Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

dui

Has anyone noticed that no where in the media have they quoted Mel's exact words? I came to wikipedia to find his exact words and I found them. He said "Fuck Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

Another website says he asked the deputy "Are you a Jew?". Not sure if this was before or after his other Jewish comments. http://www.oddjack.com/2006/mel-gibson-is-a-drunk-driving-jew-hater-07-31.php

09-Aug-2006 The Jewish deputy claimed "Are you a Jew?" was after "wars" comment inside patrol car,

but perhaps not tape-recorded. Only Mel witnessed the other side. See talk of "belligerent" in

police report: http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf 172.150.209.156 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the media has not quoted his exact words so that people will not think about them. Instead, the media just says "anti-Semitic remarks".

Uh, does that mean we're not going to quote them here?Gzuckier 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

bio info under mugshot

I don't think his bio and salary info is necessary for this article. therefore I'm removing it from the pic. MrBlondNYC 09:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Sympathizers

"Rather than the true mug shot (pictured), a bizarre photo of Gibson with a shaggy, 8-inch beard was released to the American press, along with comments about anti-Semitic remarks, without mentioning what the Jewish officer said to Gibson; it is unclear if Jewish sympathizers were behind the bearded-photo press release."

WTF is this supposed to mean? Jewish people who sympathize with Gibson? Or people who sympathize with Jews? I'm not quite sure that I like the insinuation of the latter (ie, that people who dislike anti-semitism are of some dishonest fringe group that releases strange pictures to discredit the famous). I would rewrite it for clarity, but I honestly don't know what it was intended to mean.

Anyway, that mugshot creeps me out a hell of a lot more than the beard photo.

I have no idea what it means, but the edit contains no citations and is, as you point out, unclear wrt its meaning, and should just be summarily removed, at the very most, to the talk page, for discussion. Tomer^talk 05:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That beard photo is an old stock shot of gibson that's been floating around for years. what i'd like to know is, how come when everybody else's mug shot makes them look like a psycho (Paul Reubens; Nick Nolte; Tawny Kitaen) Gibson's looks great? Gzuckier 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it just depends on how media savvy the person getting their mug shot taken is. I mean look at Tom DeLay's mug shot, it looks like any other photo. - Walkiped 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That "shaggy" picture is a still from Gibson in the trailer from Apocalypto. <---- Click and you'll see it. He's not in the movie but he's in the trailer and that is exactly how he appears in it. As a joke, comedians and others have said that is his mugshot. I hope this part was removed. MrBlondNYC 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

hi how are you guys 8D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.86.250 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Really

Does this incident warrant it's own incident? It should be part of his bio? Kyros 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

12-Aug-2006: This article has been a battleground over the details that Jewish Deputy James Mee claimed Gibson stated "anti-Semitic" remarks. During one week, the word "Jewish" has been systematically removed from the article more than 25 times in several paragraphs written by multiple people; also the fact of Gibson as Catholic was removed as well. Overall, the information is not stable enough from a neutral point-of-view (POV) to be included in the bio article. 172.162.31.54 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

officer jew?

so was the cop jewish or not? some people seem to assume he was, but i can't find any positive acknowledgement anywhere in the news. his last name was "Mee" which from the folks listed here, makes it seem like a non-hebraic name. pic Gzuckier 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. I have seen no official confirmation that one of the officers was Jewish; the only thing I've seen is that Gibson asked whether one of them was Jewish. Whoever put this fact in the article made no attempt to properly source it, so I I'm going to remove it. Azathoth68 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

