This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This talk page has been archived because it was getting too long. Everything up til the discussion of his DUI has been removed. You can find the archive at Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 1
Maybe it is worth mentioning that his father Hutton Gibson has made some comments about Holocaust denial ("(he) claims that most of the Holocaust was "fiction," that the thousands of Jews who disappeared from Poland during World War II "got up and left", taken from his page entry) Apple don't fall from the tree...
His being on record stating just this should be included here. The fact of his father's holocaust denials and his own refusial to comment on this should be included here as well as his justification for not doing so ["won't criticise his father"]. Whether this is an acceptable reason or not would then be left to the reader to decide for themself. [Scott S.]
I would add his *NEW* apology specifically directed at the Jewish community he has made on august 1st, 2006, but the byline is future dated August 2nd, 2006. The current link is http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm but it will soon be stale.
I don't know if this matters. http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/exclusive-mel-gibson-busted-for-dui/ User:Zerath13
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
There is this PDF file [3] which is supposed to be the handwritten police report (how did they get it though?) Evercat 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY. THE ARTICLE READS LIKE A PIECE OF HATE PROPAGANDA.
I don't think the DUI arrest will become a small story in years time. It is pretty rare to have A list celebrities on record as vulgar anti-semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.62.183 ( talk • contribs) .
I clarified his quoted comments and added a line to his official statement.-- Neithan84 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The LA Times now says that it has confirmed the authenticity of the police report from TMZ. [4] -- JGGardiner 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does the fact he tried to urinate on his cell floor really merit its own section? I mean, honestly. It seems like that can just go under the DUI bit, if anything. This tastes biased--like someone wanted to put the embarassing information as the most visible. It makes it sound like a trend of urinating on cell floors rather than a one time thing. Grenye
Just changed it. Urination is now included under his alcoholism and DUI arrest. Grenye
The article still reads like a polemical and hateful piece. If you people truly want to discredit Mel Gibson, you would do better not to crucify him!
SEPARATE DUI ARTICLE
Liu Bei 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Did the police reporter asterisk-out the word in his report, or is it just that way here? (I get an error when I try an open the .pdf file on TMZ, so unable to verify). I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not censored for children.
JF Mephisto 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC): You're quite right. Seeing as there is an article on fuck, I see no reason why it should not be used. Unless someone can point to a particular Wikipedia policy which bans the use of the word, it should be uncensored. I'm editting it for now.
68.32.48.42 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC): But did the New York Times censor "fuck"? And, if so, what do we do about it?
Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Unlike the NYT, wikipedia is not censored. Everyone knows f--- means "fuck". Stating what would be obvious to anyone is not original research. Therefore, this quote should just say fuck.
Moon321 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC): A Hollywood moviestar said "fuck" and this is notable? Or surprising? --
Interestingstuffadder 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC): No, but the context is notable and surprising.
Blue Tie 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC): I think that if it is not necessary, the word should not be included. Even if wikipedia is not completely family rated, it does not have to be offensive needlessly. If the word F*** is used, it is sufficient -- people will know, but it is less offensive.
HumanJHawkins 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Definitely this should NOT be censored if the quote is correct. It is not the least bit profane to accurately quote profane comments for the purpose of understanding offensive behavior. And it is very important to this artical to accurately portray this offensive behavior. As for children, it is MORE harmful to shelter them from correct use of these words (i.e. such as in discussing bad behavior) than not to. Hiding this kind of thing only makes the profanity more interesting, leading to more likely use of such words in inappropriate ways. Exposing this kind of thing shows how truely ugly it is, and reminds everyone what they look like when acting profane.
Anchoress 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)I definitely think it should NOT be censored. Quote it as it was spoken.
Blue Tie -- Please read Wikipedia:Profanity. I think there are some good arguments for reducing the prominence of the "fucking Jews" quote on the page, as has been discussed below. But, are you seriously suggesting asterisks over the U, C, and K?!? Absolutely, categorically, no! I will completely eff-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk-ing tweak if that's what happens to this page. Wikipedia is not elementary school; we all know what the F-word is, so if it must be said, then say it. (Hint: There's no asterisks in it.) -- Jaysweet 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize I may be jumping the gun a little bit here but racism is always a touchy issue and Gibson's comments have certainly been widely reported. I was surprised when I came to this article just now that it was not protected.
I was thinking it might be wise to protect it now, before the vandals even have a chance. Surely this hoopla will die down soon enough and the block will no longer be an issue.
I concur - can't editing be limited to registered users? 1Winston 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Some of my contributions have been repeatedly vandalized and deleted by unregistered users. 69.161.135.145 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
From the early life section:
Since there is no source I can't determine this for myself. Did he believe:
Perhaps a stupid question but I don't have a single clue about Mel's father to attempt to understand what this was meant to mean... Cburnett 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And I don't care about the media gosip. He is handsome, cute, sweet, sexy, carismatic and people are always jealous of guys like him. Any intelligent person also knows that some people always play the role of the victims. He is what they cannot be.
Leopard Gecko 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
I think it is clear that by Mr. Gibson's treatment that America is a country where the laws don't apply to the wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.8.10 ( talk • contribs)
Augustulus: I admire Mel Gibson as a filmmaker and, as a traditionalist Catholic myself, I agree with many but not all of his views. However, the DUI is mentioned in the 'controversy' section and this new section is unnesecary and just paints Mr Gibson as a bigot, which I do not believe he is. I would support removing the section and getting rid of that horrific mugshot. I agree with the first person who posted in this section.
Wikipedia is not a fan-based website. I'm sure that there are plenty of sites that exalt Mr Gibson and that would exclude the mug shot, as well as any mention of his anti-semetic and sexist comments and repeated drunk driving crimes. However, this is an encyclopedia, which is meant to cover both the ups and the downs of every entry. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair point. However, this site is also supposed to be neutral, and express all the facts for the reader either to decide for themselves or to simply inform. The opinions of the people who write the articles don't mean crap. I am simply trying to create a more neutral environment. Most of these users seem to be vehemently against Mr Gibson. As for the mugshot, I think it is unfair that the only picture of Gibson is one where he is completely drunk. - Augustulus
Mel Gibson | |
---|---|
Born |
January 3,
1956 |
Occupation(s) | Actor, director, producer |
While I think it would be fine to have the mug shot in the section about his arrest, having it as his infobox picture is a bit much. This is an article on Mel Gibson, not Henry Earl— Wasabe3543 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
His is a dual antional then? John wesley 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to post something here also- I've suggested at Talk:Mel Gibson apology that if we have a seperate article here, it should be about the entire DUI incident, not just the apology. As it stands right now, that article is almost entirely source material- not something we usually do here. Friday (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Folks please familarize yourselves with Wikipedia's fair use policy. Images that are not directly related to this article are not to be used in it. Images that are screen captures from his films are to be used in their corresponding articles (like Lethal Weapon). Please do not revert Fair use reduction edits. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I think the free image available does not represent the career of Mel Gibson correctly. And the free status of mugshots have been disputed. Stellatomailing 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the mugshot isn't actually a bad picture. If it is fair use, it might be a good idea to use it and simply not mention that it is a mugshot. I mean, it's a very clear picture and I wouldn't say is at all unflattering. Unless it's so instantly recognisable as a mugshot that it could be taken as a personal attack, I think its use should be considered. JF Mephisto 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Interestingstuffadder, do you have a similar example of one for somebody else? Why isn't the one i put a good rationale? and all the publicity stills from movies, wouldn't they be valid? Maybe not the screenshots, but on the set stills, etc. Thanks! Stellatomailing 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new image which is neither copyrighted nor a mug shot, and which will therefore, I hope, prove acceptable to everyone. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"I used to be a real hard case, a wild boy," he has recalled, "knocking back lager and whiskey -- liquid violence, I call it."
from www.mensjournal.com/feature/0403/toughguys.html -
is quoted in several places on the net which may be the origin of these comments but doen't quite match the article text.
Johnmarkh
21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Locking this article now, especially with the current events surrounding Mel Gibson, is akin to censorship and highly contrary to the founding principles of the Wikipedia. No doubt there are many of us that would like to add information to this article, as current events unfold, and new information is disseminated. I demand immediately that this article be unlocked so that us non-administrators may contribute to an encyclopedia that purports to be "free" and "open". Scott 110 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy and you are in no position to make demands. There was vandalism, they unlock it now, whatever you have to say will get muddled by immature kids. Wait until it's safe and the mods will unlock it themselves. Yes, Wikipedia is a dictatorship! Where the working classes are subjugated to extreme suffering. Who is it that wields supreme executive power?? Come on, guys. You're taking wikipedia too seriously. It's neither, it's just a bloody encyclopedia. - Augustulus
I'm not saying that people should take wikipedia THAT liberally ... they should just keep in mind that it's just a web-site and nothing hugely special. A great resource, yes, and a valuable commodity, surely, but it is not life itself. That's all I'm saying. Know before you blab away. - Augustulus
From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206639,00.html
Of the Holocaust, Gibson told Noonan: "I mean when the war, was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game …"
Gibson told Noonan he thought the Holocaust actually happened, refuting his father’s belief that it didn’t occur at all. But Gibson equivocated, citing a friend who’d been in the Holocaust because "he worked in a concentration camp." 67.171.150.161 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a pretty substantial error on the Mel Gibson page, under the Accusations of Homophobia heading. Edward II was not the puppet of Thomas of Lancaster; Lancaster was Edward's first cousin and mortal enemy, whom Edward eventually defeated. His assumed homosexual lovers were Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser the Younger, though I don't think there's conclusive evidence of his having had a romantic relationship with either.
Augustulus: Well, yes there is. The evidence, as with Richard the Lionheart and William Rufus, is pretty overwhelming. However, he was not a puppet, yes. But he was weak and soft and pitiful, as shown in the film (but perhaps not as effemenate).
Is that really the best picture anyone could find? I mean, sure it's kinda funny looking, but if we could just get past these unfounded claims of anti-semitism, maybe we could get on to being a little more professional. Ytookay 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's as ridiculous to accuse Mel Gibson of anti-semitism based on his portrayal of the death of Jesus in the Passion of the Christ as it would be to accuse someone of being anti-German for portraying the murder of so many million Jewish people during the Holocaust. So the guy is Catholic. Get over it.
