Jump to content

Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newer picture?

Does anyone else think we should have a newer picture for this article? I think one from 1990 is a little old for an encyclopedia.Mwakin21 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, do you have a free-use image to put in? The reason there isn't a more recent image is because it needs to be a free-use image and there are none available. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Divorce

[1] --Dafengluobote (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent lengthy addition to homophobia

I have reverted rather lengthy addition to the section regarding allegations of homophobia for several reasons. The first is that the change to the first paragraph removed any sourcing whatsoever but added direct quotes that were not sourced at all. Considering this is a severe WP:BLP concern, that section was reverted back to what was there before.

The second, concerning Braveheart, was also reverted because of previous consensus to move that discussion to the main Braveheart article. The editor copy and pasted the material from Braveheart back into this article, which gives a redirect note to see the Braveheart article for discussion concerning that film.

The third section, concerning The Passion of the Christ. The section read: "In the film, the Hellenized Antipas is depicted as a luxurious, wig-wearing buffoon who surrounds himself with young male and female drunken revelers. The character of the Jewish high priest Caiphas is shown to be disgusted by the mascara-wearing Herod and his debauchery. The effeminate portrayal of Antipas in The Passion is common to other representations, including Jesus Christ Superstar. The origin of this tradition may have been Christ's description of Herod as a “fox” in Luke 13:32, using a feminine word meaning “vixen” in the original Greek." It was sourced to here, which leads to a dead link, yielding it unsourced, despite the fact it did allude to other films. Unsourced means it is a WP:BLP concern. I would admonish the editor to be wary of WP:BLP concerns in regard to what is written here, and what a source does, or does not support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have again reverted this change, which was done with no regard or response to my post above. Again, the change to the first paragraph has removed the source to the first quote, adds an unsourced quote and presents a WP:BLP concern, which is quite serious. The content was carefully shortened due to WP:BLP issues. It also tends to bring up questions of WP:POV. That isn't acceptable. Again, the Braveheart content was moved to the Braveheart article by editor consensus and returning it undermines the consensus process. Finally, The Passion of the Christ content may have a source added, but it is a blog, and thus, unacceptable under WP:RS. It is unacceptable to return the content based on an edit summary rationale of "this was all in the article before; I'm just adding it back. The Braveheart stuff was originally in here, not in the main article." You can't just be "adding it back" when it was determined to be better placed in the film article by consensus. Please be mindful of WP:RS and WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with these comments. I would also add that WP:UNDUE is applicable in relation to WP:BLP. The homophobia is discussed in an appropriate level to understand the issue. It's brief and to the point. Likewise the anti-semitism section which is roughly equal in depth. If we starting expanding and adding to something simply because we can, and because we can find a source to link it to, we run the risk of placing too much emphasis on it, and thereby throwing the whole article out of balance. We have to be careful that Wikipedia isn't seen to convey a viewpoint. The homophobia allegations against Gibson have been significant enough to mention, but on the whole they make up a very small piece of his story, and not the most important part. Rossrs (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I found an archived version of the broken link, so it's sourced properly. --DrBat (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sedevacantism

I think the article should try to show that Mel Gibson is not a sedevacantist as some have alleged, although his father Hutton might have been. Sedevecantism merits excommunication for schism, but people like Mel Gibson are not the same as sedevacantists. Rather, Mel's chapel is similar to the chapels run by the Society of Saint Pius X, whose excommunication was recently lifted. Furthermore, Mel has been in regular contact with a Mexican archbishop, who helps him remain in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the article can't try to show anything that would qualify as original research and can only base what it says on reliable sourcing. It sounds as if your conclusions may go beyond what can be said without treading into original research. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's still a good point about sedevacantism and Catholicism generally. He's betrayed his wife and family, taken a public mistress, and had his father act as 'judge' to 'officially annul' his previous marriage. Traditional Catholics have distanced themselves from Gibson. He seems rather a confused jumble of conflicting notions. South Park writers wanted to claim he was crazy probably because they didn't want The Passion made. But for other reasons, South Park might have been right. It would be difficult to argue that Gibson holds the same religious views, today, that he did say just ten years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.97.186 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Canon law

In Catholic canon law, Gibson's divorce would be counted as a civil divorce, but the Church would not recognize the divorce as having any religious validity. Furthermore, under Church law, attempts at re-marriage would prevent Gibson from receiving Holy Communion because re-marriage is considered to be akin to adultery (see Catholic marriage and Sacramentum Caritatis). ADM (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibson's early Judaism and his ultra-conservative father: reasons for his apparent anti-Semitism?

Jean Cohen in the "Jerusalem Post", 12 March 2004, writes of Mel Gibson's rebellion against his ultra-conservative Roman Catholic father Hutton. In 1974, when he was 18, Mel left Australia for Israel after an argument with Hutton. According to Cohen, Mel stayed at Kibbutz Degania and became friends with Jamie Whittier and Claude Delancey, who have both claimed Mel began observing Jewish custom with a view to conversion. After less than six months in Israel, Mel apparently began taking conversion classes and told Hutton of his decision to convert. He changed his name to Moshe and began to dress as an orthodox Jew. Hutton flew to Israel in November 1974 and lured Mel back to Australia with a story about his mother being ill. Upon returning, Cohen claims that Mel was locked away from the world for two and a half weeks until he recanted on his conversion to Judaism. Apparently it was not long after that that Mel began making anti-Semitic remarks.

The American Jewish historian Richard L Rubenstein suggests Cohen's allegations shed "an interesting light on Gibson's motivation" for making "The Passion of the Christ": Rubenstein, 'Mel Gibson's Passion', ch 11 in Timothy K Beal and Tod Linafelt, eds, "Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture and the Passion of the Christ" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 109 at 114.

Why is there no mention of this part of Gibson's biography in the article? Have Cohen's allegations been discredited? I'm unsure as to who Whittier and Delancey are. Can anybody verify this information?