beat me to it. put in the guy's name, let people make their own judgement. Gzuckier 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The LATimes article now noted at the bottom of the header says he was. Septentrionalis 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006: Local TV news in Houston, TX reported "Jewish" officer immediately; later in LA Times & ABC News; this is a key fact: a Jewish officer stops Gibson & claims Jewish insults. Hello? Anybody? Consider the source: exactly, you don't have to be too dumb to see the critical key fact. What did that officer say to Mel to prompt remarks? How did the Jewish officer's report get leaked to media? 172.162.136.14 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006: I have restored the word "Jewish" into 4 other paragraphs of DUI article; the word "Jewish" has been constantly removed more than 20 times, but never seen phrase "anti-Semitic" removed anywhere: beware obvious POV censorship of word "Jewish" daily. 172.162.136.14 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wamt to know how Gibson knew the guy was Jewish. Superpowers? j/k. Pretty sad stuff....--Tom 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006: Yes, what did that lone Jewish officer say to Mel to prompt remarks? For Wikipedia balanced/neutral POV, more is needed from the other perspective. 172.162.136.14 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody named Mee is Jewish. The man in that picture does not look Jewish. Not a lot of cops are Jewish. Gibson had no way of knowing if the officer was Jewish. If he knew the officer was Jewish, he would not have asked. If he did not know the officer was Jewish, he must be psychic to have come to that guess. He did not mention anything in his apology which the officer said to "prompt" his remarks. If you know of something which the officer said to "prompt" his remarks, then YOU must be psychic. In other words, I suspect you have a long road to travel in your search for "the other perspective" to give the POV that the Jews made him do it. Pack a lunch, and good luck.Gzuckier 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gzuckier wrote: "Nobody named Mee is Jewish. The man in that picture does not look Jewish." Doesn't matter -- tons of American Jews have changed their name in an attempt to de-Judaize themselves and married (mostly White) Gentiles in order to 'dilute' their Hebrew heritage. Just look at the fact that tons of American Jews have last names like "Miller," "Robinson," or "Smith," many of them living in the suburbs and trying to assimilate, but it just doesn't work. --64.12.116.135 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, at some point, Mel received a revelation that the officer was Jewish, or was waiting for confirmation: "Yes, I agree about those Jews" (as a canned response); also, Mel might have been testing the officer to see if he would be truthful and admit "Jewish" (the J-word censored in the DUI article 20 times). In Christianity, there is the concept of demon influence, tormenting a mind or goading/deceiving a person into bad behavior, which would be forgiven as caused by Satan's helpers, such as toxic tequila. So, there are many plausible reasons for Mel asking, and being forgiven. I'm just explaining, not trying to start another war with Jews. Beware tequila more than Christians. 172.140.15.112 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it in the LATimes article. I still don't think so (who ya gonna believe, me or the LATimes?). I notice that daily muslims the voice of muslim america also says the cop is a Jew, but they also say " Mel Gibson is telling the truth when he said to a Los Angeles County Sheriff July 29, 2006 that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world"" so I don't know if they are the best source. Gzuckier 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's not source it to them. ;-> If they happen occasionally to find a fact useful, so what? Septentrionalis 00:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the officer was Jewish, he has admitted to being a Jew; the last name doesn't matter, he just just a secular Jew rather than a religious one -- names are changed ALL the time when marriages happen, people emigrate, try to hide their identity, etc. In fact, the most common last name amongst American Jews is apparently "Miller." --64.12.116.135 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged

Overuse of this makes for bad English without providing any legal protection. Septentrionalis 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you mean, alleged overuse of this makes for allegedly bad English without providing any legal protection, allegedly. There, the word's lost all meaning now.--Ryan! 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

Oppose for now. I think we should wait until it is no longer a current event and then decide whether it can stand as an independent article on its own merits or if it should be merged.--Anchoress 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Come on, it may be breaking news and front pages as we speak, but in a week or two it's an almost forgotten anecdote. Wikipedia should have a more strict policy to limit these spin-off articles that should never have been created. Especially when it is a celebrity related topic. Is Wikipedia the place you can get updated on Paris Hilton's new dress and stuff like that...? Medico80 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Mel Gibson#Merger; but for now, in a few weeks we will know what it is, and there will be a consensus account of it. Merging before then is silly. Septentrionalis 23:28, 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. -M^ask 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Topics are judged on their current notability, not their future potential/unrealized notability (otherwise we'd let in thousands of local bands that are expecting to get their big break soon). --Interiot 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It has to do with him, and him only. --Mrmiscellanious 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support merger of "Leaked police report and allegations of special treatment", skip the "Media coverage and reaction to the incident", and add links to the two apologies. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge please. This event is important in the life of Mel Gibson, but giving it its own article is going to far. There are far, far more important articles on Wikipedia with far, far less content. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The decision to merge should be made after this is no longer a current event. xSTRIKEx6864 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It's information about Mel Gibson, so it should be in the Mel Gibson article, whether it's a current event or not. I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Billy Joel has gotten drunk and crashed his car like three times into houses and trees and stuff and none of those get their own article. Keppa 06:45, 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)
• Oppose for now per Anchoress. Metamagician3000 10:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The Mel article would become way to big if all this text was copied and if not all text was copied then information would be lost The Green Fish 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This decision should be made when this is no longer a current event.--Ryan! 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Wait until no longer current event; meanwhile, the word "Jewish" has been removed 25 times from several paragraphs by registered users during the 2nd week; try to maintain neutral point-of-view before merging: a Jewish Deputy claimed anti-Jewish remarks from a Catholic, without details if deputy said anything to bait Gibson's remarks, and why did Jewish report get leaked to media? Wait for Sheriff's investigation; otherwise, it's slanted as character assassination. 172.162.31.54 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think we should wait until there are no further developments (i.e. it is no longer a current event) before properly deciding. Although information about this incident would obviously be lost if it were shortened and merged with the main Mel Gibson article, does it really warrant a whole dedicated article? At the momeent I think it does. Though I can see the strong arguments for merging as well - I am not entirely sure. - Benedictwest 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Merger would either lead to the deletion of sourced content or overemphasis in the main article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the moment at least, this is independently notable - and very wordy. I'm pretty sure this article could be easily halved, but Savidan's argument above says it all; either perfectly good well-sourced content gets deleted, or it gets overemphasized in the Mel Gibson article. Also, consider this: when a lot of other pages get long enough, certain portions get spun off into new articles and simply referenced or summarized in the main one. For instance, most shows that lasted more than a season or two (and a few of the cult hits that didn't, such Firefly) have their episode lists seperated into a different article, with some series such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Stargate SG1 having many of the episodes seperated into their own individual articles as well; Fan fiction was considered far to unweildy and enormous with all the excess terminology, subgenres, and legal issues discussed in it, so the article was rewritten to focus more on the definitions and history and some of the cultural aspects and theories on it, and the other sections were seperated out into Legal issues with fan fiction and Fan fiction terminology. Did not hurt the main article one bit, in any of those cases, to refer some sections out to articles that expanded on portions of the subject's impact in more specific arenas and in greater detail than would have been preferable in the main article. I'm of the opinion that it can't really hurt to have detailed coverage of just about anything here, so long as it's remotely notable and well-sourced and not a stub; this article fits all of those criteria to a T. Runa27 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite check

