, as a society, would be better off without this word. While the term might have had legitimate roots, it has acquired a connotation that prevents it from being used in situations requiring objectivity. Controversial items are not controversial intrinsically, they are made controversial by whoever has the power to do that.
Have heard it called controversial a number of time. Yet, never heard it being called controversial as being a bad thing, and I never thought of the word as having negative connotations to me, though others might disagree. Thaum1el (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Will hence be removing "controversial" once again. Please address the above concerns before reverting. Aqualung 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aqualung said: Take for example S.B. Cohen's (aka Borat) latest film: it makes a complete mockery of the whole nation of Khazahstan, however I haven't heard anybody calling it and/or him "controversial."
Uh, yeah, nobody except Wikipedia: See Borat#Controversy. hahaha.... --Jaysweet 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia call Borat/Cohen "controversial"? I just couldn't find it. The word "controversial" is nowhere to be found on the webpage you mentioned. Note that "Controversy" is not the same; as a matter of fact you gave me a good idea: I'll replace "controversial" with something else, i.e. "controversy sparked by" or something else to that effect. Calling the "Passions" movie "controversial" has more-or-less subtle unintended connotations (or, at least I take them to be unintended (but again, I am probably too gullible)). Now getting to the issue of the media, how many of you have seen the media storming with accusations of controversy, and bashing Cohen for his film? Where is the turmoil caused by Borat, whose mockery of the kazakh nation is much more overt than whatever (presumed) anti-semitic message the "Passions" movie "boasts"? How come the American media hasn't rushed into condemning Borat and his movie just as they rushed into calling Gibson and his movie "controversial"? --Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Just because you have a pet peeve about the word "controversial" doesn't mean it should be deleted. It's not Wikipedia's job to lead the way in making beneficial changes to society. Indisputably there was controversy about Passion of the Christ, therefore it was controversial. —Chowbok 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "controversial" as currently used in the Gibson article is not neutral. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that here it is used pejoratively and derisively (see Controversial#In_propaganda). Whoever put it there did not put it in good faith. Read the first two of the 5 pillars, esp. "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view." As far as "not Wikipedia's job to lead the way in making beneficial changes to society," the very etymology of the word "encyclopedia" screams "education" (see Encyclopedia#Word_history): would you educate your children in anything other than "making beneficial changes to society"? --Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aqualung wrote: Note that "Controversy" is not the same; as a matter of fact you gave me a good idea: I'll replace "controversial" with something else, i.e. "controversy sparked by" or something else to that effect.
If you can find a good way to phrase it, I'd be very happy with that compromise. I frankly think your concerns are way overblown, but I do understand where you are coming from -- and you are probably not alone in that, either. If an alternate phrasing eases your concerns, then I think that would be a clear improvement to the article. --Jaysweet 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I wonder why my addition to the discussion was removed. Mel Gibson is clearly a lunatic (gift-wrapping dead Even if you view this article from a conservative standpoint, it's obvious. Panda

I am unable to find edits with your ip address. If you created a log in id it would be easier to find and we could identify the reason. If your contribution was to a talk page, it might be archived. If it was to the article page, it could be that you were being highly POV. --Blue Tie 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More on the DUI

From CNN today:

The sheriff's deputy who arrested actor Mel Gibson for drunken driving has had his home searched by fellow officers investigating how a police account of the actor's anti-Semitic tirade was made public, it was reported Thursday...

Maybe not relevent. I'll leave it to someone who cares...

Jake b 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's Safari

Did this game actually exist or was the creator just having a laugh? Wormy 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? --Blue Tie 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This Wormy 14:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I Hate Juice


I linked to this in the Trivia section, but someone deleted it. I think it's fair enough for inclusion, just as something mentioned in passing. No? --BigglesTh9 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know... even if it is an external site I think this page has to adhere to Biography rules, and I dont really fancy the idea of Mel Gibson sueing Wikipedia. funny though! --ISeeDeadPixels 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