At the very least there should be a substantial mention in the main article on Gibson's relationship with Hutton. It seems significant in the development of his own Right-wing social views. According to Rubenstein, Hutton was after all one of the minority of Catholics who held out steadfastly against the Second Vatican Council reforms, and reiterated his allegiance to Pius IX and his war on Enlightenment thought. In the Rubenstein view, Mel's social views are basically indistinguishable from his father's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rmarks81 (talk • contribs)

I can't substantiate that there was such an article from the Jerusalem Post's own archives. Then there's the issue that, as you've described it, the original story was apparently based on a whole lot of "he said, he said, he said" and a lot more innuendo and allegation. Were this a substantiated story, it would have received a high level of press and publicity, given the events of the last 2-3 years, and it has not. The bottom line is, we don't publish conjecture and supposition and only include what can be reliably sourced and verified. We don't tend to write in-depth scoops intended to shed light on the relationship between an article subject and his parents, scrutinize an article subject's religious convictions or explore theories on motivation, not unless it has already been subject to scholarly study and reliable publishing. Richard L. Rubenstein's chapter in the book is an essay which briefly touches on an alleged story. It doesn't substantiate it and it isn't available for closer scrutiny in its entirely in online book previews. Regardless, it's all based on a story that wasn't revived in the press at large after his arrest. Why would there be a substantial mention in any article about a child's relationship with his father? Far too many children grow up in opposition to their parents and at some point rebel against them. Think Jane Fonda, Charlie Sheen, or anyone in that genre. That hasn't anything to do with what makes Gibson notable or why he has an article here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic Category

Since he is no longer a Traditionalist Catholic as stated in the article, shouldn't the category be moved? 67.77.70.240 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he is no longer a Traditionalist Catholic. His church that he built is a traditionalist Catholic church. I'm not sure when the "former" qualifier was added, but it has been removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Village

Concerning; The Passion. I thought I saw an interview about lightning striking one of the actors. If there could be an explaination, prediction/theory, possibly, that industry, outreached education... and Hercules types of communications resemble film makers, but not artists, or those with general education. Luther.75.250.192.74 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. This makes no sense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"gays"

I edited this page to change "gays" to "gay people". The word "gay" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun, just as the word "black" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun. Using these words as nouns strips those categories of people down to a single characteristic. This isn't an absolute, but that use of the word should be avoided.

Someone apparently decried my change of this to be "unconstructive". As such, we can't change this without multiple opinions on it, due to 1RV.--99.17.1.168 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Before you posted this comment, I changed it back. "Gays" is commonly used as a noun, but it creates the impression of someone referring to a group of people from outside that group, and is less neutral than "gay people". I don't think it's intended to be derogatory, but we should be more precise with language, and unless it's part of a direct quote, it's not necessary to use it. I certainly do not agree that your edit was "unconstructive", but as you probably realize now, edit summaries are helpful in explaining why you've made a change. Please don't be discouraged by this. Rossrs (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Mel Gibson's middle name

I have corrected the spelling of Gibson's middle name from Columcille to Colm-Cille. Mel Gibson's full legal name is "Mel Colm-Cille Gerald Gibson," as supported by the divorce papers filed by his wife's lawyer [2] and the response by Mel Gibson's attorney: [3] Claisen (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add the citations to the article, not the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Claisen (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Kind of bizarre -- I thought it was spelled as Columbcille. I assume "Gerald" (third line above) is a misspelling for "Gerard". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Eva Braun Gibson

Eva Braun Gibson? I doubt that's his daughter's real name. The linked reference page (abcnews.com) doesn't mention that name, and it seems it's a joke. Can somebody edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.107.116 (talk • contribs) -- Why Not A Duck 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Someone else (Tubesurfer) has already fixed that, filling in the real name and adding a reference for it. -- Why Not A Duck 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I read on of Yahoo News and multiple other news sites this morning that her name was Eva Braun Gibson. I had to double check it because of the stunning audacity it would be for someone to name their child that. Now it's afternoon and it seems they've ALL changed it to Lucia. Anyone have any idea if that was just some type of vandalism or something else is going on? Conspiracy theorists unite? -- RaggTopp (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
These would explain it: here and here. Indeed, I added it. As I wrote on another userpage, "Apparently, the daughter's name was misreported (or rather, most likely satirical since Eva Mauner is Hitler's ex-wife)" ★Dasani★ 03:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Father

Why is there no mention that his father is an outspoken holocaust denier? And why is it not mentioned that he has never publicly refuted his father's stated beliefs or otherwise acknowledged that the holocaust took place? This material should be included, perhaps in the antisemitism section or in the family section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Because this isn't an article about his father. Hutton Gibson has a separate article. There is no mandate that Mel Gibson has to publicly refute his father's beliefs or endorse or deny that he shares them. You can't prove a negative. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. Mel Gibson told Diane Sawyer in 2004 that he believed 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That was primetime television.Coreyyeroc (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Gibson

Didn't Gibson's daughter, Hannah, marry a non-Catholic (albeit in a Catholic church)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Her husband Kenny Wayne Shepherd is a convert to Catholicism.Coreyyeroc (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrest

Shouldn't the article mention that when Gibson made anti-semitic remarks to the police it was at a time when Israel was being heavily criticized for waging a ruthless war in Lebanon? (92.8.34.179 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

You can go to the lengthy DUI article for all the details.Coreyyeroc (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder

Someone add the "list of people with bipolar disorder" to the bottom of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgibsonlover (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegations do not belong on Wikipedia

I hate "allegation" sections that are peppered throughout this encyclopedia. THere are a lot of allegations against a lot of hollywood actors, but you wont find them on Wikipedia. It seems that only certain authors with select POV agendas write "allegation" sections on certain individuals. Either put an "allegations" section on ALL major hollywood actors or delete it. This is why Wikipedia is so biased and corrupt....authors use sections of "Allegations" to peddle their personal biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Why is his picture almost 20 years old? Can somebody upload a more recent one? TheBearPaw (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if someone has one. But until that time, we're stuck with what we have. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering how popular he is, I'm shocked that this is the only free pic of him.--Evilbetty1991 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, his mugshot is available! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.100.179 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anglophbia