I think I got all the vandalism out of the quotation; but it should be watched every so often. Hence the tag. Septentrionalis 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006: The British variants ("apologise") were changed to match the spelling of Mel Gibson's quoted apology text from Associated Press, and paragraphs were separated to overcome Wikipedia formatting error that combines paragraphs into a solid mass. 172.162.136.14 07:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

White bias media section

I removed that entire section per WP:OR. It was an interesting read, but we can get reliable sources and cite them? Thanks! --Tom 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies - needs cleanup BAD!

I just went in and Wiki-fied a bunch of it, and realized that in the process, a lot of stuff was repeated. Somebody seemed to think it was a good idea to include labeled (but not Wikified) subsections in the lead. The lead is supposed to be an overview, a basic statement, in as few words as possible, of what the article is about, why the subject is notable, and who it directly involves - that kind of thing. Not a reiteration of the entire rest of the article. However, since they were sourced, I suggest someone very carefully merge the repetitive subsections into each other, to preserve the very ample sourcing. Meanwhile, I'm rewriting the lead into an actual, you know, lead. Runa27 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevius quote

Just looked at the source for the C.W. Nevius blog quote. Nevius calls Gibson a bigot and rating, yet the quote seems to be implying that he mentioned Gibson must have been disturbed by images of children killed. I don't get that out of the blog entry quoted - he's talking about discourse on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict - and unless someone has major objections I'll pull the reference. Old64mb 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted speculation

"It is often overlooked that Jews were on Mel's mind because he had just been arrested and cuffed by a jewish officer. Understandably, this may have triggered his drunken statements." It's still not been established how he knew Mee was Jewish; was he wearing his phylacteries and prayer shawl? Did he say "Oy gevalt, you're driving like a meshugganeh"? Or is it common practice among California police to identify their nationality and/or religion at the beginning of a traffic stop? The concept that Gibson took one look at the guy (one of the links leads to his picture) and it immediately set off his Jewdar is ridiculous. I'm still not 100% convinced that Mee is Jewish, media reports notwithstanding. Anyway, if Gibson comes out and says he made his statements on the basis of his instant intuition regarding the religious preferences of Officer Mee, fine, let's include it, otherwise this is not Excusopedia. Gzuckier 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Videotaping

The article states that Mee videotaped Gibson... the source shows that a sargeant did the videotaping... I'm making the change 130.101.170.176 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Officer Mee's House Raided -- Why?

Sheriff Probes Release of Mel's Arrest Report

TMZ, the website that disclosed Mel Gibson's arrest and subsequent anti-Semitic rant, reported Thursday that the Los Angeles Count Sheriff's Department has obtained a search warrant and raided the home of the officer who arrested Gibson. The website, citing unidentified sheriff's sources, said that deputies seized the computer, phone records and other documents belonging to Deputy James Mee in a raid carried out last September 13. A sheriff's spokesman originally reported that Gibson's arrest took place "without incident" and later denied that he had made the anti-Semitic remarks. "Only after TMZ obtained portions of the arrest report did the Department change its story," the website said.

SOURCE: http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-13/

--64.12.116.135 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original story:

Warrant Served in Mel Gibson Case -- Posted Oct 12th 2006 1:23PM by TMZ Staff

TMZ has learned the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has gone after the deputy who arrested Mel Gibson with a vengeance. At the same time, it appears little has been done to determine if top brass gave Gibson special treatment and deceived the media.

Sheriff's sources confirm to TMZ that the Department obtained a search warrant and raided the home of Deputy James Mee on September 13th. We're told deputies went inside and took Mee's computer, phone records and other documents. Sheriff's Department sources say the Department got the warrant because officials believed Deputy Mee leaked four pages of the original arrest report to TMZ. The Sheriff's Department claims it's a crime for a law enforcement officer to leak confidential documents.

The warrant is still sealed and the results of the search have not been made public.

TMZ contacted Mee's lawyer, Richard Shinee, who would not comment on the warrant.

Meanwhile, the Sheriff's Department claims it is still investigating charges that Department officials gave Gibson special treatment and lied to the media the day of the arrest.

The day Gibson was busted, Sheriff's officials told TMZ and other media that the arrest occurred "without incident." Nothing could be further from the truth. Gibson acknowledged his out-of-control behavior on today's "Good Morning America."

Also on the day of the arrest, Sheriff's officials told TMZ that the story it was about to publish documenting Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks and vulgar conduct was "absolutely false." Only after TMZ obtained portions of the arrest report did the Department change its story, ultimately telling TMZ the entire report would be submitted to the D.A.

As of today, no one from the Sheriff's Department has contacted TMZ to ask questions about the website's interactions with top Sheriff's brass on the day in question. By contrast, a Sheriff's official did contact TMZ's Managing Editor Harvey Levin to ask about the leak. Levin refused to give the deputy any information.