It's possible for a person to hold different views than his parents. We should say,
Leopard Gecko 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leoapard Gecko
I agree with the first poster. The cop who did arrest him FORGAVE him. A wonderful word. He said so himself that alcohol amplifies your personality. If Mel Gibson doesn't like the fact that certain radical Jews are using the Church as a scapegoat for the Holocaust (which, as many would tell you, was a deer hunt compared to other huge scale massacres, like the Crusades), and they are, then this might come out into a anti-Jewish rampage. Move the bloody article! - Augustulus
Excuse me? I will use 'bloody' until hell freezes over, and it is not your place to accuse me of homophobia, anti semetism, or anything else for that matter. - Augustulus
Can someone explain to me why the anti-Semitic remarks Gibson made are not quoted, while his apology is? -- MZMcBride 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand that Godwin's Law stuff any more ... I like Burke's Peerage 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to label Gibson as an anti-semite when he made a huge apology and went so far as to say he has disgraced himself and his family and sincerely asks for the Jewish community's forgiveness. That seems to be enough to remove him from this category. Anybody agree? Karatenerd 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it that making anti-semitic remarks and incorporating anti-semitic elements in a motion picture does not make one an anti-semite? Fishhead64 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
He has categorically denied being an anti-Semite. I'd say that doesn't count as self-identification. -- Elliskev 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If I make derogatory comments about an identifiable group, and then deny being bigoted towards that group, does that mean I am, ergo, not bigoted towards them? Surely it is the comments and actions that count, not whether or not one fesses up to what those comments and actions mean about my beliefs. Fishhead64 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Blue Tie 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm already familiar with these guidelines. And I'm unsure how placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semitic people can be construed as unproductive pointmaking—such categorization is the reason categories exist to begin with, to be helpful to readers. —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested reading
-- Elliskev 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"
Terrorists would also not apologize for what they did and admit to disgracing themselves and request to meet with our leaders to help them find the path of healing. Karatenerd 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleary we have a disagreement here. It is difficult to count how many people are on each side, how good their rationales are, and how experienced they are as editors. How about we have a "vote" (I use quotes because I mean not so much an election as an AFD-style debate using terms such as Support and Oppose to see if we can arrive at consensus on this. The question is: Do you think Mel Gibson should be included in the anti-semite category? Why or why note? Hope this helps clear things up, or at lease gives us a sense of which way consensus is going. Interestingstuffadder 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Consensus" should be in quotes as well. As should "debate" and "clear things up." —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean Scare quotes? Anyway, I agree that we should stick with policy -- be an encyclopedia not a tabloid. -- Blue Tie 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Since reasonable people may differ about his alleged anti-Semitism, in the interest of completeness, we should include him in both Category:Anti-Semitic people and Category:Non-anti-Semitic people. Problem solved. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Relax. Including Gibson in both categories would be justified, seeing as how there appears to be ample sentiment to make the case for either. This would be analogous to fleshing out all perspectives in a contentious article. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a winning argument right there. (rolls eyes) Unless someone can offer a coherent counterargument, I'll take care of this later tonight. —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this section of the discussion regards the appropriateness of placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semites. Since he specifically denies being an antisemite, and has, in his open apology to Jews, I have to say, insisting that putting him into this category, while it may very well be accurate, requires a bit of divination for support, as the above [relevant] discussion makes quite clear. That is not what the category is for, and, in fact, constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. While it's nearly undeniable that coming up with and expressing the ideas he reportedly did cannot occur in a non-anti-semitic mind, he has specifically denied being an antisemite [to repeat myself a bit]. This is not analogous to Michael Jackson [hypothetically] declaring "I AM NOT BLACK, DAMMIT!!!", or whatever. What it is anti-analogous to, is editors insisting that that hypothetical declaration is an unequivocable basis for putting Michael Jackson into the similarly hypothetical Category:White pedophiles. While I personally believe Gibson really is an antisemite, I also believe he doesn't want to be. Insisting on putting him in this category, in light of this information, looks a lot like pointmaking POV-pushing... Tom e r talk 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've already written above, I oppose placing Gibson's bio in the 'Anti-Semitic People' category because he vigorously denies the charge and listing him as such, without qualification, is tantamount to calling him a liar. Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge, and Wikipedia should categorically label a person as anti-Semitic only in cases where the person either admits to being anti-Semitic or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views. Gibson has done neither and in fact vigorously denies both charges. I do, however, sympathize with people who continue to add the 'anti-Semitic People' tag to his page. I therefore propose the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge that he is anti-Semitic. Thoughts? Azathoth68 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There already is a Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
While Mr. Gibson did make wrong, anti-semetic comments, he did so drunk, and he does not speak openly about any kind of anti-semetic views when sober. He also does not advocate his views or pursues them past a drunken rant. I think he needs to be removed from wikipedia's Anti-Semetic category. What do you guys think. Karatenerd 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny to read the arguments here about if Mr. Gibson is anti-Semitic or not given the known views of his "Traditionalist" Catholic church. Clearly he is anti-Semitic, and in another time, he would probably say so "proudly". Call a spade a spade, if it quacks, it’s a duck. Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic. Can there really be any question among intelligent people? And if this is so, than clearly it has a place in the article. Jake b 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly over-sesitivity here with Mr Gibson's remarks, he shows he is human and makes mistakes, especially when drunk. What he has actually shown is that he is compassionate and remorseful for his actions, he would'nt have apologised otherwise. If he was anti-Semetic he would never have apologised. Is someone branded an alcoholic due to excessive drinking on the odd occasion, I dont think so. Religion is always an emotive topic, what I see in Gibson is a strong and passionate faith and I personal wish there were more like him:-- 203.45.94.81 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Phil 1 August 2006.
Let’s put things in perspective here: Gibson is an admitted alcoholic who apparently was on quite a tear the night he got arrested. He was drunk, made anti-Semitic comments, threatened to fuck over a police officer, and then tried to piss on the police station floor. Needless to say, he wasn’t playing with a full deck that night. As soon as he sobered up, he released a statement apologizing for the entire affair, and now he’s apparently in some type of AA program. Does his drunken tirade really justify putting his name on a list that includes Osama bin Laden and David Duke? Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge. As such, it should only be applied as a formal classification when the person in question either admits outright to being anti-Semitic, or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views (as his father Hutton does). Mel Gibson has done neither. In fact, he has vigorously denied both charges. There is strong evidence the he privately embraces anti-Semitic views, but as long as he publicly denies doing so and denounces such views, then listing him without qualification as an anti-Semite represents something of a value judgment on the part of Wikipedia’s editors. As far as I’m concerned, let people read Gibson’s words, let them read the statements from the ADL, and then let them decide for themselves. Putting his name on the list of anti-Semites makes that decision for them. Azathoth68 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Everybody still seems to be forgetting that genuine, and reliable non-tabloid junky news sources state everything as "Alleged". As yet there has been no formal confirmation of the details. Everybody is simply jumping the gun, desperate for their pound of flesh - including the ADL which is probably the worst self aggrandizing self publicizing load of tat I've ever seen. This is all based upon an unconfirmed Police Report that somehow made its way to TMZ and is now being taken as 'gospel'.-- Koncorde 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously he apologized -- his career depends on it. The fact is, he has been quoted by a police report and in the newspaper of record as ranting and raving on about "the fucking jews". he may have been drunk, but 1) in vino veritas 2) intoxication is not a defense in a court of law and should not be here. It is unclear to me how a well cited drunken rant about "the jews" is not sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Interestingstuffadder 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Short of Mel Gibson holding a press conference and stating that he is in fact anti-Semitic, it is incorrect to say he is anti-Semitic. Unless people on this forum possess some innate ability to perceive what is in somebody’s nature, it is speculation pure and simple and doesn't belong in his Wiki profile. What would be proper and acceptable would be to state that he was arrested in July 2006 and made anti-Semitic statements, recorded on audio and video. That would be a factual statement and able to be proven. People here seem to have lost sight of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and only want to muckrake and smear. It is impossible to know for fact that he is anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is a factual database.
"Anti-semitic" today is like "Communist" in the 1950s. It is shameful that Wikipedia should even have such a list. What is the purpose, other than to single people out and denounce them? Wasn't there already enough denunciation in Nazi Germany?
Mr. Gibson, as well as his father are clearly snti-semetic. The DUI incedent is only one example of many where Gibson has made hatefull statements about Jews. He has slipped many anti-semetic commments out, and I can only wonder what he says in those rare moments away from the public. His father, a Holocast denier, has always been a big influence on him and it is clear he has a warped view of Christianlty and Judaism. His portayal of Jews in th PASSION OF THE CHRIST was a little of a stretch too. The Romans had much more to do with Jesus' death sentence than the Jews. He needs to wake up and embrace diversity. - JKRUP4
Hey folks! I am here as part of the Mediation Cabal. In an attempt to resolve this issue, please continue all future discussion in the section on this page titled "Mediation Cabal." Thanks! -- LawrenceTrevallion 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have requested informal mediation on whether or not the category is appropriate. Let's get an outside opinion. -- Elliskev 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Resetting indent. RE: POV question. It depends on what category we're talking about. Category:People accused of anti-Semitism, as I say on the request for mediation page is not technically objectionable to me (although, I think it's a bad idea). However, Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people and Category:Anti-Semitic people are right out. Now, if we have to go searching for some way to label Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite, but keep running into ethical ang legal objections, maybe the whole idea is misguided. Just my opinion. -- Elliskev 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
David Ahenakew made anti-semitic remarks, apologised for them, was convicted (in Canada) of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, and is listed under Category:Anti-Semitic people. Does Mel Gibson somehow warrant special exemption, or is Ahenakew unfairly convicted and designated? Fishhead64 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello all! I am here at the request of Elliskev to aid in resolving this dispute. I respectfully ask that all future comments about whether to include Mel Gibson in the anti-Semite category be made here. That said, I will try to guide our discussion along. From the arguments above, it seems clear that all are agreed Gibson's comments were anti-Semitic. However, Gibson has denied his anti-Semitism and actually apologized for those remarks. Now, do the original comments justify labeling Gibson as an anti-Semite? I agree that if Gibson went around making such comments repeatedly and never apologized, then the label of anti-Semite would stick. I think we all can agree that people make mistakes, and if someone apologizes it is not for us, especially on Wikipedia, to refute their apology, particularly when we have no solid evidence to contradict it. I know I would not want to be known by some of the mistakes I have repented of in the past. In addition, Gibson's apology brings up Wiki policy. According to the guidelines for biographies, religious or sexual preferences are not to be ascribed to a person if the person does not publicly acknowledge them. Now, admittedly, anti-Semitism is neither a sexual preference or a religion (though it may be part of some religious beliefs). The principle involved here, however, can be transferred to this discussion. We are to accept claims made by individuals unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I remind everyone that my mediation is informal, so do not take this as the final word. If you disagree with my attempt at resolution, please write below. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One additional point. Much has been made of Gibson being drunk at the time he spoke and the axiom of truth in wine. While Gibson may have anti-Semitic thoughts/tendencies, we should not judge him too harshly. Every person who controls their temper understands that kind of situation. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We have had a couple of days and no further discussion about the issue. Unless you feel that the discussion should continue, I am going to call the case closed and put the proposal in the Mediation Cabal to rest. If you still feel strongly about it, please comment here. Also, if anyone is interested, I am willing to get a poll going about the mediation I proposed. -- LawrenceTrevallion 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to keep an eye on this discussion, but I am going to put the case to bed in the Cabal. This, however, is by no means the end of the discussion, should someone so desire ... -- LawrenceTrevallion 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone asked me to comment about placing Mel Gibson in the category of accused of anti-Semitism. I see two problems with that: 1.) We return to the same problem about judging the validity of his apology. Placing him in a possibly anti-semitic category seems to say that his apology was not good enough. 2.) His apology was accepted by the Anti-Defamation League. Ultimately, I do not believe it is our place to try to sort this issue out on an encyclopedia. Unless Gibson announces his anti-Semitism, or starts acting like one without apologies, I do not think we should categorize him in this manner. I noticed that Gibson was given the category of accused of anti-Semitism by an anonymous user. I am reverting it pending more discussion about the issue. -- LawrenceTrevallion 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that someone added the anti-Semitic category to the page. I have removed it, pending discussion. My arbitration is not binding, but in the days that have gone by the absence of the category seems to have been acceptable. Rather than simply adding the category again, please discuss the issue here. If continued debate is not the answer, I can request official mediation. But, please, do not simply add the category without more discussion and input. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the statement on his nationality from American-born Australian to simply American. Thus far nobody has provided any evidence (that I know of ) to prove that Gibson is an Australian citizen or a dual citizen of both countries. And since the only people who can be considered ethnic Australians are aboriginal and Gibson surely isn't one I can't see much of a basis for calling him Australian. Whether or not he lived in Australia from age 12 to his 20s is irrelevant, that just makes him an American who lived in Australia and not an Australian. As the husband of an Australian wife and somebody who lived there so long he could have applied for dual Australian citizenship decades ago, if he doesn't have an Australian passport then there is absolutely no reason to call him Australian. So does anyone actually know, based on good sources, if he has Australian citizenship or not. Until there is proof of that he should be called what we know he is, an American. -- Westee 10:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are missing the point. Living in one country for so long is significant but it does not make a person a national or citizen of that country. This is an encyclopedia and it deals with providing facts about various subjects; the fact appears to be that Mel Gibson is an American and not an Australian or dual national. Calling him an Australian is both inaccurate and misleading, regardless of his "cultural background". Also as I said Mel Gibson could have surely chosen to become Australian decades ago based on his ancestry, his wife's nationality, or his long period of residency in the country. If he hasn't done that then he simply isn't Australian and he chose not to be. Mentioning his time and upbringing in Australia is important, calling him an Austalia is just not accurate or true. Also I don't care about anyone claiming him or not but the article needs to be as accurate as possible. I wouldn't care what nationality he is personally; its accuracy and truth that count -- Westee 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He was born in the U.S. and spends most of his time there, yet he grew up in Australia, began his film career in Australia, earned his early awards in Australia, and was introduced to worldwide audiences as an Australian actor, part of the so-called "Australian New Wave." So include both. Call him an American-born Australian, if need be. Or call him Australian-American. It would be misleading to omit either. —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident be merged here. I simply report this; but this is the place for discussing it.