It is not sufficient that it be "incontrovertable". It must be validated by an objective reliable source. This is per WP:BLP --Blue Tie 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blue Tie and have reached an agreement on this, see talk at [8]. (Blue, please speak up if I'm misrepresenting you.) Anyone who thinks we're wrong, please discuss it here. IronDuke 02:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think it is better attached to the DUI incident page, but since he admitted it and it is a prominant part of his life now, it seems like a fair compromise -- particularly since he still denies being anti-semitic. --Blue Tie 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. I think it is against reason and the current rules of Wikipedia for being notable. A man in a drunken state says this one time, and after says he is sorry, and you think he is "notable" for practicing anti-semitism??! That is unbelievable. Maybe we can find out when an actor cussed once under the influence and categorize him as a cusser? Give us a break here will you please? However "yucky" you might think it was, there is no law against speaking uncharitably about any nationality. It is common for black people to be drunk and call each other niggers, but you don't take such a one who does so once and later says he is sorry and then put him in a category as a racist! As if he practices that ism? As if Gibson actual practices the other ism? Let's get real. We have known Gibson for a long time and if he practiced that, don't you think it would have been known after all these years? It is quite common for anyone to say something they don't mean under the influence because they momentarily want to hurt someone else, knowing it will hurt. A person who paints a swastika on a car is not doing so because he practices national socialism, but because he knows he will disturb that person who owns the car. Can we use some common sense here? And to not accept an apology is the worst of all with this. That sounds as hateful as accusing the man of hate. Is it okay to hate those you think hate? --Glossando 12:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have not looked at the category. If it is a category for practicing anti-semitism then maybe I was wrong to agree. --Blue Tie 13:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The category is described as: This category signifies that anti-semetism is discussed within the article. When placed on the page of a person, it does not mean that the person is necessarily anti-semetic. I note that accusations of anti-semitism are part of the article --Blue Tie 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While I dont agree with what he said and I certainly think its a horrible thing to say, I think its funny how everyone denounces him and calls him a racist, while Jackie Mason teaches hate against muslim and arabs. Mel's were drunken rambling, Jackie's are hate crimes. Yet, if it's against muslims, not Jews, it's percieved as freedom of speech. Should be the same for both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Folks, the tag is being added not as a way of saying "MG is an antisemite." It's just pointing to the fact that he's been at the center of a couple controversies involving AS. There's no POV here, just reporting facts. This shouldn't be a big deal. IronDuke 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh course its a way to say he is an anti-semite. By your logic, the cat should be added to about 10,000 other articles. I agree, its no biggy so just leave it off for now and stop agenda pushing, thanks...-- 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for talking, I understand how it would seem like a way of saying MG is an antisemite: please understand that your suspicions are in no way relevant. We could add the cat to a lot of articles. I hope to do so. Please take some time and check out WP policies before reverting the work of others. I can point you in the right direction, if you like. IronDuke 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point about being agenda driven. By adding the anti-semitism category to as many articles as possible, you water down its meaning/importance and are not doing anybody a service.-- 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying we have to add it to a lot of articles and then when I say, "Fine," you say I'm proving your point? Bizarre. IronDuke 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that if you add it to a great many articles you make it meaningless. I also think it is a relatively obnoxious but simultaneously useless category since it is only associated with things that happen to touch on anti-semitism but which may not be, in fact, anti-semitism. Given that the category exists as it does it is applicable here. But it is a bad category to attach to PEOPLE. It would be a fine category for things, ideas, books, events, etc. I think that the category for people should be "people who are anti-semitic" and that should be the limit of it, to avoid the flavor of smearing the innocent. --Blue Tie 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I never said "a great many." I don't know how large this category would grow, but many categories on WP are large. If you don't want the category, go and argue for its deletion. As long as it exists, it most definitely applies here. Also, Blue Tie, you had formerly agreed with me, and now appear to have changed your mind. Are you now suggesting that Mel Gibson is in no way connected to the subject of antisemitism? IronDuke 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we attach it to people? Because it upsets Gibson fans? Or because it's obnoxious? There's an anti-Semitic people category. Feel free to add that, if you like. IronDuke 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding this article to Category:Anti-Semitic people implies that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic person. WP:BLP#Use of categories has this to say:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.

Unless we have a good source that Gibson publicly identifies as an anti-Semite, this article should not be in the category, and any such edit should be reverted without regard for 3RR, per WP:BLP. —Ashley Y 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- I couldn't even get Marlon Brando's page to be tagged with that anti-semitism category, despite alleged "anti-semitism" displayed by Brando which was discussed in the Brando article.ResurgamII 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Brando's involvement in the subject of Antisemitism is as notable as Gibson's. Ashley, I think you may be arguing about the wrong category. What we're talking about is Category:Antisemitism, not Category:Anti-Semitic people. I agree, the second is a tougher category to implement. But the first is easy -- it implies no judgment about Mel. See also Abe Foxman. IronDuke 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. —Ashley Y 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The category anti semitism is listed under Gibson's DUI incident where it belongs. Ironduke, please stop agenda pushing which you admitted to earlier.-- 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Admitted to?" What in God's name are you on about? And if the cat belongs under the DUI article, it surely belongs here. Also, please respect WP:3RR. Thanks for taking this to talk. IronDuke 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Read above, you said you would like to add this category "to alot of articles and hope to do so"...please stop pushing your agenda in here, not very civil...-- 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't know what "agenda" you're referring to. If you mean adding category information, well, yes, I'm doing that. Perfectly legitimately, I might add. Also, you have violated WP:3rr again. IronDuke 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the agenda is to label an article in this way because it contains a discussion of anti-semitism. I think that the discussion is along the lines of an accusation, which may not be completely a clean deal. But on the other hand Mel Gibson admitted making anti-semitic remarks. So the label is not entirely unappropriate. Now, when it comes to agenda pushing, your repeated reverts are also agenda pushing and you are doing so in a disruptive way ... not discussing. This could be considered vandalism and you might be banned. --Blue Tie 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You might like to note that there are several founders and current leaders of white supremacist groups who deny that they are racist, if you think self-admission counts for something meaningful. These people repeat race-hate propoganda while denying that they are racist in the same way Gibson has, unless you see some different standard being applicable to Jews.

Frankly the fact that both his parents are indisputably anti-semitic (with his father's status being such that he is even an invited guest speaker at holocaust denial conferences) and that Mel himself has made repeated anti-semitic statements (which number a lot more than "at least two" as the current version states) should put this question on about the same footing as whether RFKs policial policies were in any way linked to JFK's.

No contest that "anti-semite" is a label that should not be applied lightly. However if you cannot interpret this (and in this of all cases) then WTF can you interpret? Have all the people noted as "sailors" on Wikipedia expressly and publically declared themselves as such or does the fact they've repeatedly sailed ships qualified them as this without their own personal endorsement? 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed hate speech from an anon IP and User:The world over. IronDuke 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The world over (talkcontribs)

User:The world over -- Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that Jewish people are still killing their sons? I notice that you are also ranting about Jews in the Henry Ford article. Do I notice a pattern here? Bus stop 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

From The World Over; To Iron Duke and Bus Stop -- Gentleman, my contributions to both the Gibson and Ford entries were followed in quick succession and without sufficient consideration, ie; they were written in the heat. So, in a spirit of good faith, and in compliance with "Staying cool when the editing gets hot" I would like to refer the following brief remarks to the Nine Tips of "Staying Cool..." Without going into lengthy detail, and since I am sure that both of you are familar with the above mentioned Nine Tips, I will make my point by refering to each tip by number. I do not believe that either of you complied with tips 1 or 2 or 4. Having said that, and after rereading my contribution to the Gibson entry, I did not comply with number 3, nor number 7 in the entry on Henry Ford (however, though I did engage in some editing which I did not give reasons for (ie, number 7) I fail to see where I engaged in any "ranting"). So, in an attempt to make amends I would like to take the time now to comply with number 6 and offer an apology to whomever took offence to my remarks, and I mean it. That being said, one can make a mistake without it qualifying as "Hate speech" or without having ones comments misrepresented by irrelevant questions ("let me get this straight, are you saying.....?"). Also, I would like to refer to you both to the "Dealing with Insults" section of "Staying Cool..." and remind you that I am a newcomer; and to tell you not as an excuse, but so that you know. In any event, though none of us complied fully with the tips, this entry is, as I said, an attempt to clean up my side of the street. The World Over