Sheriff's spokesperson Steve Whitmore told TMZ that everything is being done to make sure that the L.A. County Sheriff's Department is doing "everything which is right."

Michael Gennaco, Chief Attorney for the Office of Independent Review, the oversight panel for the Department, tells TMZ the Sheriff's Department cannot do a "complete and robust" investigation into the way the Department handled the case until the criminal investigation into the leak is resolved.

SOURCE: https://tmz.com/category/mel-gibson/

--64.12.116.135 02:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Media Bias Removal

I think if any drunk makes anti-semitic remarks, it would not have generated this furore. But Mel's did. Something to point this out should be inserted as a replacementfor Media Bias removal.

Random drunks don't have Wikipedia pages. Gibson is notable -- this does not need pointing out. Also, please sign your posts with "~~~~". IronDuke 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, a media feeding frenzy ensued. Gibson's DVDs were taken off Amazon.com before his 2nd apology. Something very powerful was at work here. A section about powerful attacks on Gibson is worthy I believe. 211.28.131.190 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I do get the point. I think, respectfully, you may be unaware of some Wikipedia policies. You may want to check out Reliable souces and No original research to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Seethepassion.com, to take one example, is not a reliable source, for our purposes. IronDuke 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about any "point" but if there are problems with the sources, then the idea is to see if they can be improved before deleting them. Your reverts in the face of two editors who disagree is disruptive. I would have no problem with supporting your position if there are no reliable sources, but on wikipedia, we should try to improve before we try to delete. Since I have heard this criticism in multiple places, I think it is supportable and so should be included and improved. --Blue Tie 15:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take your points one by one:

• "if there are problems with the sources, then the idea is to see if they can be improved before deleting them"

Incorrect. If the sources are bad, they get removed. Full stop.

I reference WP:EP which says: "one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing." It also says: whatever you do, try to preserve information. and specifically suggests that in the cases where sources are not available or wrong : request a citation by adding the tag. What policy do you reference that says "Delete, make no effort to improve"? --Blue Tie 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Your reverts in the face of two editors who disagree is disruptive."

This is also wrong. I am obliged by WP policies to remove incorrect, possibly libelous information from articles.

I agree about the libelous information being deleted. Which libelous information did you see? Note that for the information to be libelous, someone must be specifically named and acredited with a statement that they did not make. --Blue Tie 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• "I would have no problem with supporting your position if there are no reliable sources, but on wikipedia, we should try to improve before we try to delete."

What you base this on, I have no idea. Perhaps you can quote me the policy that supports this view. If you're suggesting that I am obliged to go out and research the subject myself in order to "improve" a POV-pushing hodgepodge of OR, I must disagree. IronDuke 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another policy that supports the idea of keeping content and improving it is WP:ACM. This policy says: "(On Deleting useful content: A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion. Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content."

Another policy is Wikipedia Policy on Reliable Sources. That policy says: "Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding

or

at the top of the page. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are policy, and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words."