Several of Mel Gibson’s Films have been criticised for being anti British in their depictions and for sacrificing historical accuracy in a way that depicts Britain or England in a more negative light then the original events. The movie Gallipoli depicts British officers drinking tea on the beach whilst Australian soldiers die fighting for them. In actual fact the landing on Nek was a diversion for a New Zeeland landing at Sari Bair not a British landing at Suvla, and in real live significant numbers of British troops died attempting to aid the Australians after a brief communicational error. The Movie also depicts the British officers as not caring about Australian soldiers (something there is no evidence of) and has the two main generals at fault as British rather then Australian as they were and there was almost no British Commanders at Nek. The Patirot was heavily critisied by the British press at the time of its release for both exadurating British Atroicies and ignoring American ones, which are considered to be as bad as if not worse then the British ones. It also protreys US general Francis Marion in a positive light dispite him having commiteed many attroicites and depicts Banastre Tarleton as both a war criminal and as murdering a child in cold blood even though neither particularly the later are based on very little evidence. Braveheart has also been accused of Anglophobia. The film was referred in The Economist as "xenophobic"[14] and John Sutherland writing in the Guardian stated that, "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia".[15] Colin MacArthur, author of Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema calls it "a f***in’ atrocious film"[16] and writes that a worrying aspect of the film is its appeal to "(neo-) fascist groups and the attendant psyche.[17] According to The Times, MacArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film."[16] The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice"[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonnap (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Unless Gibson had production control, you can't hold him responsible for production choices. Gibson did not have creative discretion with Gallipoli or The Patriot. Those points aren't valid here. Braveheart has its own article which covers this. So.....what's your point? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The point is that there's a lot of "coincidentally" Anti-English movies starring him. Is this a coincidence? No, you'd have to be daft not to spot it. Can you begin to imagine what sort of uproar there'd be if the English decided to make an anti-American or Anti-Irish movie? Gibson himself would probably be shouting "Racist!".

217.171.129.72 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He returns with Edge of Darkness and...

You think we can get a more recent photo? And not the one you're probably thinking about. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why a more recent photo is necessary. This article is supposed to cover his entire career, no reason that a photo from the middle of his career shouldn't be used. Besides, I don't think there are any recent freely-licensed photos of him floating around out there.—Chowbok ☠ 04:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2 "asshole" incident