The request for merger was made on 22:25, 3 August 2006. Here is the tally so far.
Most of the Merge Votes seemed to support or were based on the notion that the DUI incident deserved only minor treatment.
There is no concensus for the Merge. I note that for adminship a concensus is typically over 75% in favor. -- Blue Tie 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
"He is Eric Cartman's favorite actor on South Park. Cartman mentions him several times, and in one episode he finally gets to meet Gibson, but (in the episode) Gibson is insane and defecates on Cartman. It is strongly suggested that Cartman likes Gibson because of his perceived anti-Semitism. "
It is speculation to say that Cartman likes Gibson because of auti-Semitism, this needs to be removed or it's just a case of Weasel Words-- Bchaffin 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I know that this is Wikipedia and all, but I think that this DUI and Jew thing is getting disproportionate space in Mr. Gibson's biography. It might currently be newsworthy, but that does not make it so notable that it deserves more than 50% of the room in Gibson's biography. -- 75.25.183.36 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a revert war going on over whether the "sugar-tits" and "fucking Jews" quotes belong on the "Quotes" section. Revert wars are pointless, fellas, let's knock it off and discuss it civilly here, then reach a concensus on their inclusion.
Personally, I think it would be fair to include one well-verified quote from the arrest (since there is already a long-standing quote from his 1984 DUI included in the quotes section). More than one quote is giving undue space to a single incident -- but I do think one quote is appropriate, since what Gibson said during his arrest is going to be a very significant moment in his career -- maybe even more significant than the DUI itself.
That is my opinion. Would others now please offer their opinion in a calm and rational manner? --- Jaysweet 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we add add a quote section for Adolf Hitler as well regarding Jews? -- ResurgamII 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
add an equal number of quotes from his apologies for balance. 64.163.4.225 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I say no quotes, just mentioning the incident is fine. Omarthesecound 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Use one quote- I think one quote should be sufficient for the reasons quoted above. Dont want to make this a Mel Gibson bashing page-- Sopranosmob781 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can people please check the text of the wiki before adding a QUOTE, for instances of it already being in use in context (i.e. Antisemitic heading). The wiki is running the risk of repeating itself.-- Koncorde 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think that words like F**K should be kept off the main page if possible. Wikipedia should be as G rated as possible. -- Blue Tie 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think only deliberate and meaningful quotes belong the quote section. The DUI incident is dealt with elsewhere. Fwend 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this discussion, I wonder if the following policy could get concensus: "quote in context if possible, if not, place notable quotes in quote section. If quote section becomes too large, move to wikiquote, along with integrated quotes that also have a standalone value"? Fwend 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
One DUI Quote is enough. They are really better on the DUI page though, where they could all be presented-- Blue Tie 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC). --19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading the comments I get this as the positions of different people (in sequence).
I summarize as follows:
Relative to the quote about owning Malibu, here are the results as I read them:
These votes would clearly support REMOVING that quote:
These votes would clearly support KEEPING that quote:
These votes are unclear in this regard but seem to suggest conservative approaches, minimizing Quotes:
Total = 3 Votes
I consider the "I own Malibu" to be verifiable but not deliberate, meaningful or Noteable and I expect the authors of those opinions would agree.
Hence, there is a clear 2 to 1 agreement to not use the Malibu Quote and there may be as much as a 3 to 1 agreement.
Furthermore, it is simply unencyclopedic to include the nonsense ramblings of a man when he is drunk. -- Blue Tie 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Why after someone is pulled over for DUI would start going off on Jews is beyond me. He does not like Jews-Period... Mel lets here it out of your mouth!!! Remember we are the chosen people Don't forget that. We will never disappear and who helped you with your career. You blew it pal!!! We all thought with the movie you made of Christ the passion that you might be but now its decisive that you are.
While his comments were in very bad judgement and should not ever be repeated by anyone, I just cannot help but wonder what everyone would be saying now if he had insulted Chinese people or Islamic people or Africans for that matter anyone else but the Jewish community?
I think this issue has been blown way out of proportion just like most matters in direct conflict with the Jewish faith. I am sure that everyone of us on this planet has made poor judgement calls when we have had a bit too much to drink or for some, even when we are sober. (Please note that I am not defending his actions in any waI just believe that they are of no consequence to worldly matters.)
It is time to put this issue to bed and let Mel get on with his life and career and make ammends with people of the Jewish faith. His comments will only be negative to his own career as many people will now not support his movies any more, its not as if he physically injured someone it was only by the words he used and he will hopefully remember to bite his tongue in the future. (RvK 9:00am PST August 5th 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.3.214 ( talk • contribs)
Someone here please make sure to add Mr. Gibson to "Category:Anti-Semitic people" whenever you get a chance -- I can't because I'm an Anon user. Tell the truth! Add him to this category promptly! -- 205.188.116.199 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited this bit out:
Due to the POV/conjecture nature and the fact it is more relevant to Hutton Gibson than it is to Mel (does not define which "ideas" Mel and/or his father were interested in therefore lumping it into the Antisemitic section "leads" the reader to a conclusion by placing him in False Light). See: This document
Along with Taylor (an independent) himself denying any affiliation (the demographic of supporters does not define his affiliation, nor should it therefore be reflected more so onto Mel Gibson) and the League of Rights stating it has no official membership even in the Herald, it's conjecture and POV to use the piece. I have no problem with it being edited back in, but perhaps it should be included in Personal Views along with his other "politics" as there is no obvious statement on the part of Mel that he followed the antisemitic wing of a party he wasn't part of or supporting.-- Koncorde 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not have time to do it today, but the Mad Max series really needs its own entry here in Mel Gibson's career summary along with Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Lethal Weapon, etc. It was a significant film series both for theater in general and for Mel Gibson in particular. -- Blue Tie 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we all know about Gibson's anti-semetic comments, and most of us know about his sexist comments toward a female officer. Howeevr, we must be reasonable. This guy is an actor, which means that his quotes notable are ones that have to do on comments with movies, certain directors and actors, or maybe on how it's like to act. What isn't good is seeing this quote in the section "Quotations":
"What are you looking at, sugar tits?"
A quotation is a notable saying from someone that contributes importance. We all know that he was drunk, though some belive that when he said his remarks, it was some kind of "truth serum". Whatever, it doesn't matter, but the fact is the guy was drunk. DRUNK! This isn't something he MEANT to SAY! Because even if he truly thinks it, he was still DRUNK. That may not be a worthy-sounding reason now, but it should later on. I'm not sticking up for him (well, being half-Jewish myself, I'm obligated to say I don't care for him anymore [and I really don't]), but this is not a NOTABLE QUOTATION.
Leopard Gecko 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
"Although Gibson did not write the screenplay for Braveheart[27], the depiction of a homosexual character in the film drew accusations of homophobia."
Nevertheless, Gibson directed the scene. The way it was directed is the primal cause for controversy, not what was in the script. -- BKmetic 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? Direction has little to do with it. Their pretty clothes were made by the costume designer, their pitifullness and girliness created by the actors, and their weak-willed everything was the work of the screenplay. Direction is blocking, camera angles and lenses, and a general command of everything. Second of all, defenestrating a gay guy clearly isn't discrimination - in the Middle Ages plenty of people were killed, many of them homosexual. I'm sure that Peter Basil wouldn't have said, 'Oh, he's gay! I better not kill him.' when he was aiming a crossbow at Richard the Lionheart. They both get it, gay and straight. Hell, Wallace gets tortured for ten minutes and Murron nearly gets raped.
Mel Gibson's father is notable. Why does the section on Mel Gibson's family not mention him? I propose that a line be added stating that "Gibson is the son of Hutton Gibson, an Australian-based sedevacantist and holocaust revisionist". -- Adam Brink 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a traditional bia for conservatives to "distinct" or "hide" related aspects of a conservative personality. For example, for them, if G.W. Bush is a conservative politician, helping extreme-right regimes in the worls and supporting the weapons lobby, for them also it should have no link to Prescott Bush, who was active in the weapons commerce and a banker for NSDAP and Hitler. No, again, here we are trying to document and help science, so please mention Gibson's father opinions. They are needed for any serious and scientific research. PierreLarcin2 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, conservators will always argue that a fact is POV. Let's look for VietNam : selling weapons is POV, Tonkin's incident plot is POV, Phoenix's slaughter is POV. Simple : what is non-conservative is POV : abortion, disarmament, capitalism, freedom of the peoples, antisemistism of Gibson's, links of Gisbon with Rotary, non-existence of God... And of course, they are ready to make WAR to us [with guns and real bullets] to wipe-off our [anticonservative] POV : Gibson and his father are conservatives, antisemistic, homophobic, AND IT IS A TRUTH THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA. BECAUSE it is a proven FACT . PierreLarcin2 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The reader's digest quote is taken out of context and represents a POV. The quote as it stands now, with the context removed, looks as if he is denying the holocaust - when, in fact, he was refering to his father's statements. It should be removed or enlarged to encompass the context and the question he was asked. 98percenthuman 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman
I'm neither conservative nor defending Mel Gibson. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia a quality entity, taking quotes unfairly out of context for the sake of arriving at a point of view is not encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure that you are beyond debating with since your tyraid against things like Disney and a conservative agenda to hide things is tempered with your cowardice at not signing your posts! Fight the power unisigned person! 98percenthuman 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman
and then : what does it change ? You can show bollocks and not be more clever... Of course you're conservative : always hiding facts ! Always "keeping wikipedia clean" "Wiki is not a soapbox and you are a coward" or "you French bastard are scientific idiots", etc, etc. You do not need to be member of the Communist Parti of America to have a label not-to-be-a-conservative, you know... There are people hiding the facts everywhere and specially in communist parties... That's all what you found to hide the preds and facts about Gibson ? Always the same positions since Vietnam war... and of course Americans [parangons of freedom, science and technologies as we all know around the world] forgot to pay indemnities for crimes in Vietnam... I suppose that Gibson will never pay for his insults and ideologistic films...Of course he askef for pardon... and paid conservative politicians and conservative clubs [Rotary] GIBSON AND HIS FATHER ARE GOOD AMERICAN BOYS BECAUSE THEY HEAR GOD SPEAKING AND VOTE REPUBLICAN. REPUBLICAN IS NOT CONSERVATIVE : it is the party of freedom and war. Right ? PierreLarcin2 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's been new information added, but is a satirical website a prank? I think perhaps this should be included with either the trivia or "His critics", so I shall move it to the latter.-- Koncorde 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Given Mel Gibson's vocal anti-semitism and Holocaust denial over the years, as well as his refusal to condemn his father's even more vocal anti-semitism, should we include him in the category "Nazi actors"? Revision as of 15:58, 13 August 2006 (edit) 195.93.21.34 (Talk)
Certainly not. If your father, who raised and loved you, had one strange belief, would you really grind him into the dirt? And the 'numbers game' comment is accurate. - Augustulus
Gibson isn't a conservative at all. He's against the Iraq war, and he hates George W. Bush. Anti-semitism traditionally comes from the Left. Mel is also a friend of Michael Moore, and nearly financed his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004. Mel is a Nazi actor, just like his fellow left-winger Errol Flynn.