What these policies describe is the wikipedia editing process. But your edits are not in harmony with those principles and are thus disruptive. --Blue Tie 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand what the word "disruptive" means. It does not denote, for example, edits that you don't like. The section as it stood was completely worthless. Could I have moved it to talk? Sure. So could you, and yet you did not. What of it? And Jimbo has spoken to the tags and suggested that people simply remove controversial facts that have no acceptable source. Having said that, I think the section is improving. But I don't see the word "bias" in any of the quotes, so will rename header. Also, Jackie Mason's opinions are totally irrelvant. IronDuke 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The mere fact of disagreement does not make an editing process disruptive. It becomes disruptive when the edits are repeatedly done contrary to the principles of wikipedia and simultaneously contrary to other editors. Jimbo has said that we should remove unacceptable facts for living people, but not for articles in general. Anyway, Jimbo does not set the rules by such comments. With regard to Jackie Mason's opinions, they are his opinions. He was making them in the media and in response to the media. Thus, his statements are what they are. They are on topic and relevant. There is no reason to delete them because they serve as a representation of others who hold similar views. Not everyone should or can be quoted but representative ideas are not inappropriate. Please do not remove it. With regard to "bias" that word does not need to appear for that word to describe the essence of the concern. I would think anything else would be less succinct. But I am open to other possible words. --Blue Tie 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Seethepassion.com is a very reliable source. This link http://www.seethepassion.com/page1.php states: "The New York Times called Seethepassion.com the most elaborate website championing Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ." The New York Times cites this website. The website was setup to defend Gibson against the attacks on his movie. The website is owned by http://www.womeninfluencingthenation.com/ which is a Christian Conservative organization. You may not agree with their opinion, but I have cited their opinion as a source. Maybe we could reword it as " Some Christian organizations believe that " Gibson was threatened with obstruction and even censorship by some of the most powerful behind-the-scenes forces in New York City, Washington D.C., and Hollywood". 211.28.131.190 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Seethepassion.com does not seem to fit the requirements for reliability per wikipedia policy. --Blue Tie 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Media outlets quote websites all the time. That's because they're media outlets, not encyclopedias. See also [1]. IronDuke 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I will concede this debate if you can prove to me that the opinion of a Conservative Christian organization (http://www.womeninfluencingthenation.com/) has in fact setup Seethepassion.com as a "Partisan and extremist website". 211.28.131.190 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about extremist, but it is certainly partisan and religious. You only have to look at its name to see that it is partisan. And the other four cites are equally suspect. Jackie Mason, media expert? And some blogs, and a vague statement from Bill Donohue. Kind of a motley collection. IronDuke 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion then, do you believe that Gibson was treated fairly by the media. If so, I will let this matter rest. If not, could you then add something with regard to media bias that is well sourced. 211.28.131.190 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Treated fairly? I don't know what you mean. But my opinion is irrelevant. We're following WP policy, not our own biases. IronDuke 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and could you please replace the antisemitism tag? Unless, of course, you'd care to explain why the incident has nothing to do with antisemtism. IronDuke 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this debate on Media Bias has been constructive, since it appears to me a middle ground has been reached and it is now very NPOV. Jackie Mason is a cultural commentator who made his statements on a major media outlet: Fox News. Same thing with O'Reilly. The Catholic League is also a reliable source. I see that you do not cite The Defamation League as an unreliable source. Yet you cite The Catholic League as unreliable. "Treated fairly? I don't know what you mean": you know exactly what I mean. Gibson has no public record of anti-semitic activities or making anti-semitic remarks. Yet the media chose not to give him the benefit of a doubt. As for the removal of the Anti-semitic tag, it is potentially libelous since it is not known for certain that making anti-semitic statements in a drunken state means that the person is a true anti-semite. 211.28.131.190 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Mason as cultural commentator? Does that mean I can insert Carrot Top's thoughts on Pablo Picasso? I don't recall saying the Catholic League was not a reliable source? Can you show me where I did that? As for no record of antisemitic activities, people have pointed to Passion, his regard for his Holocaust Denialist father, as well as recent comments. "Fucking Jews... responsible for all the wars in the world." Who is supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt again? I'll answer you last point below. IronDuke 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Duke, you are one stubborn Jew. Making Passion was not anti-Semitic. He can have different opinions to his father. He said those statements while drunk. You are behaving as if you have it in for Gibson. And don't say you don't. Please go to Schindler's List on wiki and argue over there that it was an anti-German film. 211.28.131.190 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you may insert Carrot Top's thoughts on those if Carrot Top's thoughts were sought by media in reaction to something related to Pablo Picasso and if the consensus of other editors do not object. I do not know about you saying the Catholic League was not a reliable source. Yet you have removed that comment as though it were not. Your removals are disruptive. Are you so insistant on this that we need an RfC or Arbitration? Or can we work it out? --Blue Tie 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the classification tag because, as I read wikipedia guidelines, it is in violation of wikipedia policy and guidelines. In particular, it is an unsourced thing that is adverse information about a living person. Specifically, Mel Gibson declares that he is not anti-semite and does not practice or condone anti-semitism. Thus, without an objective reference that he actually is anti-semite or that he practices or encourages anti-semitism, it is a violation of WP:BLP. --Blue Tie 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled how you can misread the tag in this way. Perhaps you have not been following the history of the tag. Initially, it was antisemite. This caused bitter disagreement, A compromise was reached, where antisemitism replaced it. This does not mean that WP is indicating MG is an antisemite, merely that he has been involved in a signficant way in a discussion of antisemitism, which is utterly incontrovertible. You might just as well remove him from the "Actor" category. IronDuke 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether you believe I am "misreading" the tag or whether this is a "compromise" position. The policy on this matter is clear: Even tags must be verified by objective, reliable sources. If they might be construed as libelous they can be removed. Not once. Not twice... but repeatedly. An editor in good faith may even violate the 3RR rule to remove libelous material and since Mel Gibson adamantly denies being anti-semitic or espousing/endorsing/accepting/believing/tolerating anti-semitism, this tag must go. It is that simple. It is a matter of WP:BLP. If you can validate it with an objective source then it should stay. That is all there is to it. --Blue Tie 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My beliefs are entirely relevant. Mel Gibson has admitted to making anti-semitic remarks. Therefore, he is inexorably linked to the subject of antisemitism. You have failed to reply to my point above in any meaningful way. Being involved in a highly notable anti-semitic incident (which Gibson admits) means the tag is descriptive, not of Gibson's inner feelings, which we cannot know, but his involvement in a controversial issue. WP:BLP is not controlling here. I strongly urge you not to violate 3rr; believing you are justified in this is misguided at best.

I removed the other sources because 1) Jackie Mason is not an expert on Gibson or antisemitism and 2) The other quote says nothing about "the media." Only O'Reilly's quote fits the header. IronDuke 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also say I am concerned that you believe a painfully worked-out compromise to be "irrelevant." The compromise is an indicator of consensus. Your continued reversion in the face of this compromise is contrary to policy, and healthy editing in general on WP. IronDuke 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point -- if he admitted to making "anti-semitic remarks". Can you find that reference? I mean, I realize that you may be able to find references to where he admitted making what YOU consider anti-semitic remarks, but did HE say "I made anti-semitic remarks"? If so, then I agree with your add. If he did not then I disagree with it. This is important with regard to liability. He certainly rejects the implication that he is anti-semitic or that he is involved with anti-semiticism. His views on the matter MUST be regarded. The compromise is utterly unimportant in the face of policy. Consensus is probably not even important in this matter. Go ahead and read the policy if you doubt this. I do indeed rely upon the policy. If the policy is not correct, it should be changed. But it is absolutely controlling here. This is definitely a Biography of a Living Person thing. I am pretty insistant upon this -- as is Jimbo. If it is important to you to disagree then we need to do an RfC or a Mediation.