Resolved
 – Do not retain

I've reworded the description of the incident and re-inserted it to address concerns brought to ANI. However, it should be noted that I'm not taking any position as to whether or not the incident belongs in the article. The reasons for the ANI report have been handled, and hopefully the revert war is over. The prospect of either including or omitting the information should now be discussed here. Equazcion (talk) 04:09, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The main thrust of the ANI comment, and in the edit summaries, was about relevance and the mistaken attitude description of "possible vandalism". The sourcing and accuracy of the information was a secondary consideration, and it is the only part of the problem you have addressed. The main part of the problem has not gone away. Rossrs (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The episode should be mentioned in the article.I watched the video and heard the word very clearly --Mbz1 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
the video--Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
We should not add our opinions and interpretations to a BLP, and it really is trivia to mention each occurrence of a celebrity saying a naughty word when they thought an interview had concluded. If the incident has been written up in a reliable source (with some interpretation), it might be included; until then it is non-encyclopedic fan-cruft. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's relevant given his history.—Chowbok ☠ 04:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The incident is sourced with this: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/mel-gibson-crazy-201022. I'm again not taking any position on this, as I'm not sure myself whether or not it should be included, but everyone should know the inclusion isn't purely based on one of us editors hearing a word in a video. This is a sourced event. Equazcion (talk) 04:31, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We don't include something just because it can be sourced. I don't deny what's on the video, or that it has generated some coverage. That is not being disputed. The question is "why is this relevant"? To establish relevance, we have to be sure that it complies with WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. We also have to question whether the importance of the information is worth the negative impression we convey, bearing in mind that WP:BLP is a prime consideration. We also have to examine whether the event has been widely reported or whether it was just a flash-in-the-pan (which comes back to WP:RECENT). I'm sure it can reliably sourced, but that's not really the point. I think we also need to be sure that this one example of misbehaviour should be reported, when we don't bother to report the many interviews in which Gibson has conveyed a positive and co-operative demeanour. Gibson's controversies are covered, but each of the events covered has had some notability and has led to discussion in the media, and frankly they relate to more serious issues. This is not in the same league. With all of this in mind, how important is this piece of information in an article that should be taking a broad view of its subject? I don't think it's relevant, and the mere fact that it happened, and can be proven, does not make it relevant. Rossrs (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is important and relevant, and it was discussed in the media.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's possible to get hits on Google for this. The majority of that is not to reliable sources, although plenty of blogs and self-published sites jumped on it, and it still doesn't answer the relevant question of since when does calling a reporter an asshole become a notable and properly weighted mention? There are scores of actors who call people assholes or worse, and we do not routinely mention that here. As I noted at WP:AN/I, I don't have sound capability so I can't listen to the video, but it still wouldn't qualify as properly weighted content. As Rossrs noted, no one seems to jump on the myriad positive and cooperative reports made on him, so calling a spade a spade isn't something we should jump on board to do, either. This is not a notable, career-effecting incident. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, it doesn't really help to say it is important, unless you also say why you feel it's important. Wild: This may be a more notable event than other celebrities calling people assholes, for one, because it was during an interview with a reporter and directed at the reporter, and two, because of Gibson's past outbursts, and three, because this slur was in response to questions about that previous outburst. I'm again not saying it should definitely be included, but this isn't merely a case of "someone famous said the word asshole", and that seems like a strawman argument. I can understand why people do think it's important, and I hope you can understand that now too. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • That is some specious reasoning. I recall when George Bush, as President of the US, was overheard on a mic calling a reporter an asshole (or something similar). It got news coverage. I just checked, it's not in the bio. God knows every negative thing that can be worked in there is already. I'd submit to you that a sitting president making a comment like that is FAR more notable and if it gets left out of his bio, this discussion shouldn't need to go much further. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm explaining why some people might think it should be included. Those are the reasons. You're free to disagree, and I certainly think I made it clear that I wasn't saying either way. As for "we didn't do it for the president so we shouldn't do it for Mel Gibson", that seems like an interesting test to apply across the board in every bio. Perhaps Wikipedia:DIDWEDOITFORBUSH? Seriously though, you can perhaps see why that's not the end-all test for an item's potential inclusion. Equazcion (talk) 07:05, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh....Could you possibly be more literal? I used an EXAMPLE that was of a very similar nature by a more notable person. It is sometimes called an illustration. My actual reasoning, citing policies, is clearly articulated elsewhere in this section and at ANI. You've read it because you commented on it. So why would you give me a condescending reply like that and try to imply that I used Bush as the basis of my reasoning? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My point wasn't Bush, my point was indeed the fact that you used a more notable person as an example, and merely due to the fact that they are more notable. My stated reasons for this even possibly being notable in some people's eyes were rooted in the specific past that Gibson has. Comparing what's been done in other articles with more notable people isn't a good test, because every person has their own context and consequently their own set of events that seem notable for them. Saying "Bush called someone an asshole and we didn't report it, therefore when Gibson does it we probably also shouldn't report it" is glib, a gross oversimplification. Hence my condescension. Sorry about that, but still... you see my point, hopefully. Equazcion (talk) 07:21, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Your condescension was not justified. As I pointed out, I'd already made a policy based argument and you know I did. Acting like I didn't is really not very honest. Further, your stating that this is just "merely" using a more notable person isn't accurate. It isn't just that they were notable. They were both heard saying almost the exact same thing about a reporter over a mic they didn't realize was active and it was reported in the media. Good God, how much more of a match for circumstances could you ask for? Matching shoes? Keep ignoring that I actually presented a policy based position in 2 seperate locations and harp on this instead. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Equzcion, just to clarify. It was not made during the interview at the reporter. It was muttered under his breath at the conclusion of the interview. We don't know if Gibson intended that his comment be heard, or if he knew the microphone was on (although he's experienced enough to know better). It would be a different point if he'd made the comment during the interview and allowed for a response from the interviewer. Gibson's comment during the interview was essentially that he would not discuss it further, but there was no name-calling or profanity, although he was clearly irritated and impatient, and the interviewer did not push the point. The name-calling came after. There's a grey area here - we don't know what Gibson intended. His other behaviour has to be considered, and yes this is a small link in a pretty big chain, but within the context of the other events, its relevance should still be the key consideration before including it. I accept that some people find the information important, and probably even more people find it interesting, but a statement such as "it's important" or "it's relevant" means nothing. An argument could be made (and not by Google hits). This comment of yours is the first that begins to suggest possible reasons for inclusion. Rossrs (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I did say "I'm sure it can be reliably sourced but that's not really the point", didn't I? I checked Google before making my comment and I saw/see nothing in the results that spell "important" or "relevant" otherwise I would not have made my comment, which was broader than your reply. I questioned whether it had been widely reported or whether it was a flash-in-the-pan. Most of the coverage seems to be around February 2, 3 and 4, ie just after the event, and it diminishes after that. Maybe it was a "flash-in-the-pan". A lot of the sites that come up are gossipy tabloid sites and blogs. It doesn't seem to have permeated legitimate news sources to a significant degree. I found some instances of it being mentioned as an aside, in discussion of another topic, and when I see it being treated in a trivial offhand manner, it makes me feel even more strongly that those news services who choose only to side-comment on it, also see it in that light. It certainly has not had the impact or the coverage of some of the other things has been criticised for. Rossrs (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not more significant because Gibson said the word asshole. And it is improper to add the category Antisemeticism to this article. The only people I see in that category were leaders in anti-Semite groups or people added based on prejudice about them. It doesn't even include Adolf Hitler, but it does Mel Gibson. Please! The only basis being given for inclusion besides non-reliable sources is that Gibson is controversial. Perhaps he is, but not on the basis of calling someone an asshole. That's about as inconsequential as it comes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In looking over the arguments here, I see 2 editors who spoke in support of the content, one gave Ghits as a reason, one gave "because of history". There were four editors who spoke against the content, citing Wikipedia guidelines and policies that relate, including WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK. There was one editor who did not take a position and effectively argued as the devil's advocate. That would constitute a consensus against the content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree, consensus seems to be against the content. If an editor still feels it belongs and can back it up they should contribute to this discussion, rather than re-inserting the material into the article unilaterally. Equazcion (talk) 17:48, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the original contributor returned part of the content, as I noted he was apt to do, even after being invited here to discuss it. There's no doubt he saw the posts about it, since he removed them from his talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll put my oar in and say this is too minor to be included here, as well. Indeed, there is a whole article about the controversy where this could go. Having said that... (see next subsection below) IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues re the lead