Since this article is vandalized several times a day, perhaps we need to protect it from edits from non-registered users? 98percenthuman 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That drawing doesn't look remotely like Mel Gibson. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use an actual photograph? Throw 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think his mugshot should be the main picture, because he looks so drunk and ugly.
Gibson is indeed a Republican Party supporter, as this article proves. He has been very active behind the scenes for years, although it's only in recent years that he has been more vocal in his support. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680277/posts
Actually since Gibson owns a vast collection of guns and encourages his children to shoot each other with paint ball guns in the woods around his mansion, I very much doubt he supports gun control. Gibson is certainly a Republican, but like Schwarzenegger he is liberal on some issues.
Is this "blog" notable enough to be listed? Or is this link spam? The text suggests that the owner of the "blog" received a nasty-gram from Gibson's lawyers, but the link goes to the "blog" itself where there is no evidence other than the "blog" owner's word. Googleing for this didn't turn up anything for me in the way of a news account. I'm sure there are a ton of "funny" web sites out there about Gibson, and in my opinion he deserves all the shit that comes his way, but this "blog" text seems very marginal to me as far as offering any facts or value to the article. In my opinion, this is link spam. Jake b 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If the article does not describe his "Humanitarianism" or efforts that could be called Humanitarian Acts, then how can he be labeled as one? I think the article used to have some of humanitarian acts listed but these seem removed now. If these are so slim that they do not merit mention, I do not think he should be called an American Humanitarian. -- Blue Tie 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but the only thing that we're really worried about is negative material. Hbdragon88 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is up with the picture business? Can't we just find a picture which we can put up as fair use and leave it there? The idea that we can't use a fair use image because we could alternately use either fan art or his mugshot, which are in the public domain, is ridiculous. john k 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The current rule seems sufficient to me to say that we're okay without further discussion. I shall quote. Fair use images are acceptable if:
The mugshot and the fan art do not adequately give the same information, as the fan art does not actually look like Gibson, while the mugshot is both POV and a bad picture. john k 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) does have an aversion to fair use, guys, and they try to use it only when necessary. The German and Swedish Wikipedias even prohibit fair use images. The PlayStation 3 page had a massive editwar over free shot vs. publicity photo. A decent free image will almost always take precedence over a publicty shot, as that photo is fair use and not completely free. Hbdragon88 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.-- Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. 98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:
Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.-- Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
can someone explain the "freed the slaves award" listed under awards with characters of the tcv show aqua teen hunger force being other winners of this award? if not it gets removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.53.147 ( talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In trivia: "In the February 7, 1983 edition of People magazine, actor/comedian Jerry Lewis claimed that he was outraged by a slew of anti-Semitic epithets that actor Robert De Niro directed at him during an exercise in method acting during the filming of a movie." What does this have to do with Mel Gibson? 24.22.104.180 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense because the above entry had the important part edited out which was that the offending words of De Niro's were virtually identical to what Gibson said to the Malibu policeman. Don't you think that is information that is valuable for the reader to have? Perhaps not in trivia but in the section about Gibson's anti-semitic comments? I'll await your response before I reinsert... (sorry if I'm not doing this comment right as I'm new at this!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkondaks ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 May 2007
I think the article is far too uncritical of Gibson's stated opinions. It reads like it was closely combed through by his PR people, which is exactly what I would insist on if I was in Gibson's position. How can this be avoided? Certainly not by locking out editorial contributions from other parties who may have something to add to the article. He's controversial, so let the controversy run. And don't forget that Gibson will steer it and profit from it if he can. He's rich enough to bring a hundred libel suits.
There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.-- Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. 98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:
Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.-- Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we open the discussion of a picture up. This is one of the only articles of a major celeb without a headshot of some sort. Again, the DUI photo shouldn't be used because its POV and that drawing looks more like John Stamos than Mel Gibson. RiverCampa 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I contend that there is nothing wrong with using the mug shot. It is recent and accurately depicts the individual. That is has negative connotations is a subjective attribute that is in the eye of the beholder, and as such is an attribute that applies to any and every picture. The latest available picture should be used. If it's the mug shot, so be it. If Mr. Gibson or his publicity organ would like to provide a copyright acceptable pic, or there is some other source, that would be better. But I see nothing wrong with the mug shot, as I said it is an accurate depiction, how can that be POV? Jake b 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The current photo is far too old; 17 years is a long time. A new picture really ought to be found. Eedo Bee 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This was mentioned before somewhere in some past discussion. The Gibson article really needs a specific section regarding the film, as that what really brought him so much "fame". It deserves an equal amount of mention just like the Hamlet/Braveheart/PotC stuff found in the article itself. Can someone please write something for it? I have not seen the film in quite a while so I'm afraid I can't do so. -- ResurgamII 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed user Sliat_1981 ( talk) is unhappy about Gibson's Australian roots not being mentioned at the top of the article. He's added the phrase "Australian-raised" to the opening sentence several times, and after it kept being deleted because it made the sentence too wordy, he's resorted to simply changing Gibson's nationality to Australian altogether.
The fact that Gibson was raised in Australia is arguably important. That's why I would like to propose a compromise solution: putting the info immediately after the opening line, like :
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer, who was raised in Australia."
If that's not acceptable, then maybe we could place it at the beginning of the second sentence:
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer. Being raised in Australia..."
Fwend 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- How about the term American-Australian or Australian-American? I mean, c'mon, the guy is an Australian citizen. Don't forget his earlier films had him with an Australian accent (some Lethal Weapon movie; I don't remember which one). ResurgamII 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine Fwend, not to mention he received the Officer of the Order of Australia (which is given only to Australian citizens) in 97'.
ResurgamII 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Officer of the Order of Australia is awarded to non-Australians as well, not just citizens. I would also point out that for Mel Gibson to be a citizen of Australia he would have had to have been naturalized, which was a somewhat difficult process in Australia. I do not think Mel had this at the top of his head when he was a young man, drinking, whoring and carousing around. I suspect that he does not have dual citizenship. He did not say he had dual citizenship, he called himself a "hybrid". And I guess technically he is. His mother is Australian I understand, but his Dad is American. I do not believe that any evidence is available showing that he is a citizen of Australia. Any such information in wikipedia should be deleted. However, it is appropriate to mention that he was raised in Australia. The article already does mention that. -- Blue Tie 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose the following rule: for the purposes of such categorization (that has very little to do with science or objective truth) someone is to be considered primarily X-ian if he/she was born in X-land and did not explicitely renounce the quality of "citizen of X-land." Will hence be reverting to American. -- Aqualung 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
He's a dual citizen and he has said it himself: *(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine
The link in footnote 9 doesn't work. It points to " http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/115475p-104184c.htmlMel's", from which the last part, "Mel's" should be deleted. 193.91.181.142 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Nick)
Actually, there was a slight problem after Finding Nemo was released, where kids were flushing their fish down the toilet thinking it would free them to the ocean. So I suppose you could call that "controversial"... ;)
But yes, I absolutely agree: While in many cases tagging something as "controversial" is somewhat arbitrary, I think in the case of Passion of the Christ there is not much room to argue. I mean, people were calling it anti-Semitic before the filming had even finished. If that's not controversy, I don't know what is. -- Jaysweet 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia call Borat/Cohen "controversial"? I just couldn't find it. The word "controversial" is nowhere to be found on the webpage you mentioned. Note that "Controversy" is not the same; as a matter of fact you gave me a good idea: I'll replace "controversial" with something else, i.e. "controversy sparked by" or something else to that effect. Calling the "Passions" movie "controversial" has more-or-less subtle unintended connotations (or, at least I take them to be unintended (but again, I am probably too gullible)). Now getting to the issue of the media, how many of you have seen the media storming with accusations of controversy, and bashing Cohen for his film? Where is the turmoil caused by Borat, whose mockery of the kazakh nation is much more overt than whatever (presumed) anti-semitic message the "Passions" movie "boasts"? How come the American media hasn't rushed into condemning Borat and his movie just as they rushed into calling Gibson and his movie "controversial"? -- Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The word "controversial" as currently used in the Gibson article is not neutral. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that here it is used pejoratively and derisively (see Controversial#In_propaganda). Whoever put it there did not put it in good faith. Read the first two of the 5 pillars, esp. " Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view." As far as "not Wikipedia's job to lead the way in making beneficial changes to society," the very etymology of the word "encyclopedia" screams "education" (see Encyclopedia#Word_history): would you educate your children in anything other than "making beneficial changes to society"? -- Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why my addition to the discussion was removed. Mel Gibson is clearly a lunatic (gift-wrapping dead rats...wtf???). Even if you view this article from a conservative standpoint, it's obvious. Panda
From CNN today:
Maybe not relevent. I'll leave it to someone who cares...
Jake b 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Did this game actually exist or was the creator just having a laugh? Wormy 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I linked to this in the Trivia section, but someone deleted it. I think it's fair enough for inclusion, just as something mentioned in passing. No? -- BigglesTh9 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont know... even if it is an external site I think this page has to adhere to Biography rules, and I dont really fancy the idea of Mel Gibson sueing Wikipedia. funny though! -- ISeeDeadPixels 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient that it be "incontrovertable". It must be validated by an objective reliable source. This is per WP:BLP -- Blue Tie 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
While I dont agree with what he said and I certainly think its a horrible thing to say, I think its funny how everyone denounces him and calls him a racist, while Jackie Mason teaches hate against muslim and arabs. Mel's were drunken rambling, Jackie's are hate crimes. Yet, if it's against muslims, not Jews, it's percieved as freedom of speech. Should be the same for both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.166.24 ( talk • contribs) .
Adding this article to Category:Anti-Semitic people implies that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic person. WP:BLP#Use of categories has this to say:
Unless we have a good source that Gibson publicly identifies as an anti-Semite, this article should not be in the category, and any such edit should be reverted without regard for 3RR, per WP:BLP. — Ashley Y 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't even get Marlon Brando's page to be tagged with that anti-semitism category, despite alleged "anti-semitism" displayed by Brando which was discussed in the Brando article. ResurgamII 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The category anti semitism is listed under Gibson's DUI incident where it belongs. Ironduke, please stop agenda pushing which you admitted to earlier.-- 68.9.116.87 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the agenda is to label an article in this way because it contains a discussion of anti-semitism. I think that the discussion is along the lines of an accusation, which may not be completely a clean deal. But on the other hand Mel Gibson admitted making anti-semitic remarks. So the label is not entirely unappropriate. Now, when it comes to agenda pushing, your repeated reverts are also agenda pushing and you are doing so in a disruptive way ... not discussing. This could be considered vandalism and you might be banned. -- Blue Tie 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You might like to note that there are several founders and current leaders of white supremacist groups who deny that they are racist, if you think self-admission counts for something meaningful. These people repeat race-hate propoganda while denying that they are racist in the same way Gibson has, unless you see some different standard being applicable to Jews.