Wouldn't call Gibson anti-semitist, but moreso, a realist. It's a fact that Jews have the most political influence in mostly any Western country, and that as a result of that we're steered into wars to support horrible countries like Israel. Iran and Iraq were threats to Israel because they don't belong there--it's Palestinian land. Not only that, but the Israeli soldiers treat the Palestianians like trash (and even worse than that). 90% of the American media is owned by 5 wealthy Zionist Jews, as is the British media. As a result, you have to turn to independent studies for real news and the internet. Gibson doesn't hate all Jews, and neither does any "Holocaust Denier" (a stupid word since the phrase "Denier" actually denies the Holocaust). It's the elite at the top that were once Jews, but now live for corporate greed, manipulation, and power. It's not only Jews either, but from a population-to-representation standpoint, the amount of Jews in the upper echelons is both amazing and incredibly disturbing. 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibson's anti-semetic statements to the police officer are not simply "alleged", they are fact as he has publically affirmed the accuracy of the statements himself. (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to keep the comments Mr Gibson made to the Police in context of what happened immediately afterwards. The State of California certainly thought the abuse of Mr Gibson was serious enough to actually change State Law (reported by BBC World Service). Within hours of Mr Gibsons arrest, full details of the comments he allegedly made were Posted on an Internet Web Site, this Posting did not give him any opportunity to explain or Respond to to what was written. The BBC has reported that the State of California has now made the selling of police arrest details to the Press illegal largely based on the police treatment of Mr Mel Gibson in that case. What Mr Gibson was subjected to was 'Condemnation by hearsay'.Johnwrd (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

adopted siblings

I will be making what I HOPE is a non-controversial change to the childhood section.

It currently notes that Gibson is 6th of 10 children, and that the family adopted 1 more bringing the total to 11.

I really don't think how one of Gibson siblings entered the family is important enough to make a comment on. Kind of like pointing out that 1 was conceived outside of marriage, 4 were planned and the rest were "oops" babies. Not very encyclopedic.

If the child was adopted after Gibson's birth, then he is merely number 6 out of 11 children.

The only exception to this might be if the child were adopted under truly extraordinary circumstances and it was a very telling story as to the values of the family. Otherwise, it is pretty mundane and kind of old fashioned to point it out.

No offense intended to the original author! Just trying to tighten up the article a bit. Interesting read, btw.The Pearl 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Including this category under the DUI article is enough. Gibson's bio doesn't warrant inclusion just because you or others want to label him an anti-semite, thats called POV original research. Thanks.-- 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't want to label him an antisemite. Please reread -- carefully -- the discussion above, then come back with appropriate remarks. Thanks. IronDuke 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Clear attempt at getting around consensus that category anti-semetic people is not approriate.-- 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you paying any attention at all to what's being said here and on your talk page? Your posts make it seem as if you're not. It makes it difficult to communicate meaningfully with you. Also, are you using this an alternate account? IronDuke 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson has been referenced notably in reliable news media reports concerning antisemitism. Once regarding his film, The Passion of the Christ and then with the DUI incident. His article more than qualifies for addition to the Category:Antisemitism. (Netscott) 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There are four references in four sections of this article mentioning antisemitism. Please give it a rest now. (Netscott) 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson is not an example of anti-Semitism, therefore he should probably not be in the category. The individual incidents, however, should be, if there are articles for them. —Ashley Y 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mel is a poster child for antisemitic controvesy. I know fans don't like it, but there it is. IronDuke 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not but there is no denying that antisemitism with regard to his person has been very notably discussed repeatedly by numerous reliable sources. There are four separate sections of this article that make mention of antisemitism, I'm failing to understand the issue of folks feeling that this article on him should not be a part of the antisemitism category. (Netscott) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the implication that Mel himself is an anti-semite. While many may claim he is, and his drunken tirad was a step backward, he doesn't identify as one. Still, the tirad really did push it over the edge. It's one thing to call Rush Limbaugh a rcist; it's another to prove he was at a klan rally. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any such implication. Clicking on the category makes this clear. See, for example, Abe Foxman. IronDuke 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I too am suspicious of this coming off as a POV, but there is a valid point that this does not link him directly to anti-semitism. I was dissappointed to see however that someone added the POV categorization of "anti-semetic people" today. The accusations are far too few to label him with as strong a category as "anti-semetic people." The history/evidence of the issue still is too sparse to say throughout his life he may have been an "anti-semetic." Just adding my two cents.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If I were to kill a man (or a woman, in certain parts of the world), I would be a murderer. I do not have to "identify as a murderer" in order to be considered a murderer. I do not have to have killed people throughout my life in order to be considered a murderer. I may have apologized profusely in prison, I may have made some nice music, paintings, poems, movies, or whatever - I'm still a murderer. I may have been drunk and stoned and in Hollywood at the time of the incident. But I'm still a murderer. Likewise, if Mel Gibson, Mel Brooks, Brooke Shields, or whoever makes anti-semetic remarks, they're an anti-semitic person. Is it really that complicated? It's not POV to label the trunk of a pine tree as "something that is brown", even if we could all hypothetically agree that brown is the worst color of them all. --Action Jackson IV 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So I guess it isn't that simple. If only it were :) --Tom 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, being drunk is not a defense. Alcohol makes you loose your inhibitions, thus anything in your head, racist ideas for instance, might come out for no apparent reason.--Gonzalo84 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I've sprotected because of the amount of reverting going on. I don't normally put the tag on BLPs, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tagging after protecting isn't optional. I'd think an administrator should know this already. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but...the tag is...key. Untagged articles aren't categorized and users aren't clearly informed of what's what unless they try to editting. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Thomas of Lancaster.