(continued from above) ...there should be an article on MG and his relationship to antisemitism, using material from the DUI article and the Passion article. Also, the current section in the main article of antisemtism should be expanded (nor massively, just a bit.) Last thing, there should be some mention of it in the intro, per WP:LEAD and per the fact that it's had a huuuuge impact on MG's career. Thoughts? IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking only at the point you raised about WP:LEAD, I think we could potentially create more problems than we solve if we don't get it right. The lead is not satisfactory because it doesn't adequately summarize the article. The article is somewhat unbalanced because, although we have someone who is primarily known for his film acting and directing, his work is dealt with in a very brief, often superficial manner. His personal life is an important aspect, but it is discussed in more depth than his professional life, and I do understand that the two "lives" intersect. If the lead was to reflect the article, it would also reflect an unbalance, and his "issues" (for want of a better word) would be conveyed in an WP:UNDUE manner which then creates a problem under WP:BLP. In addition, if we mention the negative things in the lead, we also need to mention the positives, such as his "philanthropy". I'm not saying it shouldn't be done - in fact it really should be done - but it must be done carefully. I think that as long as the article has faults in balance, weight, structure... whatever, the lead can not hope to achieve anything more than reflect those faults. (Just as a side comment - it might be good to start a new section to discuss this, if you care to do so, otherwise your comments may be lost in the "asshole" section and not attract the consideration they deserve.) Rossrs (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well put, I think, and I am largely in agreement. For example, do we really need such a large "Prankster" section? Do we need any such section at all? That said, I'll quibble with you and say I would be surprised if his philanthropy were as notable as, say, the antisemitism controversy(ies). Willing to be convinced, of course... so, you want to take a stab at a lead? Or maybe I can, and you can hack it to pieces? (Others feel free to chime in here.)IronDuke 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I don't have an issue with either the prankster or philanthropy sections. They're well sourced, which is surprising. Many celeb bios include philanthropy sections and thos actions do get media coverage, therefore, arguably notable. And his pranks have gotten media attention and it's not an obscure fact about him. (I've seen it talked about in TV shows myself) So I'd submit that it is something he is known for, thus significant. Funny that we debate the validity of those topics, things he's been known for for years, and wonder why a DUI where he said some stupid things while intoxicated doesn't get more. It has a whole section of it's own, which is a recap of the whole article devoted to it. With an article about it, the bio shouldn't cover it in depth. In fact this section on it could be considered too long in light of an article about the topic already existing. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Do you think that, for example, the prankster section plus the philanthropy section equals, in terms of notability from RS's, the AS controversy?IronDuke 02:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Right. Assuming that were notable, do you think those facts about Gibson's life are as notable as his DUI incident/antisemitic remarks/reputation/allegations? If not, how would you weight them? IronDuke 00:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think all of them are fine the way they are. Keep in mind that the DUI bit has a seperate article of its own, so it shouldn't be longer than it is. The issue is covered in more depth in the other article. If it was to be as long here, the other article wouldn't be needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're driving at. They're all notable. Why does any have to be more or less notable than the other? Notable is notable. I feel all 3 are appropriately covered in the article as is. It almost feels to me like you're trying to get a specific answer to suit a point not yet made. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I believe we have at least a minor disagreement here. When that happens, I find it's best to try and see what the parameters of said disgreement are. To that end, I like to discover what we agree on, before we see what we disagree on. To my way of thinking, the AS allegations are more notable--massively so--then, for example, MG being a prankster. Thus, I would argue, they deserve more coverage. You seem not to want to say whether you think this is so, other than to keep saying, "The article is fine." I get that you think that, what I'm trying to figure out is why. Can you say if you think they are all equivalent? Thanks. IronDuke 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh........the question is irrelevant. There is an article soley devoted to the DUI/Jewish remarks issue. So in this bio, there should be a recap and a link to the article in a hat note, which is what there currently is. Because there is a seperate article on it, the incident shouldn't be covered extensively in this bio. If you want to cover it extensively in this bio, then the other article should be merged here. What it seems to me you want (and correct me if I am wrong) is to make the section here much more detailed, which then defeats the purpose of the seperate article. It is covered, more than adequately, by the other article. The entry here is sufficient, perhaps even more detailed than need be, and the hat note clearly shows there is another article and how to get to it. Having very in-depth of the same incident in two different places is uncalled for. I have an idea.....instead of trying to corner me with something, just tell everyone what you're getting at.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say to that. I have asked you, multiple times, to answer an extraordinarily simple question. It should take you approximately three seocnds to write a reply. Which is totally fine, this is a volunteer org, I have no power to compel an answer from you. However, going forward, I'm not sure how effectively I, or anyone else, can work with someone who won't engage. IronDuke 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have answered the question, I just didn't give the answer you want. All are notable. All are covered in an appropriate amount in the bio. Your insistance on trying to name one as "more notable" than the other is baffling. Is smells like an agenda. Again, I invited you to simply say what it is you think is wrong and go from there instead of trying to play this "gotcha" game. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate that invitation. But, as you refuse to answer a simple question, I can't think what point there might be in continuing the discussion--do you? Perhaps, if you wanted to reveal what agenda drives the fear you have of answering such a simple question... But I leave that to your discretion. IronDuke 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No agenda, no fear. A distaste for people playing games and not just saying what they mean is probably more accurate. I could just as easily ask what agenda drives the fear you have of simply revealing your point, but I won't bother. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? You have a distaste for people not saying what they mean, and yet you refuse to answer a simple question? Does that not create difficulties for you? (And you've already asked the question you profess not to want to ask, BTW.) IronDuke 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly, you don't grasp the difference. And you've not demonstrated the ability to understand it if explained. So I'll save myself the time of trying and save you the embarrassment of having your difficulties highlighted further. I'm finished here. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You were finished the moment you ducked the question. Could have saved us both a lot of posts. IronDuke 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with ID. The lead of the article should mention antisemitism of mg because it had impact on his career.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the delay, folks. I'm going to cull out some of the trivia in the article when I get to it, though I'd love some suggestions as to where to where it could go. I dn't think the prankster/philanthropy stuff should just vanish from WP, but we need about 5% of what we hve for this article. The rest should go somewhere. But for the lead question, I propose this. Suggestions/criticisms more than welcome.

Mel Colm-Cille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an American Australian actor, film director and producer and screenwriter. Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was 12 years old and later studied acting at the National Institute of Dramatic Art.

After appearing in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series, Gibson went on to direct and star in the Academy Award-winning Braveheart. Gibson's direction of Braveheart made him the sixth actor-turned-filmmaker to receive an Academy Award for Best Director.[4] In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial[5] but successful[6] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Its themes, combined with antisemitic remarks Gibson made during a drunk-driving arrest, have tarnished his reputation and negatively impacted his career. [Note: this last would need sourcing, and also need to be more fully fleshed out in the main body of the article.]

The movies he has acted in have grossed more than two billion dollars in the U.S. alone.[7]

Again, thoughts welcome. IronDuke 04:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing should be changed whatsoever in the lead if you are planning on addressing other things in the article. The lead should be the last thing written, based on the content in the rest of the article. For some reason, people always seem to want to start with the lead, which is directed and guided by the main body of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How tall is Mel Gibson?