Frankly the fact that both his parents are indisputably anti-semitic (with his father's status being such that he is even an invited guest speaker at holocaust denial conferences) and that Mel himself has made repeated anti-semitic statements (which number a lot more than "at least two" as the current version states) should put this question on about the same footing as whether RFKs policial policies were in any way linked to JFK's.
No contest that "anti-semite" is a label that should not be applied lightly. However if you cannot interpret this (and in this of all cases) then WTF can you interpret? Have all the people noted as "sailors" on Wikipedia expressly and publically declared themselves as such or does the fact they've repeatedly sailed ships qualified them as this without their own personal endorsement? 220.233.94.28 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed hate speech from an anon IP and User:The world over. IronDuke 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by The world over ( talk • contribs)
User:The world over -- Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that Jewish people are still killing their sons? I notice that you are also ranting about Jews in the Henry Ford article. Do I notice a pattern here? Bus stop 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
From The World Over; To Iron Duke and Bus Stop -- Gentleman, my contributions to both the Gibson and Ford entries were followed in quick succession and without sufficient consideration, ie; they were written in the heat. So, in a spirit of good faith, and in compliance with "Staying cool when the editing gets hot" I would like to refer the following brief remarks to the Nine Tips of "Staying Cool..." Without going into lengthy detail, and since I am sure that both of you are familar with the above mentioned Nine Tips, I will make my point by refering to each tip by number. I do not believe that either of you complied with tips 1 or 2 or 4. Having said that, and after rereading my contribution to the Gibson entry, I did not comply with number 3, nor number 7 in the entry on Henry Ford (however, though I did engage in some editing which I did not give reasons for (ie, number 7) I fail to see where I engaged in any "ranting"). So, in an attempt to make amends I would like to take the time now to comply with number 6 and offer an apology to whomever took offence to my remarks, and I mean it. That being said, one can make a mistake without it qualifying as "Hate speech" or without having ones comments misrepresented by irrelevant questions ("let me get this straight, are you saying.....?"). Also, I would like to refer to you both to the "Dealing with Insults" section of "Staying Cool..." and remind you that I am a newcomer; and to tell you not as an excuse, but so that you know. In any event, though none of us complied fully with the tips, this entry is, as I said, an attempt to clean up my side of the street. The World Over
Wouldn't call Gibson anti-semitist, but moreso, a realist. It's a fact that Jews have the most political influence in mostly any Western country, and that as a result of that we're steered into wars to support horrible countries like Israel. Iran and Iraq were threats to Israel because they don't belong there--it's Palestinian land. Not only that, but the Israeli soldiers treat the Palestianians like trash (and even worse than that). 90% of the American media is owned by 5 wealthy Zionist Jews, as is the British media. As a result, you have to turn to independent studies for real news and the internet. Gibson doesn't hate all Jews, and neither does any "Holocaust Denier" (a stupid word since the phrase "Denier" actually denies the Holocaust). It's the elite at the top that were once Jews, but now live for corporate greed, manipulation, and power. It's not only Jews either, but from a population-to-representation standpoint, the amount of Jews in the upper echelons is both amazing and incredibly disturbing. 192.249.47.9 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Gibson's anti-semetic statements to the police officer are not simply "alleged", they are fact as he has publically affirmed the accuracy of the statements himself. 163.205.105.66 ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to keep the comments Mr Gibson made to the Police in context of what happened immediately afterwards. The State of California certainly thought the abuse of Mr Gibson was serious enough to actually change State Law (reported by BBC World Service). Within hours of Mr Gibsons arrest, full details of the comments he allegedly made were Posted on an Internet Web Site, this Posting did not give him any opportunity to explain or Respond to to what was written. The BBC has reported that the State of California has now made the selling of police arrest details to the Press illegal largely based on the police treatment of Mr Mel Gibson in that case. What Mr Gibson was subjected to was 'Condemnation by hearsay'. Johnwrd ( talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be making what I HOPE is a non-controversial change to the childhood section.
It currently notes that Gibson is 6th of 10 children, and that the family adopted 1 more bringing the total to 11.
I really don't think how one of Gibson siblings entered the family is important enough to make a comment on. Kind of like pointing out that 1 was conceived outside of marriage, 4 were planned and the rest were "oops" babies. Not very encyclopedic.
If the child was adopted after Gibson's birth, then he is merely number 6 out of 11 children.
The only exception to this might be if the child were adopted under truly extraordinary circumstances and it was a very telling story as to the values of the family. Otherwise, it is pretty mundane and kind of old fashioned to point it out.
No offense intended to the original author! Just trying to tighten up the article a bit. Interesting read, btw. The Pearl 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Including this category under the DUI article is enough. Gibson's bio doesn't warrant inclusion just because you or others want to label him an anti-semite, thats called POV original research. Thanks.-- 68.9.116.87 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson is not an example of anti-Semitism, therefore he should probably not be in the category. The individual incidents, however, should be, if there are articles for them. — Ashley Y 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In any event, being drunk is not a defense. Alcohol makes you loose your inhibitions, thus anything in your head, racist ideas for instance, might come out for no apparent reason.-- Gonzalo84 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've sprotected because of the amount of reverting going on. I don't normally put the tag on BLPs, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The "accusations of homophobia" section states that Edward II was a "mere puppet of Thomas of Lancaster." But a quick reading of the linked article suggests the opposite: Lancaster opposed Edward and was executed by him. The "Thomas of Lancaster" bit in that statement needs to be changed to Piers Gaveston - who is certainly the historical model for Edward's lover in the film. However, it would be equally accurate to use Hugh le Despenser - or his son, Hugh le Despenser the Younger - in this instance, if the issue is merely whose puppet Edward was. 4.225.134.193 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(Doh! The point being, I've forgotten my login info and can't make the edit myself, but it does need to be made, so an admin should make it.) 4.225.134.193 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award-winning American-Australian actor, director, and producer *and a virulent anti-Semite*."
In the article, in the "Family" section, Mel's kids are listed with their birth years. His two oldest sons appear to be twins, and thus the same age. Neither of them is named Bear, and nowhere does the article say that either of the twins has the nickname "Bear." Nor does the article state that Gibson has had any children with any women other than his current wife. The last sentence of this section reads thusly: "Mel Gibson's eldest son, Bear, attends Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va." This seems to contradict the earlier part of the section. First of all, if the information provided in the article is completely accurate, Gibson does not have an "eldest son"; rather, he has two sons of the same age who are older than all his other male children. And who is Bear? I don't know if this is extremely unfunny and uninspired vandalism, or simply an editorial oversight. I don't really know enough about Mel to correct it myself. Perhaps there's a Mel Gibson expert out there who would care to comment? 69.205.44.251 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi... uh... i'm a history major, but i'm sure it doesn't take one to know this....
I saw Apacolypto.
1. The civ were not Mayans. It was the Aztecs who performed blood rituals for their sun/snake god, Quetzacoatl
2. This does not take place during 600 AD. It takes place appx. during the spring of 1519
3. The location of the film would have been in modern-day Mexico City, which was called "Tenochititlan" by the Aztecs
Can someone please fix this embarrising Apacolypto section? thank you.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AK2 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Also, he is grouped under Roman Catholic entertainers and he is most certainly not Roman Catholic. He is a member of an off-shoot "traditionalist" Catholic group that thinks Rome is too liberal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.64.139 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, December 29, 2006
I think it might be worthwhile to note that his anti-Semitism and hatred of George Bush are linked. BonniePrinceCharlie 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Israel. It existed before Israel, so it's completely independent. Israel is a massive leech on our resources, and for what reason should we support them? They violate every possible international law out there, have roughly 600 nuclear warheads (provided by us of course) despite not being registered as a nuclear power, and have carved their society out of the skulls and lives of countless Palestinian men, women, girls, and boys. I'm strongly anti-Israel and more Americans are opening up to it--they are of NO benefit to us. They don't even have oil. AIPAC is a large reason we're over there now, alongside corporate greed interests. Anti-Semitism would be hating the Jewish people for following Judaism...end of story. 192.249.47.9 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
His defense of being Alcoholic was referenced in a recent South Park episode when Cartman says, "Oh, no! She used the Mel Gibson defense". This certainly doesn't warrant it's own section, but perhaps if other references are also made, this may be germane.
The Category:Anti-Semitic people should be added to this page, because the comments he said were clearly anti-semitic, and thus prove his antisemitism.-- Sefringle 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
This action to Mexican children was done in partnership with the Rotary through Rotarian Foundation http://www.rotary.org/newsroom/programs/060411_gibson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreLarcin ( talk • contribs) 23:12, January 3, 2007
I thought I read soemwhere once that he was born in New York. Doesn't that rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, January 25, 2007
I removed some material that was not sourced or didn't reflect the citation. This whole section needs work as it appears like original research in its present form. Rather than remove it entirely lets find some reliable sources. Thanks!-- Tom 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Block quote
hey my name is ramona and i search something about your religion
Hey mel gibson arguably gave his best performance in the movie the patriot and its not noted here. The movie won an academy award and 16 others. Iam too lazy to do so but could someone please add this to this article? it really was an awesome movie and it deserves to be mentioned here. OSFockewolf 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) mel gibson is the best
Just like to point out that Mel Gibson has also appeared in the following movies. Also the comment under Film Career, Mad Max, that "Gibson made his film debut as the leather-clad post-apocalyptic survivor in George Miller's Mad Max" is incorrect. He actually made his film debut two years earlier in a very ordinary Australian movie called Summer City.
1. The Singing Detective (2003) 2. Chicken Run (2000) (voice) 3. Pocahontas (1995) (voice) 4. The Man Without a Face (1993) . 5. The Chili Con Carne Club (1993) 6. Bird on a Wire (1990) 7. Mrs. Soffel (1984) 8. The River (1984) 9. Tim (1979) 10. Summer City (1977)
Leon Pinkerton 203.41.250.147 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD. I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times. Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here! -- Jaysweet 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with stating this obscure "award" by some website under awards and accomplishments - so I suggest to remove this last one: Named the "Second Most Jew-hatingest of Hollywood" beat out by nonother than Richard Simmons on the Frigid 50 list Film Threat (2006) - There should be stated only real and respectful awards, not some questionable hate-awards made by haters -- Ibuko 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Is his first name Melvin or is it really just "Mel"? I know that Sacha Baron Cohen (as Borat) once called him "Melvin Gibsons", but that doesn't really prove it either way. - EJ220 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several facts not being represented with regards to the incident. CSUN students who attended the event themselves allege via a facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2257023176 that Gibson was patient during the entire ordeal, that Estrada was disruptive, and that she not only cut in line, but snuck into the event, which was reserved only for film students and faculty who had questions about Gibson as a filmmaker, not about his depictions of Mayan culture. Furthermore, university officials themselves ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/23/entertainment/e141124D56.DTL) are defending Gibson, not Estrada. The SF Gate reports that the two refused to give up the microphone. Wikipedia's citation of only TMZ.com, an incredibly sensationalist website for entertainment journalism, as a reliable source, is very poor journalism. Jtown1234 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is also a crooner with the same namesake. See crooner
The section needs to be restored so that it mentions his anti-gay interview from December 1991. That was why he hosted the GLAAD event in 1997. It is also significant since as late as his Playboy interview from July 1995 he was still refusing to apologize. ( Gibsonism 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't generally edit contentious and disputed topics like this one so I will leave you this article to do what you will with. See: [9] IvoShandor 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not use that black and white faceshot of him from the movie Payback 86.144.221.3 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the picture of him in 17 years old? Since we're talking ancient history, here's a few other items that are as old as Mel's picture: Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry was arrested for drug possession; the President of South Africa promises to free Nelson Mandela; U.S. President Bush breaks his 1988 'no new taxes' campaign pledge. Can someone please bring us up to recent history with an image of good ol' Mel from this century? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
is mel gibson still an actor, it seems his main focus now is directing?? Jimmypop1994 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember hearing about Gibson flipping out on the set of one of the Lethal Weapon movies (or something he did with Glover, maybe not Lethal Weapon) on local news. I don't remember much about what they said happened except that he got angry at glover and someone in the crew; called Glover a 'nigger', and said something about the crew member being a jew.