The "accusations of homophobia" section states that Edward II was a "mere puppet of Thomas of Lancaster." But a quick reading of the linked article suggests the opposite: Lancaster opposed Edward and was executed by him. The "Thomas of Lancaster" bit in that statement needs to be changed to Piers Gaveston - who is certainly the historical model for Edward's lover in the film. However, it would be equally accurate to use Hugh le Despenser - or his son, Hugh le Despenser the Younger - in this instance, if the issue is merely whose puppet Edward was. 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(Doh! The point being, I've forgotten my login info and can't make the edit myself, but it does need to be made, so an admin should make it.) 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award-winning American-Australian actor, director, and producer *and a virulent anti-Semite*."

Vandalism seems to be getting really out of hand on this page. I don't know if it should be protected, or even how to do that, but maybe someone with more Wikipedia experience can help out? Alki 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't protect articles. That's an administrator-exclusive function, though I'd probably prefer Wikipedia virgin such as yourself to certain others as Admins. Anyway, as bad as it might seem, I've seen worse. There are ways of requesting protection, but I'd imagine it would only be rejected in this article's case. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


In the article, in the "Family" section, Mel's kids are listed with their birth years. His two oldest sons appear to be twins, and thus the same age. Neither of them is named Bear, and nowhere does the article say that either of the twins has the nickname "Bear." Nor does the article state that Gibson has had any children with any women other than his current wife. The last sentence of this section reads thusly: "Mel Gibson's eldest son, Bear, attends Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va." This seems to contradict the earlier part of the section. First of all, if the information provided in the article is completely accurate, Gibson does not have an "eldest son"; rather, he has two sons of the same age who are older than all his other male children. And who is Bear? I don't know if this is extremely unfunny and uninspired vandalism, or simply an editorial oversight. I don't really know enough about Mel to correct it myself. Perhaps there's a Mel Gibson expert out there who would care to comment? 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh.... someone needs to change this....

Hi... uh... i'm a history major, but i'm sure it doesn't take one to know this....

I saw Apacolypto.

1. The civ were not Mayans. It was the Aztecs who performed blood rituals for their sun/snake god, Quetzacoatl

2. This does not take place during 600 AD. It takes place appx. during the spring of 1519

3. The location of the film would have been in modern-day Mexico City, which was called "Tenochititlan" by the Aztecs

Can someone please fix this embarrising Apacolypto section? thank you.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AK2 (talkcontribs) 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

You have misinterpreted what is going on here and it wouldn't be appropriate to change the article as it is accurate. This is a movie about a Mayan civilization as Gibson stated repeatedly in its promotion. The fact that he got practically every possible historical detail wrong has been noted by many Mayan historians. This however doesn't make it a movie about a differnt civilization, it just makes it a deeply inaccurate movie about Mayans. Attriti0n 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, he is grouped under Roman Catholic entertainers and he is most certainly not Roman Catholic. He is a member of an off-shoot "traditionalist" Catholic group that thinks Rome is too liberal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:54, December 29, 2006

  • I second that. Remove 'Roman Catholic' from this biography. Jporcaro 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I think it might be worthwhile to note that his anti-Semitism and hatred of George Bush are linked. BonniePrinceCharlie 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That was random. Citation? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Opposition to Iraq War and anti-Semitism (stop helping Israel). Big thing nowadays. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Israel. It existed before Israel, so it's completely independent. Israel is a massive leech on our resources, and for what reason should we support them? They violate every possible international law out there, have roughly 600 nuclear warheads (provided by us of course) despite not being registered as a nuclear power, and have carved their society out of the skulls and lives of countless Palestinian men, women, girls, and boys. I'm strongly anti-Israel and more Americans are opening up to it--they are of NO benefit to us. They don't even have oil. AIPAC is a large reason we're over there now, alongside corporate greed interests. Anti-Semitism would be hating the Jewish people for following Judaism...end of story. 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I'll take that as a "no". Don't add speculation to the article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

His defense of being Alcoholic was referenced in a recent South Park episode when Cartman says, "Oh, no! She used the Mel Gibson defense". This certainly doesn't warrant it's own section, but perhaps if other references are also made, this may be germane.

The Category:Anti-Semitic people should be added to this page, because the comments he said were clearly anti-semitic, and thus prove his antisemitism.--Sefringle 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very important that we not categorize articles (and, by extension, living people) subjectively. Gibson does not identify as anti-semitic. Adding this article to that category would be biased and inappropriate, not much unlike adding Michael Richards to a category for white supremists. Comments alone aren't enough, especially if they're "taken back" and/or denounced later on. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So if Adolf Hitler did not identify himself as an ant-semite, would that mean he couldn't be added to Category:Anti-Semitic people? The point is he is anti-semitic. And Michael Richards should be added to Category:Racists.--Sefringle 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Reductio ad Hitlerum I was unaware that Hitler ever denounced his anti-Semitic beliefs. While I believe that Gibson is a racist, he has denounced those beliefs and apologized for what he said. Therefore, while his comments bear inclusion into the article, it is unfair and biased not to accept his assertion that he is a changed man. People make mistakes. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. As I stated above: If I were to (without provocation) kill a man (or a woman, in certain parts of the world), I would be a murderer. I do not have to "identify as a murderer" in order to be considered a murderer. I do not have to have killed people throughout my life in order to be considered a murderer. I may have apologized profusely in prison, I may have made some nice music, paintings, poems, movies, or whatever - I'm still a murderer. I may have been drunk and stoned and in Hollywood at the time of the incident. But I'm still a murderer. Likewise, if Mel Gibson, Mel Brooks, Brooke Shields, or whoever makes anti-semetic remarks (I should qualify this - "makes anti-semetic remarks in a face-value situation" - that is to say, there's a difference when dealing with a Shock Jock or Onstage Persona), they're an anti-semitic person. Is it really that complicated? It's not POV to label the trunk of a pine tree as "something that is brown", even if we could all hypothetically agree that brown is the worst color of them all. --Action Jackson IV 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What if you killed that man or woman when drunk, and when sober you look back at what you did and feel sorry and repent? I recall one Law'n'Order episode where some dead drunk dude hit some child with his car and killed him. Well, you know what? He didn't get acused of murder, but of drunk driving! Negligent homicide probably, but not murder. I just cannot understand how come some people just seem to gloss so easily over the fact that Mel was drunk at the time he made the famed comment! I can only regard this behavior as pure malefic intent, and nothing else. Such people, motivated by such an obvious malefic intent should not be allowed to modify the article: malefic intent is, by definition, incompatible with objectivity. Aqualung 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Warning Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: -
AOL NetRange: -
AOL NetRange: -