Much debate on this topic. What is the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.109.194 (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

5'9". (92.11.207.202 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Wig

Should the article mention that Gibson wears a wig? (92.11.207.202 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

There are plenty of bald pictures of him in real life. (92.4.121.17 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

  • Again, the key is "reliable source". Do you have one of these pictures that is free use and from a reliable source? If you don't have a reliable source that says it or a reliably sourced, free use photo that shows it, why are we even having this discussion? Personally, I've seen ones of him, from reliable sources, with thinning hair but not bald. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of photographs from 2004 showing him almost completely bald. James Stewart's article mentions that he wore a wig, and so should Gibson's. (92.11.167.224 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

  • What part of "Do you have one of these pictures that is free use and from a reliable source? If you don't have a reliable source that says it or a reliably sourced, free use photo that shows it, why are we even having this discussion?" Made you think that your answer was going to suffice? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Niteshift36 on this. I've seen plenty of pictures of Gibson that shows his hair is thinning, I've never seen one that shows him almost completely bald. And for your further edification, it would not be called a "wig", it would be called either a toupee or a hairpiece. You can't support this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He is almost completely bald and his hair is a full wig, not just a hairpiece. (92.1.87.30 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

You see, he's almost bald: http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/melgibson_bald.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.87.30 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, first: That is called thinning hair, not bald. Second, what parts of "reliable source" and "free use photo" are so fucking confusing? Produce one or the other, or drop it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't comb over those bits from the side he'd look quite bald. I wonder which other Hollywood stars wear wigs. (92.14.227.137 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Ah, no. Judging by the photograph you linked to, he'd look like a middle-aged man with thinning hair. I guess you have a different definition of "bald". Bald is this or this or this or even these, but certainly not this. In the absence of any compelling evidence, we'd have to stick with not mentioning that he "wears a wig". Rossrs (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? So how come in that picture he is almost bald, and yet whenever he's in a film or TV interview he has a full head of hair? I suppose his hair in Braveheart was real too wasn't it! (92.14.227.137 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

  • No, the picture you provided a link to, the one of a man with thinning hair, is not a reliable source. Nor is it a free use picture we can use on Wikipedia. Have you ever READ a policy on here or is your sole intention just to repeat yourself over and over in the hope that someone will finally get annoyed enough that they'll put it in? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should mention that Gibson wears a hairpiece. (92.12.20.168 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

  • And I think at the very least you shouold go find a reliable source or shut up about it. I'll ask again: Have you ever READ a policy on here or is your sole intention just to repeat yourself over and over in the hope that someone will finally get annoyed enough that they'll put it in? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
92 - I think at the very least you should stop repeating yourself. You're not going to sway three editors merely by repeating what has failed to sway them before. Come up with something new and compelling or move along please. Rossrs (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2010 (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:
inetnum: 92.0.0.0 - 92.15.255.255
netname: CPWBBSERV-NET
descr: Carphone Warehouse Broadband Services
country: GB

See Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls RashersTierney (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not this banned editor "HarveyCarter" this is all irrelevant. (92.12.20.168 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Edit request: "allegations of Anti-semitism"

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

Not done. This is a judgment call and we aren't in the habit of making judgment of article subjects. See WP:NPOV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
ha ha ha too funny, are you gibson's publicist? he clearly engaged in anti-Semitic talk, it's been written about in every paper in north america, and you call it "alleged" ha ha ha Gibson's publicist = 1 Wikipedia = 0 Nice work Mel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wildhart is correct. While Gibson might have made remarks that were anti-semetic, that doesn't make him an anti-semite. If someone tells a joke that uses a racial epitath or blurts out one while angry, that doesn't mean that they necessarily bear some prejudice against that group. Hell, groups even use some of them among themselves. So are you going say that if one black man calls another black man a ni*ger, that man must be racist against blacks? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If making self-acknowledged highly anti-Semitic comments doesn't make one an anti-Semite, what does (short of actually killing Jews)? Are you seriously implying that a person can tell racist jokes and make angry racial slurs, but yet not be a racist or prejudiced? If so, should you really be editing articles that touch on these subjects? Heywood J2 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Edit request from Diablita1985, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

Edit request from Skillen, 29 June 2010

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

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

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

How is the antisemitism alleged?

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

That he made those antisemitic remarks to the cop.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Using a slur while drunk doesn't make you "antisemitic". It gave rise to allegations of it and questions about it and those allegations and questions are in the bio, as is his sober apology and denial of antisemetism. Facts are covered, not the conclusion you draw from them.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I explained in my edit, the previous method of organization suggested that the comments were alleged. They were listed in "Alleged antisemitism. The antisemitism from the passion, is alleged. Confusion arises from the juxtaposition. The comments were anti-semitic, it is my opinion that he is too, but I will not impose that. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Niteshift36 here. The sections do not need to be split and it is a strong violation of WP:BLP to make a section devoted to "antisemetic remarks". A slur while drunk does not define one as anti-semetic. Splitting out the section the way it was done violates all guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I see this as a weight issue. With your proposal, you have 2 sections labelling things as "antisemetic". It makes more sense to me to have a single section where any allegations (ie both) are dealt with, rather than throwing the term into bold printed section titles twice. The drunked comments led to allegations of anti-semetisim, so they can be properly addredd uder that heading. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Labeling his antisemitic statements as alleged is false. He did make those statements. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, a drunken use of an ethnic slur doesn't make him anti-semetic. What it led to, in a much bigger manner, was questions and allegations of anti-semetism by the "he really meant them" or the "you say what you really mean when you're drunk" crowds. Thus the topic of allegations of anti-semetism is addressed properly in a single section. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make him antisemitic but the statements were. It's not alleged that he made those statements. You can't label the statements as alleged.