Simply because you do not believe Jackie Mason is not important is not a good criteria. Others, including the media, evidently disagree. The keys on wikipedia are Verifiability, Reliability and NPOV. The edits meet those critiera. I am not quite as rigid on this as I am about the liablity for defamation thing above... but I see no substantive or reasonable purpose for deleting this content. Again... do we need an RfC or Arbitration on the matter? --Blue Tie 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

“ Gibson also said he was not anti-Semitic, but agreed his words that night were anti-Semitic.

"Absolutely," Gibson said.

"It sounds horrible, and I'm ashamed of that, that it came out of my mouth. I'm not that. That's not who I am."

”

From: [2]

So we are now agreed the tag stays in, I hope. Thanks for being reasonable about it. As for Jackie Mason, you want mediation? I have no objection. But I do find it puzzling that just because he gets interviewed on TV, you think his opinion is notable. Paris Hilton gets interviewed on TV a lot, too. Know what I'm sayin'? IronDuke 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I am agreed with it now. I felt it needed a source. I have no problem with it now. In particular, I think it is a good compromise as well. It would be good to include that reference in the article references and I may do that.

As for Jackie Mason, I have asked for RFC here. Note that it is not just Jackie Mason you are removing but also the Catholic thing as well when both are valid, noteable, verifiable and so on. As for interviews on TV... if it were relevant to the article and someone of note said it, then it could be added. Even Paris Hilton. I am sure there are quotes from her on wikipedia and wikiquote. Jackie Mason's quotes are noteable because he was specifically asked about this specific thing and he gave a specific reply in a news media source. This is not the ONLY time that Jackie Mason has been asked for his opinion on such matters either, so, for whatever reason, some people consider his opinion and commentary important. And it is verifiable from a reliable source. --Blue Tie 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Two points. 1) "verifiable" and "reliable" don't equal "notable" or "expert." Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Mason qualifies as an expert for our purposes, so I welcome the RFC. Which brings me to 2) I would appreciate your going back to the RFC page and reviewing the instructions at the top. Please see in particular "4: Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page." You wrote that I seem "willing to edit war on the issue?" What you are doing there is poisoning the well. I'd appreciate it if you could go back and write a neutral-sounding RfC. Or, if you prefer, I will. Thanks in advance. IronDuke 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke! Not my intent to poison a well or continue the debate. I was explaining the reason for the RfC. But if it is prejudicial it should be removed. --Blue Tie 02:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote it, please let me know if my rewrite is not okay... writing new header for talk as this one is getting lengthy... IronDuke 03:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from "sources" in question to "content" in question. You have not questioned the sourcing, but whether these things should be included or not. --Blue Tie 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Criticism section (RfCers welcome)

This is the section that is under dispute:

Jackie Mason criticized the publicized reaction against Gibson, describing it as the results of jealousy by people who are failures in their own careers or in the case of Abraham Foxman, as a need to justify the importance of their jobs. [3] Bill O'Reilly described the media response as “sadistic” and said:, "I I think it's crossed the line …...there's some people beating the living day lights out of this guy...these people are vampires, they got blood all over their mouths."[4] The Catholic League stated that “the propaganda machine” of “Mel’s enemies” was in “full gear” and that “Their real goal is to discredit ‘The Passion of the Christ,’” [5]

Passages underlined are included by Blue Tie and Removed by Iron Duke.