This action to Mexican children was done in partnership with the Rotary through Rotarian Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreLarcin (talkcontribs) 23:12, January 3, 2007


I thought I read soemwhere once that he was born in New York. Doesn't that rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:05, January 25, 2007

"I thought I read somewhere once" would make this a no - but it shouldn't be too hard to find a citation for this. According to he was born in Peekskill, N.Y. --Action Jackson IV 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Prankster section

I removed some material that was not sourced or didn't reflect the citation. This whole section needs work as it appears like original research in its present form. Rather than remove it entirely lets find some reliable sources. Thanks!--Tom 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Block quote

hey my name is ramona and i search something about your religion

  • Ramona -- This is the "Talk" page for the "Mel Gibson" article. This page is for discussing how to write that article. Please type four tildes (~) after your posting, so that your name and the date and time will automatically appear in your posting. Bus stop 12:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Add in The Patriot

Hey mel gibson arguably gave his best performance in the movie the patriot and its not noted here. The movie won an academy award and 16 others. Iam too lazy to do so but could someone please add this to this article? it really was an awesome movie and it deserves to be mentioned here. OSFockewolf 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) mel gibson is the best


Just like to point out that Mel Gibson has also appeared in the following movies. Also the comment under Film Career, Mad Max, that "Gibson made his film debut as the leather-clad post-apocalyptic survivor in George Miller's Mad Max" is incorrect. He actually made his film debut two years earlier in a very ordinary Australian movie called Summer City.

1. The Singing Detective (2003) 2. Chicken Run (2000) (voice) 3. Pocahontas (1995) (voice) 4. The Man Without a Face (1993) . 5. The Chili Con Carne Club (1993) 6. Bird on a Wire (1990) 7. Mrs. Soffel (1984) 8. The River (1984) 9. Tim (1979) 10. Summer City (1977)

Leon Pinkerton203.41.250.147 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over lead text

Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD. I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times. Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here! --Jaysweet 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards and accomplishments

I do not agree with stating this obscure "award" by some website under awards and accomplishments - so I suggest to remove this last one: Named the "Second Most Jew-hatingest of Hollywood" beat out by nonother than Richard Simmons on the Frigid 50 list Film Threat (2006) - There should be stated only real and respectful awards, not some questionable hate-awards made by haters --Ibuko 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's removed. Garion96 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ibuko 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First Name

Is his first name Melvin or is it really just "Mel"? I know that Sacha Baron Cohen (as Borat) once called him "Melvin Gibsons", but that doesn't really prove it either way. -EJ220 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cal State Incident

There are several facts not being represented with regards to the incident. CSUN students who attended the event themselves allege via a facebook group at that Gibson was patient during the entire ordeal, that Estrada was disruptive, and that she not only cut in line, but snuck into the event, which was reserved only for film students and faculty who had questions about Gibson as a filmmaker, not about his depictions of Mayan culture. Furthermore, university officials themselves ( are defending Gibson, not Estrada. The SF Gate reports that the two refused to give up the microphone. Wikipedia's citation of only, an incredibly sensationalist website for entertainment journalism, as a reliable source, is very poor journalism. Jtown1234 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. This page is only semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. CMummert · talk 11:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that certain facts are not being represented, then by all means, add them, and the sources that support them. I read the source, and added the details provided by that article, as well as the source, but for future reference, you can certainly do this yourself if you wish. However, I saw several bits of wording and turns of phrase that were not in the source that you provided, such as "demanded", "enraged", "shouting insults", and "clearly disgusted". I removed those. That source also doesn't say that he was "patient throughout the entire ordeal", but corroborates his invectives toward Estrada, and says nothing about her being disruptive, cutting in line, sneaking into the event, or the exclusivity of the event. I also don't see how his depictions of Mayan culture are not pertinent to "Gibson as a filmmaker". And while it does indicate that one campus official praised Gibson, he did not take sides over the conflict between him and Estrada. I don't know if these assertions are derived from the facebook source, but I cannot access that page, because it requires that I log in, and I do not subscribe to that service, and I don't even know if that is considered a credible source or not by WP standards. Nightscream 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was requesting an edit because I thought the page was protected, not semi-protected, because my account has only been active for a little bit. You are right, much of what I discussed was from the facebook, which, of course, is not a journalistic organization, but it does capture the feelings of what the students who actually attended the event -- and they're not happy with Estrada at all. Anyway, here's a better source, the student newspaper's account of the incident -- When I'm allowed to edit the page, I will. Jtown1234 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why are you not allowed to edit it now? In any case, if you want, I'll add the info from that source tonight when I get home from work. (EST). Nightscream 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's just because my account is too new; the "edit" feature doesn't come up yet for the article page just yet. Jtown1234 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Apparently there is also a crooner with the same namesake. See crooner