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

True but the remarks themselves were alleged, as it is leads to confusion of that.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The text on the the topic of the remarks is very clear: "A leaked report revealed that during Gibson's July 28, 2006, arrest for driving under the influence, he made anti-Semitic remarks to arresting officer James Mee, who is Jewish, saying, "Fucking Jews... Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"[94] Gibson issued two apologies for the incident through his publicist, and in a later interview with Diane Sawyer, he affirmed the accuracy of the quotations." In reading that section, nobody would get the impression that the remarks were "alleged". The remarks led to allegations of anti-semitism. The lead says: "Gibson has been accused of anti-Semitism over two issues" That is accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt most people read the paragraphs fully, again, it is said once that he affirmed the accuracy, but it is under a freaking title ALLEGED. --Iankap99 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just trying to figure out a way to amend the issue --Iankap99 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You "figure it out" by discussing it here, not by edit warring. I won't violate the 3RR over this, but you last edit make no sense at all. The text is perfectly clear that the remarks were made and it says in the same paragraph that Gibson confirmed the accuracy of the quote. There is no good reason to say it twice. It's redundant and completely unecessary. Maybe a different editor will revert the redundant entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The redundancy is justified in this case.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. The (now) second part is much better written. It specifies who confirmed it (Gibson himself) and when he confirmed it (during the interview with Diane Sawyer). Again, that you insist on making changes during the discussion smacks of POV pushing. But I will take this time to point out that you are now at 3 reverts (as am I) and any further reverts on this article (ther than vandalism or BLP vios etc) will put you over the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no vested interest in this article, if you can edit the article in a way that demonstrates clearer that the comments were not alleged, I would be fine with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The article already did say that before you started editing. It said, quite clearly that he said them, that he admitted it on national TV and apologized for them. You didn't say anything that wasn't already said. Instead, you jammed a phrase in that simply repeats what is already said and was said better. Repeating the same thing is not an improvement, it's redundant. And I'm sorry, I don't buy the no vested interest part. You insisted on forcing the edits in, despite being asked more than once to discuss it first and get a consensus. You clearly want to highlight this issue more than it was, so you ignored the fact that the discussion was going on and just did whatever you pleased. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe there's a better way to do it... Not "Antisemitism controversies", as that is clumsy, but something that gets at that idea. IronDuke 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for long delayed reply. I think that the antisemitism stuff has had far more airplay, and impact on MG's life, than the homophobia stuff. Perhaps "DUI Incident" as a header, then a subheader with "Impact of antisemitic statements." IronDuke 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of "n------"

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

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

Some sources do quote the word uncensored, such as Gawker [2]; that justifies our doing so. I think it's a bit odd to argue that 'n-----s' could refer to any other word, but as some sources have made it clear what it (allegedly) was, we don't have to worry about it. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me, I'm the one who put in the uncensored version. My comment was a reaction to the editor before me who censored the word because of a lack of a source, but linked it to Nigger, as if that was somehow different. There is no reason to apply a different standard of evidence to information implied through links (which should IMO be avoided in the first place) and information that is explicitly written. The link implied he said "niggers" just as strongly as stating it outright does.

Undue weight issues?

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

The "Personal life" section seems to go into things in unnecessary detail. Repeating the content of a 15-year-old interview in Playboy in which he called someone a cunt seem gratuitous. And flying to Mexico for a religious ceremony - so what? And since when did we regard WorldNetDaily as a suitable source for biographies, with its speculation about support for him running for President? And denying a rumour that his daughter was going to become a nun - is this at all relevant to a biog of Gibson? And citing TMZ, a gossip rag? This whole section needs looking at again for sourcing, weight and neutrality. Could post to the BLP/N to see if anyone has the will and energy to give it a go. Fences&Windows 14:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I for one agree with you totally, thank you for looking into this. I don't have time right now to pursue this further, see my notice on my talk page. If no one else follows up on this then I will. I think what you talk about should be removed immediately per biographies of a living person. Would someone please remove the ones here that have bad sources and anything else that breached this policy? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied up the whole section, removed overlinking and excess quotes, dodgy sourcing, synthesis, and undue weight to minor events. Hopefully it is more balanced now. Fences&Windows 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request from 129.236.30.149, 10 July 2010

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

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

Edit request

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

We would need a reliable source that confirms the divorce is final. We don't change the status until a divorce is final. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically, he is still married. In practical effect, his marriage is as gone as his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
But the article itself implies the divorce is final (in April 2009), and mentions nothing about it being uncertain - right now it's just confusing - surely the article should be internally consistent even if there are doubts about the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.22.157 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The caption for the photo in the philanthropy section refers to her as his former wife. 68.42.176.86 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Misogyny?

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


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

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

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

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

Question

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

Copyright is OK, it's on a university's channel. There's a draught proposal on this issue at WP:VIDEOLINK. Whether it's a good source or important to include is another matter. It's a panel discussion of his film, The Passion of Christ. Fences&Windows 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I don't think the source is good enough to put into a BLP article but that my opinion. I think there is way too much stuff that is negative about him, and I'n no fan of his behaviors, but as an actor he is good and more balance needs to be added about his work. Maybe I'm wrong about this but while I was posting the note to you this was added to the article. I looked at the reference and there was no demanding. He stated he would get a blow job. I think way to much undo weight is be used in this article about his negatives. Thoughts? I also think same about the added comments about youtube.com. Moonriddengirl is excellent about about copyright things, do you think I should invite her to comment here? Thanks again for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I restored that link simply because it was a deadlink that needed fixing. I have no particular attachment to it. If folks want to delete the material as irrelevant I won't be upset. But in its defense, it's a neutral comment by a notable person who is apparently well-acquainted with the subject. I only listened to the relevant passage, so I don't know what else is said in the video. As for the copyright, it's the USC/Annenberg channel, and they put on the event, so I presume the copyright should be OK.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization

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

If your saying this should be consolidated together under the family title, I agree. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not. This goes way beyond the topic of family. IronDuke 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Demanding oral sex"

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

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

Picture

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

If you can find one that is not copyright protected, give a link and it will be added, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
TMZ has some very good quality photos of Mel that are all recent. Maybe they would allow Wiki to use one. Can someone like me write TMZ and just ask permission to use one of their photos for our article? I bet they'd be happy to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think writing TMZ to ask permission to copy one of their photos will be productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Octokels02, 18 May 2010

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

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

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

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

Allegation of...