IronDuke's reasoning in a nutshell: The section is on media bias. I don't see where Mason or the Catholic League reference the media. Also, Mason is not an expert on the topics of media criticism, Mel Gibson, or antisemitism. IronDuke 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blue Tie's reasoning in a nutshell: The section is on bias in the media. I believe it is included for NPOV purposes, describing a view that the media coverage was too great for the relative insignificance of the incident and giving reasons for that emphasis. Mason is considered sufficiently an expert on the matters that he was specifically asked his opinion by media sources and gave his views. The Catholic League presents its own commentary and perspective on these things and is similar but contrasting to Foxman and the ADL, which are also quoted. NPOV guideliness specifically indicate that ALL views should be included if reliably sourced. --Blue Tie 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK then, lets change the heading from "Criticism of media response" to "Critical responses regarding Gibson DUI incident" or maybe just "Critical Responses" or even "Fair Treatment?". Then we could include Jackie Mason and The Catholic League. I would also like to add Millers Time blog: http://millers_time.typepad.com/millers_time/2006/07/shooting_up_sea.html If the Defamation League can respond, so can The Catholic League. 211.28.131.190 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Criticism of public reaction?" Who is Miller? I went to the site, and just saw him describe himself as a "Conservative Union Thug Living in California." Is there more to him than that? IronDuke 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Who then is Abraham Foxman? Miller may be a blogger that you have never have heard of, but he raises a valid point when he states: "I am in no way defending what Gibson did, but it in no way compares to what Haq did. That being said, you would never know it by reading some of the left’s top bloggers"...."He is nothing more than an over the top Christian basher who is obsessed with Mel Gibson." 211.28.131.190 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point a bit. It doesn't make any difference how right Miller is, how true, or how entertaining. None at all for Wikipedia purposes: check this out -- [6]. Foxman is very, very notable, an expert on this subject, part of the story in his own right, and widely quoted in mainstream media outlets all over the place. IronDuke 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows that The Defamation League is a corrupt and criminal organization. If you check it out at here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#The_ADL_files_controversy it's even been under police investigation. And as for Foxman, he is racist against Gentiles. 211.28.131.190 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone knows?" Hmm. "...no court found the ADL guilty of any wrongdoing." And speaking of knowledge, you might try and familiarize yourself with WP policies regarding sourcing before further comment. IronDuke 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the same logic you are using to support Foxman and the ADL is the same logic to include the Catholic League. Yet you reject the Catholic League. It is inconsistent. --Blue Tie 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. I think the easiest solution would be to change the title of the section to encompass all criticisms of the response, and to present a fair representation of the different views (with the second bit of that obviously being more open to debate). I can accept Blue Tie's argument that Mason specifically was asked about his views, so must be thought to have a valid opinion on the issue. I think each source would need to be judged on its own merits before being added though. Trebor 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this debate over now? Can we please change the title and reinsert the Catholic League and Mason.210.49.121.211 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugartits

"Sugartits" is one word.

Anti-social comments?

the first paragraph of this entry says that mel got to the police station and shouted "anti-social" comments at officers. what he hell is an "anti-social" comment?? do we mean anti-Semitic? or was mel calling the officers out for being introverts?

From the American Heritage Dictionary ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anti-social ):

an·ti·so·cial (adj)

1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.

2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.

3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

Definitions 2 and 3 answer your question. --Hazelii 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Mel Gibson main Article

Note: By convention of the templates, the correct place to discuss the proposed merger is at:

Talk:Mel Gibson#Mel Gibson DUI incident (merge?)

Please move comments to the main Mel Gibson article

Can we consider merging this article into the Mel Gibson article? This article is entirely improper, because it is entirely unbalanced. It focusses on 1) drunk driving and 2) antisemitism. It does so in relation to one man: Mel Gibson. I think all could agree there is more to the man than just those two facets. That is called context. The Mel Gibson article provides context. Anyone interested in merging this article into that, please note your interest in doing so. Bus stop 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did the AfD's lack of consensus not establish that there was not a consensus to merge this article back into the main article? (→Netscott) 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; most discussion was on keep v. leave out. This sort of article, by our style guidelines, should be merged with the parent article unless it is itself encyclopedic and has too much detail for the parent article; here we have only the detail, supported by lots of news reports covering the same small set of events... and not very well written, at that. +sj + 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the reason that the motion to delete this article failed because people felt that merging was preferable to outright deletion. Bus stop 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For some time I have been perplexed by what appeared to be the absence of a consistent logic. Most especially as a biographical site on Abraham Foxman, who found Gibson's first apology insufficient, made no menion whatever of an apology firstly to the Roman Catholic Church and, secondly, to all of Christendom for having used that religious belief as a cover to escape the holocost Perhaps an "apology" might not have been the appropriate form but certainly an expression of deep gratitude would have been appropriate for their having put their lives on the line. Or perhaps it was merely an editorial over sight.

On the other hand when the editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican, Michael Odza, banned my comments regarding my suggestion that Gibson might wish to research the relationship between the Jews and the Kazakhs the only explanation was that my sourc was a known anti-Semite (I used no sources in my suggestion). Upon questioning Odza further to the effect that why was their published policy of allowing all readers to write in their objection for publication not followed and I left hanging with the implied attribution that I was an anti-semite despite the relatively wyll-known fact that more than half of those who came to my Sunday champagn brunches were Jews. In nearly a year I have still no response to this question from the Sant Fe newspaper.Such an experience is nearly quite enough to turn one into an anti Semite if one is forbidden to know the enemy one faces.

IT SEEMS I may have neglected to inlcude my name and e-mail address in my last communication regarding Mel Gibson's DUI and the reaction of the Sana Fe New Mexican to my suggestion he research the relationship of the Jews with the Kazakhs. Paul Henrickson, prh@tcp.com.mt User:88.203.66.134 13:34, 23 June 2007

Repetition of "Public response" and "Public apology" sections

I'm really only working on citations (spacing and punctuation of them). However, I noticed that the information contained in these two sections is repeated in its entirety in subsections under the general section "In the media." It's really unnecessary repetition and should be removed from one place or another, as the article is long enough on its own. I don't have a strong opinion on what part should be changed, though I lean toward leaving it under the "In the media" section. I don't want to charge in and change this as I am aware that others have been invested in working on the article and are likely better versed in how to do so. Wildhartlivie 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this ridiculous article is still here

I have proposed proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

    This non-notable event is given UNDUE WEIGHT as separate 
article. It is no longer news. It is already more than adequately 
covered in the main Mel Gibson article. As a separate article, it 
serves only to prolong an unCIVIL religious conversation and
violates spirit of BLP of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Gibson is clearly a sick man. Alcoholism is an inherited disease involving an allergy to alcohol. Mr. Gibson also had the disadvantage of being raised in an environment in which anti-semitic comments were commonly heard. The only crimes he committed were public drunkenness and drunk driving. There is no law prohibiting mentally-ill people from making sexist or racist comments. They do it all the time.