I removed it from crooner, couldn't find a reference for it. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia section

The section needs to be restored so that it mentions his anti-gay interview from December 1991. That was why he hosted the GLAAD event in 1997. It is also significant since as late as his Playboy interview from July 1995 he was still refusing to apologize. (Gibsonism 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Added it back. --DrBat 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust and Mel

I don't generally edit contentious and disputed topics like this one so I will leave you this article to do what you will with. See: [9] IvoShandor 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this page needs a newer image

Why not use that black and white faceshot of him from the movie Payback86.144.221.3 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the picture of him in 17 years old? Since we're talking ancient history, here's a few other items that are as old as Mel's picture: Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry was arrested for drug possession; the President of South Africa promises to free Nelson Mandela; U.S. President Bush breaks his 1988 'no new taxes' campaign pledge. Can someone please bring us up to recent history with an image of good ol' Mel from this century? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to find another free content image to replace this image. Since this is a free content image, it can not be replaced by a fair use image. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson the Actor

is mel gibson still an actor, it seems his main focus now is directing??Jimmypop1994 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Directing and producing. He's more of a money guy these days as no one will touch anything with him on the screen. But actually, was he ever *really* an actor??? Proxy User (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Flip out on Danny Glover?

I remember hearing about Gibson flipping out on the set of one of the Lethal Weapon movies (or something he did with Glover, maybe not Lethal Weapon) on local news. I don't remember much about what they said happened except that he got angry at glover and someone in the crew; called Glover a 'nigger', and said something about the crew member being a jew.

Has anyone else heard about this, or have any credible sources as to whether or not it is true? I don't know if it is true or not, or maybe it was a prank he pulled. I heard about it on local news during the coverage of his DUI/rant recently, but none of the local news stations' websites have anything in the archives about the story.-- 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Death penalty?

I'm a little curious about this now... from a little Googling, I found quite a large number of bio and triv pages that mention that Mel Gibson is pro-death penalty, but couldn't come up with a single reliable source (I figured IMDB was borderline, so not surprised I got reverted there :D ). Oddly, one fan site had footnotes scattered about the bio, but then the footnotes themselves were indecipherable. D'oh!

So what's the skinny? Is this just a rumor then?

I'm not sure how important this is for the article anyway, but now I'm curious. --Jaysweet 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MERGE VOTE: Mel Gibson DUI incident

Please vote at the bottom, and follow the format:

Some other talk about the merger has gone on at: Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident#Merge --RidinHood25 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The voting has been going on for more than the required time. Propose: CLOSE-NO MERGE - Deadline: October 15, 2007

Is there consensus that Mel Gibson DUI incident should be merged with the main article? I just want to make sure there's agreement before I start moving info over! Popkultur 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • VOTE: FOR - : A merge seems appropriate to me. +sj +
  • VOTE: FOR - **I agree, this article has no reason to exist. User: 03:37, 14 April 2007
  • VOTE: AGAINST - I disagree with the merge for two reasons, 1) This article is 35 Kb and Gibson's main article is 55 which would make the merged article somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 Kb. According to WP:SIZE articles really shouldn't be that big if at all possible which it is in this case because 2) It would become the Mel Gibson article featuring the DUI incident. The incident deserves to be discussed for several reasons, but given Gibson's long career this one incident should not be competing for attention next to Mad Max etc. Anynobody 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • VOTE: FOR - Please merge the articles, there's no need for a separate article about the DUI incident.S. M. Sullivan 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep them separate because the DUI incident article is very long and detailed.Claisen 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • VOTE: AGAINST/DELETE - I vote that the DUI incident article should be deleted. But if it is not deleted it should be kept separate. It is too long for this article. DO NOT MERGE. --Blue Tie 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • VOTE: AGAINST - As stated here, and over at the other discussion page, the DUI entry is too large to be merged -- it would be larger than his bio. Either reduce it to a paragraph, or keep it seperate. FResearcher 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • VOTE: AGAINST - The DUI thing is has over 60 references and is long. Why dilute this article with that stuff? The factoring out was a good thing. This article is already 65K and the DUI thing is another 35K. Do not merge.--RidinHood25 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • VOTE: AGAINST - this issue is significant in its own right due to the larger context of anti-semitism. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • VOTE: AGAINST - Come on, the M.G. DUI incident is amazingly hilarious in its own right, regardless of its anti-semetic or misogynistic aspects. It is a significant reference point in American (and possibly international) culture and comedy. It deserves a full-page writeup instead of the inevitably shrunken and controversial section of Mel's main article that would undoubtedly result from a merge. 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotation section

Can the quotes be better sourced or removed? Not sure if they add much. Other thoughts? Thanks, --Tom 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think removal would be best. It's not very encyclopedic. IronDuke 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance and POV tags

I've placed the Balance and POV tags on the article. The criticism section and alcohol abuse sections alone (not including any criticism elsewhere in the article) make up about a third of the article. I know he's a controversial guy, but this is undue weight. It needs to be abridged. (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Current picture

I may have missed a discussion on this, but why is the photographer/owner credited? I've never seen that before on any other Wikipedia article. Seems like a subtle form of advertising. Anyway, I'll give notice for a few hours before I remove it in case there is a good reason why it is there. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


The belief that he´s a paleoconservative is not NPOV. It´s an interpretation. Like it´s stated in the entry, there are several interpretations of his political beliefs. To state that he´s a conservative, would be acceptable, but it´s arguable if he´s really a paleoconservative. He probably would like to see a Christian-Democratic Party in the USA, since he seems to have some differences with both major parties.Mistico (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxer rumor

I have heard a rumor float around that Mel started out as a boxer. Even if this isn't true, would it be worth mentioning on his page if a source could be found?--ProfessorTom (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the rumor that he's the Queen of Ecuador? Or the one where he's married to me? Can we use those? I mean if we can prove that I wrote them down? Or maybe with experiments? Sugarbat (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

POV in satire? Or speculation at least...