Has anyone else heard about this, or have any credible sources as to whether or not it is true? I don't know if it is true or not, or maybe it was a prank he pulled. I heard about it on local news during the coverage of his DUI/rant recently, but none of the local news stations' websites have anything in the archives about the story.-- 70.243.243.5 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little curious about this now... from a little Googling, I found quite a large number of bio and triv pages that mention that Mel Gibson is pro-death penalty, but couldn't come up with a single reliable source (I figured IMDB was borderline, so not surprised I got reverted there :D ). Oddly, one fan site had footnotes scattered about the bio, but then the footnotes themselves were indecipherable. D'oh!
So what's the skinny? Is this just a rumor then?
I'm not sure how important this is for the article anyway, but now I'm curious. -- Jaysweet 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please vote at the bottom, and follow the format:
Some other talk about the merger has gone on at: Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident#Merge -- RidinHood25 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: The voting has been going on for more than the required time. Propose: CLOSE-NO MERGE - Deadline: October 15, 2007
Is there consensus that Mel Gibson DUI incident should be merged with the main article? I just want to make sure there's agreement before I start moving info over! Popkultur 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote to keep them separate because the DUI incident article is very long and detailed. Claisen 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can the quotes be better sourced or removed? Not sure if they add much. Other thoughts? Thanks, -- Tom 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed the Balance and POV tags on the article. The criticism section and alcohol abuse sections alone (not including any criticism elsewhere in the article) make up about a third of the article. I know he's a controversial guy, but this is undue weight. It needs to be abridged. 69.110.129.251 ( talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I may have missed a discussion on this, but why is the photographer/owner credited? I've never seen that before on any other Wikipedia article. Seems like a subtle form of advertising. Anyway, I'll give notice for a few hours before I remove it in case there is a good reason why it is there. Chicken Wing ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The belief that he´s a paleoconservative is not NPOV. It´s an interpretation. Like it´s stated in the entry, there are several interpretations of his political beliefs. To state that he´s a conservative, would be acceptable, but it´s arguable if he´s really a paleoconservative. He probably would like to see a Christian-Democratic Party in the USA, since he seems to have some differences with both major parties. Mistico ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have heard a rumor float around that Mel started out as a boxer. Even if this isn't true, would it be worth mentioning on his page if a source could be found?-- ProfessorTom ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It can be argued that "Family Guy" may have been a little nicer to Gibson than "South Park" was; he may even like "Family Guy" better than "South Park."
Has there been some kind remark made be Gibson to tell if he's a Family Guy fan over South park? What's the point of this statement?-- Skeev ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Does Mel Gibson really qualify as a "Historian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.14.112 ( talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I kept looking at "Executive producer: Mel Gibson" in the credits of Carrier An Icon Productions and Carrier Project Production (an interesting 10-hour miniseries somehow associated with WETA-TV in Washington, DC.) and saying,
Well, turns out that the
Icon Productions tie shows they are one and the same, and the lk at
Carrier (documentary) acknowledges it.
I don't have a change in mind for this article (and i'm certainly not suggesting
OR additions), but i can't help thinking that when MG and
PBS are in the same bed, editors should at least have their eyes open for mainstream discussion of what it implies about one or the other.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bounty sc.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: The article says Gibson was born in January, 1959, and that his father moved the family to Australia in 1968, after winning the lawsuit in February of that year. So they must have moved sometime between February and December of 1968, right? So then why does the article say that Gibson was 12 at the time of the move (see "Early life")? At most, in December of 1968 the nipper would've been nine. Am I right?
I know it's just a little thing, but it's bugging the Pursuit Special out of me. Sugarbat ( talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Doods -- what's the haps with the reference list at the bottom? Why's it so fugly? On the right side, is what I'm talking about. I'd fix it but that coding's not my strong point and it will take hours that I don't have right now. But I respectfully beg someone smarter than I (in that regard) to investigate and prettify. Thanking you most sincerely in advance, Sugarbat ( talk) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 09:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture, a mugshot, is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It gives the impression that the man is always a drunken wreck. It needs to be changed. 24.60.239.47 ( talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried really hard to include a relevant detail re Mel Gibson's "Tiger Diet", but wikipedia, either through incompetence or through deliberate blocking, prevented me from updating the relevant passges into the section on his family and personal life. Here is the relevant passge:-
"Mel Gibson is also known for following a diet("Tiger Diet") consisting of raw meats, avocadoes and olive-oil. [2]
Any reason as to why anyone might block any new insertions? Uusally, only sites like Gorge Bush's have to be blocked from being edited. Loki0115 ( talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything on The Church That Mel Built in Malibu. Why not? It's relevent. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/27210/ Proxy User ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is some questionable, controversial and even libelous material here that will be removed per WP:BLP by tonight or tomorrow am if it is not sourced. I have put up the {BLP dispute} notice here because such info can and should be removed IMMEDIATELY. This is not a matter for discussion on whether unsourced material can stay, as someone mistakenly wrote on my talk pageabout his father's article. Carol Moore 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
<-----back dent You're lucky this article isn't 2/3 about the "controversies" which many articles about people who mispeak are. But just going through a period of annoyance at stuff that just could be made up about people being in Bios. Carol Moore 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any source where Mel Gibson calls himself an independent ? I´m quite sure he´s a conservative but there are evidente to show that he doesn´t have political affiliation. 81.193.215.94 ( talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled onto this page but it's obvious to me that the last sentence of the introduction is mired with POV language. "In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial[2] but successful[3] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ."
Adding "controversial" and then adding "successful" for the sake of evening out the criticism reaks of POV tweaking and tit-for-tat. I suggest taking out this POV adjectives and letting the text of the article deal with these issues. There's no topically pressing reason to include this in the introduction.
update:
Ward3001 has reverted my edits saying that it's sourced and true. I've pasted a section from wiki's NPOV policy to clarify on this point. Just because something's cited and true doesn't mean it's not NPOV: "a common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article''." Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 20:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Australian-American actor
I have an issue with this... Yes, he lived in Australia as a kid, and he has 1 Australian Grandparent, but he is more than 50% irish with his mother actually being born in Ireland. Wouldn't it make more sense to have him listed as an Irish American Actor, or just call him an Actor without the nationality mentioned in the opening paragraph? TheTruthLeadsMe ( talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This talk page has been archived because it was getting too long. Everything up til the discussion of his DUI has been removed. You can find the archive at Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 1
Maybe it is worth mentioning that his father Hutton Gibson has made some comments about Holocaust denial ("(he) claims that most of the Holocaust was "fiction," that the thousands of Jews who disappeared from Poland during World War II "got up and left", taken from his page entry) Apple don't fall from the tree...
His being on record stating just this should be included here. The fact of his father's holocaust denials and his own refusial to comment on this should be included here as well as his justification for not doing so ["won't criticise his father"]. Whether this is an acceptable reason or not would then be left to the reader to decide for themself. [Scott S.]
I would add his *NEW* apology specifically directed at the Jewish community he has made on august 1st, 2006, but the byline is future dated August 2nd, 2006. The current link is http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm but it will soon be stale.
I don't know if this matters. http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/exclusive-mel-gibson-busted-for-dui/ User:Zerath13
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
There is this PDF file [3] which is supposed to be the handwritten police report (how did they get it though?) Evercat 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY. THE ARTICLE READS LIKE A PIECE OF HATE PROPAGANDA.
I don't think the DUI arrest will become a small story in years time. It is pretty rare to have A list celebrities on record as vulgar anti-semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.62.183 ( talk • contribs) .
I clarified his quoted comments and added a line to his official statement.-- Neithan84 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The LA Times now says that it has confirmed the authenticity of the police report from TMZ. [4] -- JGGardiner 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does the fact he tried to urinate on his cell floor really merit its own section? I mean, honestly. It seems like that can just go under the DUI bit, if anything. This tastes biased--like someone wanted to put the embarassing information as the most visible. It makes it sound like a trend of urinating on cell floors rather than a one time thing. Grenye
Just changed it. Urination is now included under his alcoholism and DUI arrest. Grenye
The article still reads like a polemical and hateful piece. If you people truly want to discredit Mel Gibson, you would do better not to crucify him!
SEPARATE DUI ARTICLE
Liu Bei 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Did the police reporter asterisk-out the word in his report, or is it just that way here? (I get an error when I try an open the .pdf file on TMZ, so unable to verify). I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not censored for children.
JF Mephisto 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC): You're quite right. Seeing as there is an article on fuck, I see no reason why it should not be used. Unless someone can point to a particular Wikipedia policy which bans the use of the word, it should be uncensored. I'm editting it for now.
68.32.48.42 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC): But did the New York Times censor "fuck"? And, if so, what do we do about it?
Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC): Unlike the NYT, wikipedia is not censored. Everyone knows f--- means "fuck". Stating what would be obvious to anyone is not original research. Therefore, this quote should just say fuck.
Moon321 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC): A Hollywood moviestar said "fuck" and this is notable? Or surprising? --
Interestingstuffadder 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC): No, but the context is notable and surprising.
Blue Tie 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC): I think that if it is not necessary, the word should not be included. Even if wikipedia is not completely family rated, it does not have to be offensive needlessly. If the word F*** is used, it is sufficient -- people will know, but it is less offensive.
HumanJHawkins 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Definitely this should NOT be censored if the quote is correct. It is not the least bit profane to accurately quote profane comments for the purpose of understanding offensive behavior. And it is very important to this artical to accurately portray this offensive behavior. As for children, it is MORE harmful to shelter them from correct use of these words (i.e. such as in discussing bad behavior) than not to. Hiding this kind of thing only makes the profanity more interesting, leading to more likely use of such words in inappropriate ways. Exposing this kind of thing shows how truely ugly it is, and reminds everyone what they look like when acting profane.
Anchoress 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)I definitely think it should NOT be censored. Quote it as it was spoken.
Blue Tie -- Please read Wikipedia:Profanity. I think there are some good arguments for reducing the prominence of the "fucking Jews" quote on the page, as has been discussed below. But, are you seriously suggesting asterisks over the U, C, and K?!? Absolutely, categorically, no! I will completely eff-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk-ing tweak if that's what happens to this page. Wikipedia is not elementary school; we all know what the F-word is, so if it must be said, then say it. (Hint: There's no asterisks in it.) -- Jaysweet 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize I may be jumping the gun a little bit here but racism is always a touchy issue and Gibson's comments have certainly been widely reported. I was surprised when I came to this article just now that it was not protected.
I was thinking it might be wise to protect it now, before the vandals even have a chance. Surely this hoopla will die down soon enough and the block will no longer be an issue.
I concur - can't editing be limited to registered users? 1Winston 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Some of my contributions have been repeatedly vandalized and deleted by unregistered users. 69.161.135.145 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
From the early life section:
Since there is no source I can't determine this for myself. Did he believe:
Perhaps a stupid question but I don't have a single clue about Mel's father to attempt to understand what this was meant to mean... Cburnett 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And I don't care about the media gosip. He is handsome, cute, sweet, sexy, carismatic and people are always jealous of guys like him. Any intelligent person also knows that some people always play the role of the victims. He is what they cannot be.