Besides which what did he say? Madame de Rothschild said, on her death bed, "if my sons didn't want war, there would be none." I'm not sure, but I believe she considered herself to be Jewish. Was she "anti-semitic?" Last year, it was possible to find a reliable source for that quote, including which Madame de Rothschild it was and in what year she died using Google, but now, you can only find other sources that quote it. "Sugar-tits" was pretty invasive though. A crime was committed, however, when the rough draft of his arrest record was leaked to the press.

It is simply not politically correct to continue to harass a disabled man for behavior caused by his disability. Mr. Gibson, nonetheless, took responsibility for his comments, and his apology was accepted by appropriate representatives of the general Jewish community and of the Holocaust survivors, and it's really nobody else's business. It's over.

Wowest (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are and insult to all people with real disabilities. Midnight Gardener (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Now we have "real" and "unreal" disabilities? There is no question that Mr. Gibson's alcoholism interferes substantially with his life, is there? Or that he needs treatment for it? The court ordered him into a very extensive program at Alcoholics Anonymous. Was the court wrong? Are you saying that alcoholism is not a real disease because it's partly psychological?

Ernest Hemingway suffered from clinical depression. He was given electroshock treatment for it. As soon as the treatment wore off, he shot himself. He died. Would you say that his disability was not real? Maybe he wasn't really dead? If Gibson hadn't been arrested he might be dead as well. He might have killed someone else. That wouldn't be real? Wowest (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article passed deletion review twice and there are strong arguments for its notability, including that it was responsible for the passage of a new law in California. It's not up to us to decide whether to absolve or accept Mr. Gibson's behavior, or figure out how disabilities should be regarded, but rather to chronicle the notable people, places, events, etc., in the world. The question about whether alcoholism is regarded as a disability is or should be addressed in the alcoholism article, not the article about an incident involving a famous person who was inebriated. Whether the source of his behavior was a disease or not, he did it and we report it. But I think the notability, BLP, weight, etc., concerns are real, so even though the article is not deleted we should be careful about these. Also, even on the talk page I think we should keep some decorum and respect for Gibson, not have a forum discussion on racism and alcoholism. He is a gifted actor and director who leaves quite a legacy of accomplishments, and this is just one incident in a long illustrious career.Wikidemo (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not experienced enough on Wikipedia to know what the different ways of doing things are, but I put a {PROD} thingie on this article on April 15th. This was deleted the next day with the comment that the article had passed two AfD's and so was too notable for a PROD. I don't really understand the difference, but it had been close to a year since the last AfD. As far as I can see, everything important in this article is already in the main Mel Gibson article. Wowest (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can always nominate if for deletion. See WP:AFD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The second attempt to delete this article last May failed by a wide margin. I don't see that anything has changed in Wikipedia or the world that would argue for a different result this time, and momentum builds up because there are a number of people who on principle oppose repeated attempts to delete the same article for the same reason.Wikidemo (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

claiming mel is a victim of some disability is indeed an insult to every person who has a disability. I am so sick of AA and their apologists thinking they get special treatment for their retarded decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

and as of september 2010 this story is still making headlines http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/09/08/mel-gibsons-lawsuit/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mug shot?

Is it really appropriate to use the mug shot? I'm concerned that it may be a BLP violation because it sensationalizes a negative incident without casting any more light on it. The mug shot is indeed a handsome picture and Gibson looks surprisingly good in it, but that's not really the point, is it? In other articles mug shots have been removed. I have BLP concerns about some of the other content in the article but setting those aside for the moment and accepting all the details in the article as relevant, does it really improve our encyclopedic coverage of a notable subject to have the mug shot in the article? Please forgive me if this has been discussed already - I couldn't find it. Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

the mug shot is the whole reason this article exists in the first place. without his arrest there would be no article or mug shot. putting the mug shot on his own article would be inappropriate, but it serves a purpose in the article about his arrest for drunken driving. it is the only visual representation of the content of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article fail

I am failing this article's good article nomination. Unfortunately cleanup tags are present which qualifies this article under the "quick-fail" criteria More information can be viewed at WP:QFC. The elimination of unsourced statements is especially important in articles about living people. Please feel free to address the problems and then renominate this article. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'm going to be doing the GA review for this article.

Before I read through the article in depth, I request that you format all the citations consistently, making sure the publisher, date, author, and title are clear for each one. Use the citation templates if you need help.

I'm also requesting that you change the Satire section into prose. Remove the bullet points and form paragraphs. Once these have been completed, I will perform a thorough review. Thanks. Reviewer: Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okeydoke. No response here. No response on user's talk page. Closing review as fail. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)