It can be argued that "Family Guy" may have been a little nicer to Gibson than "South Park" was; he may even like "Family Guy" better than "South Park."

Has there been some kind remark made be Gibson to tell if he's a Family Guy fan over South park? What's the point of this statement?--Skeev (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Does Mel Gibson really qualify as a "Historian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PBS Carrier series

I kept looking at "Executive producer: Mel Gibson" in the credits of Carrier An Icon Productions and Carrier Project Production (an interesting 10-hour miniseries somehow associated with WETA-TV in Washington, DC.) and saying,

Hmmm, do we need Mel Gibson (disambiguation), or is this producer n-n?

Well, turns out that the Icon Productions tie shows they are one and the same, and the lk at Carrier (documentary) acknowledges it.
I don't have a change in mind for this article (and i'm certainly not suggesting OR additions), but i can't help thinking that when MG and PBS are in the same bed, editors should at least have their eyes open for mainstream discussion of what it implies about one or the other.
--Jerzyt 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you always talk in staccato riddles? What are you trying to say? "Tie shows" is that a show about how to pick out a tie? As for adding something about the documentary in this article, why not? Go for it. Just a sentence under his Icon Productions would be fine. Although his big contribution to the project was to put up the money for Icon Productions and nod affirmative to using some Icon money to give to the makers of Carrier. Nothing else. As for "in bed with PBS", when the green light was given for production, i.e. to make the film, there was not set place for the film to appear. It could have been distributed and appeared somewhere else. When the financing is green lighted, that doesn't mean that a distribution agreement is in place. So, it is no big deal. I wouldn't get to excited. IP4240207xx (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bounty sc.jpeg

The image Image:Bounty sc.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mad math?

Check it out: The article says Gibson was born in January, 1959, and that his father moved the family to Australia in 1968, after winning the lawsuit in February of that year. So they must have moved sometime between February and December of 1968, right? So then why does the article say that Gibson was 12 at the time of the move (see "Early life")? At most, in December of 1968 the nipper would've been nine. Am I right?

I know it's just a little thing, but it's bugging the Pursuit Special out of me. Sugarbat (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright babies -- after extensive, backbreaking research, I believe I have solved the mystery: Someone seems to have invented his birth-year instead of using the actual one of 1956. There's actually no mention of "1959" whatsoever on all the internets I checked. I mean no mention at all. That year appears to have not existed, ever. Weird.
Anyway, I fixed. Love. Sugarbat (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference list formatting

Doods -- what's the haps with the reference list at the bottom? Why's it so fugly? On the right side, is what I'm talking about. I'd fix it but that coding's not my strong point and it will take hours that I don't have right now. But I respectfully beg someone smarter than I (in that regard) to investigate and prettify. Thanking you most sincerely in advance, Sugarbat (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "pb" :
    • Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson". ''[[Playboy]]''. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved [[May 17]] [[2006]].
    • Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson." ''[[Playboy]]''. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved [[May 17]], [[2006]].<ref name=pb>Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson". ''[[Playboy]]''. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved [[May 17]] [[2006]].
  • "pboyer" :
    • Peter J. Boyer, The New Yorker, [[September 15]], [[2003]]
    • He took more time off acting in 1991 and sought professional help. That year, Gibson's attorneys were unsuccessful at blocking the [[Sunday Mirror#The Sunday Mirror|Sunday Mirror]] from publishing what Gibson shared at [[Alcoholics Anonymous|AA]] meetings.<ref>The Advertiser, September 22, 1991

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


The picture, a mugshot, is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It gives the impression that the man is always a drunken wreck. It needs to be changed. (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried really hard to include a relevant detail re Mel Gibson's "Tiger Diet", but wikipedia, either through incompetence or through deliberate blocking, prevented me from updating the relevant passges into the section on his family and personal life. Here is the relevant passge:-

"Mel Gibson is also known for following a diet("Tiger Diet") consisting of raw meats, avocadoes and olive-oil.[2]

Any reason as to why anyone might block any new insertions? Uusally, only sites like Gorge Bush's have to be blocked from being edited.Loki0115 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The detail is fairly minor, in an article which is already overlong. But cited additions from reliable sources are almost always welcome! IronDuke 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on Mel's Church?

There doesn't seem to be anything on The Church That Mel Built in Malibu. Why not? It's relevent. Proxy User (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be better versed in it, why don't you write it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material will be removed very soon per WP:BLP

There is some questionable, controversial and even libelous material here that will be removed per WP:BLP by tonight or tomorrow am if it is not sourced. I have put up the {BLP dispute} notice here because such info can and should be removed IMMEDIATELY. This is not a matter for discussion on whether unsourced material can stay, as someone mistakenly wrote on my talk pageabout his father's article. Carol Moore 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