Leopard Gecko 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
I think it is clear that by Mr. Gibson's treatment that America is a country where the laws don't apply to the wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.8.10 ( talk • contribs)
Augustulus: I admire Mel Gibson as a filmmaker and, as a traditionalist Catholic myself, I agree with many but not all of his views. However, the DUI is mentioned in the 'controversy' section and this new section is unnesecary and just paints Mr Gibson as a bigot, which I do not believe he is. I would support removing the section and getting rid of that horrific mugshot. I agree with the first person who posted in this section.
Wikipedia is not a fan-based website. I'm sure that there are plenty of sites that exalt Mr Gibson and that would exclude the mug shot, as well as any mention of his anti-semetic and sexist comments and repeated drunk driving crimes. However, this is an encyclopedia, which is meant to cover both the ups and the downs of every entry. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair point. However, this site is also supposed to be neutral, and express all the facts for the reader either to decide for themselves or to simply inform. The opinions of the people who write the articles don't mean crap. I am simply trying to create a more neutral environment. Most of these users seem to be vehemently against Mr Gibson. As for the mugshot, I think it is unfair that the only picture of Gibson is one where he is completely drunk. - Augustulus
Mel Gibson | |
---|---|
Born |
January 3,
1956 |
Occupation(s) | Actor, director, producer |
While I think it would be fine to have the mug shot in the section about his arrest, having it as his infobox picture is a bit much. This is an article on Mel Gibson, not Henry Earl— Wasabe3543 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
His is a dual antional then? John wesley 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to post something here also- I've suggested at Talk:Mel Gibson apology that if we have a seperate article here, it should be about the entire DUI incident, not just the apology. As it stands right now, that article is almost entirely source material- not something we usually do here. Friday (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Folks please familarize yourselves with Wikipedia's fair use policy. Images that are not directly related to this article are not to be used in it. Images that are screen captures from his films are to be used in their corresponding articles (like Lethal Weapon). Please do not revert Fair use reduction edits. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I think the free image available does not represent the career of Mel Gibson correctly. And the free status of mugshots have been disputed. Stellatomailing 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the mugshot isn't actually a bad picture. If it is fair use, it might be a good idea to use it and simply not mention that it is a mugshot. I mean, it's a very clear picture and I wouldn't say is at all unflattering. Unless it's so instantly recognisable as a mugshot that it could be taken as a personal attack, I think its use should be considered. JF Mephisto 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Interestingstuffadder, do you have a similar example of one for somebody else? Why isn't the one i put a good rationale? and all the publicity stills from movies, wouldn't they be valid? Maybe not the screenshots, but on the set stills, etc. Thanks! Stellatomailing 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new image which is neither copyrighted nor a mug shot, and which will therefore, I hope, prove acceptable to everyone. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"I used to be a real hard case, a wild boy," he has recalled, "knocking back lager and whiskey -- liquid violence, I call it."
from www.mensjournal.com/feature/0403/toughguys.html -
is quoted in several places on the net which may be the origin of these comments but doen't quite match the article text.
Johnmarkh
21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Locking this article now, especially with the current events surrounding Mel Gibson, is akin to censorship and highly contrary to the founding principles of the Wikipedia. No doubt there are many of us that would like to add information to this article, as current events unfold, and new information is disseminated. I demand immediately that this article be unlocked so that us non-administrators may contribute to an encyclopedia that purports to be "free" and "open". Scott 110 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy and you are in no position to make demands. There was vandalism, they unlock it now, whatever you have to say will get muddled by immature kids. Wait until it's safe and the mods will unlock it themselves. Yes, Wikipedia is a dictatorship! Where the working classes are subjugated to extreme suffering. Who is it that wields supreme executive power?? Come on, guys. You're taking wikipedia too seriously. It's neither, it's just a bloody encyclopedia. - Augustulus
I'm not saying that people should take wikipedia THAT liberally ... they should just keep in mind that it's just a web-site and nothing hugely special. A great resource, yes, and a valuable commodity, surely, but it is not life itself. That's all I'm saying. Know before you blab away. - Augustulus
From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206639,00.html
Of the Holocaust, Gibson told Noonan: "I mean when the war, was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game …"
Gibson told Noonan he thought the Holocaust actually happened, refuting his father’s belief that it didn’t occur at all. But Gibson equivocated, citing a friend who’d been in the Holocaust because "he worked in a concentration camp." 67.171.150.161 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a pretty substantial error on the Mel Gibson page, under the Accusations of Homophobia heading. Edward II was not the puppet of Thomas of Lancaster; Lancaster was Edward's first cousin and mortal enemy, whom Edward eventually defeated. His assumed homosexual lovers were Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser the Younger, though I don't think there's conclusive evidence of his having had a romantic relationship with either.
Augustulus: Well, yes there is. The evidence, as with Richard the Lionheart and William Rufus, is pretty overwhelming. However, he was not a puppet, yes. But he was weak and soft and pitiful, as shown in the film (but perhaps not as effemenate).
Is that really the best picture anyone could find? I mean, sure it's kinda funny looking, but if we could just get past these unfounded claims of anti-semitism, maybe we could get on to being a little more professional. Ytookay 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's as ridiculous to accuse Mel Gibson of anti-semitism based on his portrayal of the death of Jesus in the Passion of the Christ as it would be to accuse someone of being anti-German for portraying the murder of so many million Jewish people during the Holocaust. So the guy is Catholic. Get over it.
It's possible for a person to hold different views than his parents. We should say,
Leopard Gecko 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Leoapard Gecko
I agree with the first poster. The cop who did arrest him FORGAVE him. A wonderful word. He said so himself that alcohol amplifies your personality. If Mel Gibson doesn't like the fact that certain radical Jews are using the Church as a scapegoat for the Holocaust (which, as many would tell you, was a deer hunt compared to other huge scale massacres, like the Crusades), and they are, then this might come out into a anti-Jewish rampage. Move the bloody article! - Augustulus
Excuse me? I will use 'bloody' until hell freezes over, and it is not your place to accuse me of homophobia, anti semetism, or anything else for that matter. - Augustulus
Can someone explain to me why the anti-Semitic remarks Gibson made are not quoted, while his apology is? -- MZMcBride 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand that Godwin's Law stuff any more ... I like Burke's Peerage 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to label Gibson as an anti-semite when he made a huge apology and went so far as to say he has disgraced himself and his family and sincerely asks for the Jewish community's forgiveness. That seems to be enough to remove him from this category. Anybody agree? Karatenerd 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it that making anti-semitic remarks and incorporating anti-semitic elements in a motion picture does not make one an anti-semite? Fishhead64 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
He has categorically denied being an anti-Semite. I'd say that doesn't count as self-identification. -- Elliskev 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If I make derogatory comments about an identifiable group, and then deny being bigoted towards that group, does that mean I am, ergo, not bigoted towards them? Surely it is the comments and actions that count, not whether or not one fesses up to what those comments and actions mean about my beliefs. Fishhead64 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Blue Tie 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm already familiar with these guidelines. And I'm unsure how placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semitic people can be construed as unproductive pointmaking—such categorization is the reason categories exist to begin with, to be helpful to readers. —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested reading
-- Elliskev 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Neither would most of the people under Category:Terrorists self-identify as such. So what? —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"
Terrorists would also not apologize for what they did and admit to disgracing themselves and request to meet with our leaders to help them find the path of healing. Karatenerd 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleary we have a disagreement here. It is difficult to count how many people are on each side, how good their rationales are, and how experienced they are as editors. How about we have a "vote" (I use quotes because I mean not so much an election as an AFD-style debate using terms such as Support and Oppose to see if we can arrive at consensus on this. The question is: Do you think Mel Gibson should be included in the anti-semite category? Why or why note? Hope this helps clear things up, or at lease gives us a sense of which way consensus is going. Interestingstuffadder 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Consensus" should be in quotes as well. As should "debate" and "clear things up." —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean Scare quotes? Anyway, I agree that we should stick with policy -- be an encyclopedia not a tabloid. -- Blue Tie 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Since reasonable people may differ about his alleged anti-Semitism, in the interest of completeness, we should include him in both Category:Anti-Semitic people and Category:Non-anti-Semitic people. Problem solved. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Relax. Including Gibson in both categories would be justified, seeing as how there appears to be ample sentiment to make the case for either. This would be analogous to fleshing out all perspectives in a contentious article. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a winning argument right there. (rolls eyes) Unless someone can offer a coherent counterargument, I'll take care of this later tonight. —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this section of the discussion regards the appropriateness of placing Gibson in Category:Anti-Semites. Since he specifically denies being an antisemite, and has, in his open apology to Jews, I have to say, insisting that putting him into this category, while it may very well be accurate, requires a bit of divination for support, as the above [relevant] discussion makes quite clear. That is not what the category is for, and, in fact, constitutes a violation of WP:NOR. While it's nearly undeniable that coming up with and expressing the ideas he reportedly did cannot occur in a non-anti-semitic mind, he has specifically denied being an antisemite [to repeat myself a bit]. This is not analogous to Michael Jackson [hypothetically] declaring "I AM NOT BLACK, DAMMIT!!!", or whatever. What it is anti-analogous to, is editors insisting that that hypothetical declaration is an unequivocable basis for putting Michael Jackson into the similarly hypothetical Category:White pedophiles. While I personally believe Gibson really is an antisemite, I also believe he doesn't want to be. Insisting on putting him in this category, in light of this information, looks a lot like pointmaking POV-pushing... Tom e r talk 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've already written above, I oppose placing Gibson's bio in the 'Anti-Semitic People' category because he vigorously denies the charge and listing him as such, without qualification, is tantamount to calling him a liar. Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge, and Wikipedia should categorically label a person as anti-Semitic only in cases where the person either admits to being anti-Semitic or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views. Gibson has done neither and in fact vigorously denies both charges. I do, however, sympathize with people who continue to add the 'anti-Semitic People' tag to his page. I therefore propose the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge that he is anti-Semitic. Thoughts? Azathoth68 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There already is a Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
While Mr. Gibson did make wrong, anti-semetic comments, he did so drunk, and he does not speak openly about any kind of anti-semetic views when sober. He also does not advocate his views or pursues them past a drunken rant. I think he needs to be removed from wikipedia's Anti-Semetic category. What do you guys think. Karatenerd 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny to read the arguments here about if Mr. Gibson is anti-Semitic or not given the known views of his "Traditionalist" Catholic church. Clearly he is anti-Semitic, and in another time, he would probably say so "proudly". Call a spade a spade, if it quacks, it’s a duck. Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic. Can there really be any question among intelligent people? And if this is so, than clearly it has a place in the article. Jake b 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly over-sesitivity here with Mr Gibson's remarks, he shows he is human and makes mistakes, especially when drunk. What he has actually shown is that he is compassionate and remorseful for his actions, he would'nt have apologised otherwise. If he was anti-Semetic he would never have apologised. Is someone branded an alcoholic due to excessive drinking on the odd occasion, I dont think so. Religion is always an emotive topic, what I see in Gibson is a strong and passionate faith and I personal wish there were more like him:-- 203.45.94.81 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Phil 1 August 2006.