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

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

Looking at this after your note at my talk page, I've restored the "Allegation of..." language for now, as I'm afraid that baldly titling the sections might suggest that we do believe they're true. One can be guilty of DUI, but we can't really conclude that somebody is guilty of homophobia unless he admits it himself. We can assess their behavior, but we can't definitively pin down the attitude that caused it. Anyway, I'll seek feedback at WP:BLPN. Maybe some of the editors there can help find a way to convey the controversies without over-emphasizing them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for your promptness. No problem with reverting me either. I sure hope someone has an idea about how to fix this. I don't which is why I am asking for help about this. Thanks again, I'll be sure to keep an eye on things. I'm not here that often lately due to RL situations but I do try to check in. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-semitism

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

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

The section should simply be titled "Anti-semitism". (92.5.16.189 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

why mel left wife #1

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

You mean in the "alleged tape"? It's alleged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It's really a tape. The voice on it is alleged (and widely accepted) to be that of Mel Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Attack BLP

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

No it's all true and sourced actually. (92.5.16.189 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
Even sourced items can go against biographies of a living person and not belong do to undo weight issues. Most of what Off2riorob and others are saying, including me, is that this article needs to be rewritten so it follows BLP, weight issues and other policies which right now it doesn't do. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, could you offer some specifics? Articles like this one often garner critics due to what they perceive as a negative tone of the subject matter. Everything in this article is well sourced. All of the "alleged" this and "alleged" that does seem odd, not the allegations or documentation, but the formatting seems odd. He is also a talented director and actor and I think the article does a good job of bringing all these things to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree. Everything in this article is true. It just happens to incredibly negative, but it is what it is; you can't change it, that's what has happened in his life. These allegations almost absolutely overshadow his acting career. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
We still have to follow policies, esp. BLP. Claims that his acting career us over has been said before and he still had people coming to watch him. So don't say it over until it's really over. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There does seem to be a few IP accounts here that think this is a wikipedia good article, if I didn't like this living person I would be happy with it, that is not what we are looking for, perhaps in a tabloid rag mag but we have higher standards than that and our article should reflect those standards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand this but what is untrue or gossip in this article? The allegations are supported with reliable sources without any other unnecessary commentary. If you have specific examples then perhaps we can reach a consensus but as of now most people are just saying the article is "too negative". Well what do you expect when the latest and now probably most memorable period of his life is shrowed in so much negativity. And I never said his acting career is over, it just happens that it is very unlikely people will ever remember him for much more than these recent racist, sexist, and profane outbursts of his.
If anything the "Allegations of" sections should be condensed into fewer section(s), especially the recent stuff dealing with what he said on the tapes. Perhaps condensing the information and removing repeat information will bring the article more in line with what you seem to be looking for. A possibility would be to create a "Controversies" section and include subsections there for his separate incidents. But by no means should these sections just be deleted. What he said and the fact that he said these things is now well documented by reliable sources, not mentioning these recent news stories would be lunacy. This is not tabloid trash anymore, it is the truth. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
All the reliable sources are doing is pointing out that tabloids and gossip columns are quoting what are alleged to be tapes of Gibson. If you read them, you will see that this is true. The facts have not been verified by the reliable sources, and those sources are using the word "alleged" frequently. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps these sources should be updated. The Los Angeles Times source does not use the word alleged in the entire article and treats the rants as fact. Yahoo, AOL, Fox News, CNN among others are reporting these rants as fact now. At this later date it is now well established that the man on the tapes is in fact Gibson. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So you say. I notice that you didn't link any of these alleged sources so they can be examined for reliability. Yworo (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
1
2
3
There's a few. The LA Times one is already in the article. The point I'm trying to make is that I am not defending or attacking Mel Gibson. The point I'm trying to make is that these allegations have been made is now a fact. Whether these allegations are true is a different story. But in my opinion they are serious and memorable enough to warrant inclusion. I'm not sure if I made that clear before.148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The first is a gossip column blog post. Not reliable. The other two use "alleged" or "purported", etc. They all clearly source their material to an unreliable source. You claimed there were reliable sources that don't distance themselves from making direct statements, but the links you'd provided don't support that contention. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think what 148.129.129.154 is trying to point out is simply that the allegations were made, not that there is any truth to them. Sure the sources are all saying Mel was "alleged" to have said this and that, which is pretty much accepted at this point. But if that's all he's talking about then I think he's proved his point. I think a lot of this discussion is unnecessary right now. I think we can all agree that the man on the tapes is indeed Gibson and that this story isn't going away. The problem is that every source is going to say "alleged" until Mel or a representative comes out and indeed confirms that Mel is in fact the person on the tape. Therefore we are left with a shortage of sources 100% confirming that Gibson did indeed make these comments. I suggest everyone just wait a few days or so until more information comes to light, which will likely happen soon. As for the article in the meantime, I don't have a huge problem with it as it is right now as it is clearly fact that the allegations have been made and it is confirmed that Gibson is indeed under investigation. But I do agree that the article will need a rewrite soon after to consolidate all of this information instead of creating a new section everytime Gibson says something sexist or racist. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bblcreator8790. In a week or so this should all be cleared up. Gibson will have to address this in some fashion sooner or later. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Gibson is all over the media on the latest recording. His agent dropped him. I don't see what's wrong. Figureofnine (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think this is similar to my original position: we can report that reliable sources are reporting on this, and describe it in general terms. If the sources say alleged, we should report it that way. I don't think we should be using quotes from the tapes, though, until they are reliably verified. Yworo (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Good. If multiple RS report quotes, we can use these quotes saying "Some of the alleged quotes are..." , making it clear that it is still not known if they are true or not. --Cyclopiatalk 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
But why would we? We are not a gossip column, so we don't actually need to repeat the quotes to report the news. Yworo (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to think that providing a specific example of a slur he made or something to that affect could illustrate the harshness of his remarks. I have no preference either way though. Thank you for clearing this up Cyclopia, this was all I was trying to point out above. The point is that these allegations are real and have been widely reported by the press. They are certainly significant enough to warrant inclusion in the manner in which Yworo has described. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515579,00.html
  2. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/13/mel-gibson-divorce/
  3. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/13/mel-gibson-responds-to-robyn/
  4. ^ 1995 Academy Awards
  5. ^ Jesus helps Mel hit No. 1: Controversial film gives Gibson the most weight on Forbes power list; Britney off the chart again June 18, 2004
  6. ^ Box Office Mojo.com Domestic Total Gross:$370,782,930 60.6% + Foreign: $241,116,490 39.4%
  7. ^ http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=melgibson.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mel_Gibson/Archive_3&oldid=1136368123"