It would be extremely helpful if you would actually point out what material to which you refer. It's a rather long article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think in general what is controversial or libelous is pretty obvious and I'll make it clear by deleting it this pm. If not read WP:BLP. Feel free to put it back when a source is found :-) Carol Moore 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Tha you refuse to answer a straightforward question is troubling; collegial editing is the goal here. IronDuke 16:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Read the first line of the BLPdispute tag: "This article may violate Wikipedia policy as it contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person. Such content must be removed immediately."
As I just wrote elsewhere: Things that are lowest priority to delete are things everyone knows is true because a person is very well known for being a politician who did such and such or a movie star who starred in such and such blockbuster. When they are not, we don't even know what might be a lie someone stuck in there to embarrass or hurt someone - or could trigger a lawsuit vs. wikipedia. Like someone says someone worked for a company but the truth is someone sued that company because its product killed their child. Seems non-controversial unless you know the truth.
So personal statements about him and his sister, and early career that aren't sourced should go. It seems excessive to have both list of movies in text and in the filmography except where it's a major career move. And that sort of thing should be sourced. (Sourced info on movies in wikilinks can be ok if there ARE such sources, such as biggest movie ever, though in general other wiki articles not supposed to be used as sources.)
Since I got your attention, not in quite as big a hurry to delete, but soon for reasons stated in second paragraph.
I put in a couple more citations where needed; some have to do with "facts" in between listings of films, as opposed to listing themselves. If he is not mentioned as a cast member in a wiki article about some show, it needs sourcing he was in it. Note that someone else put in October/need citation notes and one on gays that first got my attention, I now think might possibly have ignored what references in that paragraph said. So that should be checked out. Carol Moore 16:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So it is more important to source who his Dramatic Academy classmates were, that his sister submitted his application there, that he didn't work in Hollywood for a period after several back to back films (as evidenced by the lack of films during that time) and he hadn't starred in a film since 2002 (which is expanded upon in the next section about minor appearances in Icon productions) and that Icon Productions has expanded, than the sections that I personally think are over the top like the homophobia, anglophobia and anti-Semitism sections? The former may or may not be facts needing verification, but I must admit I don't see where those are potential BLP violations that must be sourced immediately or removed. I'm just basing this on what you've just marked as facts needing verifying. Efforts to whittle these sections down, especially for old controversies, are met with more than a bit of opposition, although I don't object to the removal of those. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't check for the accuracy or WP:RS of sourced material, though a quick look makes me think "" not a reliable source. I was confused by your last few sentences, but don't assume I have some POV on this except to make sure there is no false info in the article. Not interested in getting in middle of controversies. The general rule is that in WP:BLP you can't just allow stuff to stand that is not sourced because it MIGHT be false and legally actionable. If there is not any source out there to confirm it, it shouldn't be there. And one can delete unsourced info all day and avoid WP:3rr in case of WP:BLP. But if people are looking for sources and putting them in over next few days, then it is not as big a problem. Carol Moore 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Carol, thanks for the reply. You put your finger on a tricky grey area in WP, which is that most of the prose in BLP's does not have line by line citations. What you are doing could be done to hundreds of thousands of articles. I would not object to your removing the unsourced bits, but I would try to find a source for them first, as they are not controversial. IronDuke 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you have a POV or agenda. I was really referring to attempts I made in the past to minimize the controversies section, which just seems to grow in proportion to the rest of the article. My comments were meant to highlight the real difference between the items in the controversies vs. what to me, in a couple cases especially, don't appear to be BLP issues - such as not making films for a couple years and not starring (vs. not appearing at all) in a film between 2002 and the present. Those points are self-evident from his filmography listings. I'm not sure how the things today would present a legal liability. For what it's worth, I heard him tell the story of his sister submitting him to the Dramatic Academy on Actors Studio at some point, although I'm not sure of the date. Sorry if I made it sound contentious, it wasn't meant to be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<-----back dent You're lucky this article isn't 2/3 about the "controversies" which many articles about people who mispeak are. But just going through a period of annoyance at stuff that just could be made up about people being in Bios. Carol Moore 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mel Gibson as an Independent

Is there any source where Mel Gibson calls himself an independent ? I´m quite sure he´s a conservative but there are evidente to show that he doesn´t have political affiliation. (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro: remove "controversial" and "successful"

I just stumbled onto this page but it's obvious to me that the last sentence of the introduction is mired with POV language. "In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial[2] but successful[3] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ."

Adding "controversial" and then adding "successful" for the sake of evening out the criticism reaks of POV tweaking and tit-for-tat. I suggest taking out this POV adjectives and letting the text of the article deal with these issues. There's no topically pressing reason to include this in the introduction.


Ward3001 has reverted my edits saying that it's sourced and true. I've pasted a section from wiki's NPOV policy to clarify on this point. Just because something's cited and true doesn't mean it's not NPOV: "a common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article''."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're off-base on this. Are you actually disputing that Passion of the Christ was controversial? Are you disputing that it was highly successful? It isn't POV, it is widely published fact [10] and here. The controversy is discussed briefly in the section regarding the film itself and also regarding the allegation that Gibson was anti-Semitic. Controversial does not necessarily imply negativity and to read it that way is a bit POV in and of itself. That the film was highly successful at the box office is indisputable - it grossed over $370 million domestically (12th highest all time), and over $611 million worldwide (41st high all time). The citations are in the lead to lend support to the wording. The wording does not imply that the film was negative or the writer's opinion is negative, it states clearly and with supporting citation, that it was controversial. Period. Some people hated it, some people loved. People fought verbally over it even before it was released. Any deeper interpretation of the meaning is certainly POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie is quite correct. There can be no dispute that Passion was both controversial and successful. Indeed, MG's intro is very, very mild -- possibly contrary to our guidelines. IronDuke 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, I agree with Wildhartlivie and IronDuke. I am restating it here for purposes of consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Australian-American Actor

Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Australian-American actor

I have an issue with this... Yes, he lived in Australia as a kid, and he has 1 Australian Grandparent, but he is more than 50% irish with his mother actually being born in Ireland. Wouldn't it make more sense to have him listed as an Irish American Actor, or just call him an Actor without the nationality mentioned in the opening paragraph? TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he would more identify with Australia. He did give a LOT of money to NIDA, and that was where he learned his craft. - (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, he spent more than his childhood in Australia. He married an Australian woman and several of his children were born in Australia. He was educated and began his career in Australia. He was a permanent resident until the 1980s and still owns property in Australia, which he visits. He's also been awarded an honorary "Order of Australia". His links to Australia are pretty strong. On the other hand, there's no mention in the article that he has even visited Ireland. I don't believe that substituting Australian-American for Irish-American would be an improvement. Currently, it says "actor", and I think that's fine, but it will be interesting to see how long it remains that way. Rossrs (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)