Let’s put things in perspective here: Gibson is an admitted alcoholic who apparently was on quite a tear the night he got arrested. He was drunk, made anti-Semitic comments, threatened to fuck over a police officer, and then tried to piss on the police station floor. Needless to say, he wasn’t playing with a full deck that night. As soon as he sobered up, he released a statement apologizing for the entire affair, and now he’s apparently in some type of AA program. Does his drunken tirade really justify putting his name on a list that includes Osama bin Laden and David Duke? Anti-Semitism is a very serious and potentially libelous charge. As such, it should only be applied as a formal classification when the person in question either admits outright to being anti-Semitic, or admits to holding unquestionably anti-Semitic views (as his father Hutton does). Mel Gibson has done neither. In fact, he has vigorously denied both charges. There is strong evidence the he privately embraces anti-Semitic views, but as long as he publicly denies doing so and denounces such views, then listing him without qualification as an anti-Semite represents something of a value judgment on the part of Wikipedia’s editors. As far as I’m concerned, let people read Gibson’s words, let them read the statements from the ADL, and then let them decide for themselves. Putting his name on the list of anti-Semites makes that decision for them. Azathoth68 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Everybody still seems to be forgetting that genuine, and reliable non-tabloid junky news sources state everything as "Alleged". As yet there has been no formal confirmation of the details. Everybody is simply jumping the gun, desperate for their pound of flesh - including the ADL which is probably the worst self aggrandizing self publicizing load of tat I've ever seen. This is all based upon an unconfirmed Police Report that somehow made its way to TMZ and is now being taken as 'gospel'.-- Koncorde 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously he apologized -- his career depends on it. The fact is, he has been quoted by a police report and in the newspaper of record as ranting and raving on about "the fucking jews". he may have been drunk, but 1) in vino veritas 2) intoxication is not a defense in a court of law and should not be here. It is unclear to me how a well cited drunken rant about "the jews" is not sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Interestingstuffadder 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Short of Mel Gibson holding a press conference and stating that he is in fact anti-Semitic, it is incorrect to say he is anti-Semitic. Unless people on this forum possess some innate ability to perceive what is in somebody’s nature, it is speculation pure and simple and doesn't belong in his Wiki profile. What would be proper and acceptable would be to state that he was arrested in July 2006 and made anti-Semitic statements, recorded on audio and video. That would be a factual statement and able to be proven. People here seem to have lost sight of what Wikipedia is supposed to be and only want to muckrake and smear. It is impossible to know for fact that he is anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is a factual database.
"Anti-semitic" today is like "Communist" in the 1950s. It is shameful that Wikipedia should even have such a list. What is the purpose, other than to single people out and denounce them? Wasn't there already enough denunciation in Nazi Germany?
Mr. Gibson, as well as his father are clearly snti-semetic. The DUI incedent is only one example of many where Gibson has made hatefull statements about Jews. He has slipped many anti-semetic commments out, and I can only wonder what he says in those rare moments away from the public. His father, a Holocast denier, has always been a big influence on him and it is clear he has a warped view of Christianlty and Judaism. His portayal of Jews in th PASSION OF THE CHRIST was a little of a stretch too. The Romans had much more to do with Jesus' death sentence than the Jews. He needs to wake up and embrace diversity. - JKRUP4
Hey folks! I am here as part of the Mediation Cabal. In an attempt to resolve this issue, please continue all future discussion in the section on this page titled "Mediation Cabal." Thanks! -- LawrenceTrevallion 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have requested informal mediation on whether or not the category is appropriate. Let's get an outside opinion. -- Elliskev 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Resetting indent. RE: POV question. It depends on what category we're talking about. Category:People accused of anti-Semitism, as I say on the request for mediation page is not technically objectionable to me (although, I think it's a bad idea). However, Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people and Category:Anti-Semitic people are right out. Now, if we have to go searching for some way to label Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite, but keep running into ethical ang legal objections, maybe the whole idea is misguided. Just my opinion. -- Elliskev 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
David Ahenakew made anti-semitic remarks, apologised for them, was convicted (in Canada) of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, and is listed under Category:Anti-Semitic people. Does Mel Gibson somehow warrant special exemption, or is Ahenakew unfairly convicted and designated? Fishhead64 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello all! I am here at the request of Elliskev to aid in resolving this dispute. I respectfully ask that all future comments about whether to include Mel Gibson in the anti-Semite category be made here. That said, I will try to guide our discussion along. From the arguments above, it seems clear that all are agreed Gibson's comments were anti-Semitic. However, Gibson has denied his anti-Semitism and actually apologized for those remarks. Now, do the original comments justify labeling Gibson as an anti-Semite? I agree that if Gibson went around making such comments repeatedly and never apologized, then the label of anti-Semite would stick. I think we all can agree that people make mistakes, and if someone apologizes it is not for us, especially on Wikipedia, to refute their apology, particularly when we have no solid evidence to contradict it. I know I would not want to be known by some of the mistakes I have repented of in the past. In addition, Gibson's apology brings up Wiki policy. According to the guidelines for biographies, religious or sexual preferences are not to be ascribed to a person if the person does not publicly acknowledge them. Now, admittedly, anti-Semitism is neither a sexual preference or a religion (though it may be part of some religious beliefs). The principle involved here, however, can be transferred to this discussion. We are to accept claims made by individuals unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I remind everyone that my mediation is informal, so do not take this as the final word. If you disagree with my attempt at resolution, please write below. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One additional point. Much has been made of Gibson being drunk at the time he spoke and the axiom of truth in wine. While Gibson may have anti-Semitic thoughts/tendencies, we should not judge him too harshly. Every person who controls their temper understands that kind of situation. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We have had a couple of days and no further discussion about the issue. Unless you feel that the discussion should continue, I am going to call the case closed and put the proposal in the Mediation Cabal to rest. If you still feel strongly about it, please comment here. Also, if anyone is interested, I am willing to get a poll going about the mediation I proposed. -- LawrenceTrevallion 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to keep an eye on this discussion, but I am going to put the case to bed in the Cabal. This, however, is by no means the end of the discussion, should someone so desire ... -- LawrenceTrevallion 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone asked me to comment about placing Mel Gibson in the category of accused of anti-Semitism. I see two problems with that: 1.) We return to the same problem about judging the validity of his apology. Placing him in a possibly anti-semitic category seems to say that his apology was not good enough. 2.) His apology was accepted by the Anti-Defamation League. Ultimately, I do not believe it is our place to try to sort this issue out on an encyclopedia. Unless Gibson announces his anti-Semitism, or starts acting like one without apologies, I do not think we should categorize him in this manner. I noticed that Gibson was given the category of accused of anti-Semitism by an anonymous user. I am reverting it pending more discussion about the issue. -- LawrenceTrevallion 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that someone added the anti-Semitic category to the page. I have removed it, pending discussion. My arbitration is not binding, but in the days that have gone by the absence of the category seems to have been acceptable. Rather than simply adding the category again, please discuss the issue here. If continued debate is not the answer, I can request official mediation. But, please, do not simply add the category without more discussion and input. -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the statement on his nationality from American-born Australian to simply American. Thus far nobody has provided any evidence (that I know of ) to prove that Gibson is an Australian citizen or a dual citizen of both countries. And since the only people who can be considered ethnic Australians are aboriginal and Gibson surely isn't one I can't see much of a basis for calling him Australian. Whether or not he lived in Australia from age 12 to his 20s is irrelevant, that just makes him an American who lived in Australia and not an Australian. As the husband of an Australian wife and somebody who lived there so long he could have applied for dual Australian citizenship decades ago, if he doesn't have an Australian passport then there is absolutely no reason to call him Australian. So does anyone actually know, based on good sources, if he has Australian citizenship or not. Until there is proof of that he should be called what we know he is, an American. -- Westee 10:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are missing the point. Living in one country for so long is significant but it does not make a person a national or citizen of that country. This is an encyclopedia and it deals with providing facts about various subjects; the fact appears to be that Mel Gibson is an American and not an Australian or dual national. Calling him an Australian is both inaccurate and misleading, regardless of his "cultural background". Also as I said Mel Gibson could have surely chosen to become Australian decades ago based on his ancestry, his wife's nationality, or his long period of residency in the country. If he hasn't done that then he simply isn't Australian and he chose not to be. Mentioning his time and upbringing in Australia is important, calling him an Austalia is just not accurate or true. Also I don't care about anyone claiming him or not but the article needs to be as accurate as possible. I wouldn't care what nationality he is personally; its accuracy and truth that count -- Westee 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He was born in the U.S. and spends most of his time there, yet he grew up in Australia, began his film career in Australia, earned his early awards in Australia, and was introduced to worldwide audiences as an Australian actor, part of the so-called "Australian New Wave." So include both. Call him an American-born Australian, if need be. Or call him Australian-American. It would be misleading to omit either. —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident be merged here. I simply report this; but this is the place for discussing it.
The request for merger was made on 22:25, 3 August 2006. Here is the tally so far.
Most of the Merge Votes seemed to support or were based on the notion that the DUI incident deserved only minor treatment.
There is no concensus for the Merge. I note that for adminship a concensus is typically over 75% in favor. -- Blue Tie 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
"He is Eric Cartman's favorite actor on South Park. Cartman mentions him several times, and in one episode he finally gets to meet Gibson, but (in the episode) Gibson is insane and defecates on Cartman. It is strongly suggested that Cartman likes Gibson because of his perceived anti-Semitism. "
It is speculation to say that Cartman likes Gibson because of auti-Semitism, this needs to be removed or it's just a case of Weasel Words-- Bchaffin 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Folks, I know that this is Wikipedia and all, but I think that this DUI and Jew thing is getting disproportionate space in Mr. Gibson's biography. It might currently be newsworthy, but that does not make it so notable that it deserves more than 50% of the room in Gibson's biography. -- 75.25.183.36 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a revert war going on over whether the "sugar-tits" and "fucking Jews" quotes belong on the "Quotes" section. Revert wars are pointless, fellas, let's knock it off and discuss it civilly here, then reach a concensus on their inclusion.
Personally, I think it would be fair to include one well-verified quote from the arrest (since there is already a long-standing quote from his 1984 DUI included in the quotes section). More than one quote is giving undue space to a single incident -- but I do think one quote is appropriate, since what Gibson said during his arrest is going to be a very significant moment in his career -- maybe even more significant than the DUI itself.
That is my opinion. Would others now please offer their opinion in a calm and rational manner? --- Jaysweet 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we add add a quote section for Adolf Hitler as well regarding Jews? -- ResurgamII 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
add an equal number of quotes from his apologies for balance. 64.163.4.225 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I say no quotes, just mentioning the incident is fine. Omarthesecound 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Use one quote- I think one quote should be sufficient for the reasons quoted above. Dont want to make this a Mel Gibson bashing page-- Sopranosmob781 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can people please check the text of the wiki before adding a QUOTE, for instances of it already being in use in context (i.e. Antisemitic heading). The wiki is running the risk of repeating itself.-- Koncorde 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think that words like F**K should be kept off the main page if possible. Wikipedia should be as G rated as possible. -- Blue Tie 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think only deliberate and meaningful quotes belong the quote section. The DUI incident is dealt with elsewhere. Fwend 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this discussion, I wonder if the following policy could get concensus: "quote in context if possible, if not, place notable quotes in quote section. If quote section becomes too large, move to wikiquote, along with integrated quotes that also have a standalone value"? Fwend 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
One DUI Quote is enough. They are really better on the DUI page though, where they could all be presented-- Blue Tie 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC). --19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading the comments I get this as the positions of different people (in sequence).
I summarize as follows:
Relative to the quote about owning Malibu, here are the results as I read them:
These votes would clearly support REMOVING that quote:
These votes would clearly support KEEPING that quote:
These votes are unclear in this regard but seem to suggest conservative approaches, minimizing Quotes:
Total = 3 Votes
I consider the "I own Malibu" to be verifiable but not deliberate, meaningful or Noteable and I expect the authors of those opinions would agree.
Hence, there is a clear 2 to 1 agreement to not use the Malibu Quote and there may be as much as a 3 to 1 agreement.
Furthermore, it is simply unencyclopedic to include the nonsense ramblings of a man when he is drunk. -- Blue Tie 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Why after someone is pulled over for DUI would start going off on Jews is beyond me. He does not like Jews-Period... Mel lets here it out of your mouth!!! Remember we are the chosen people Don't forget that. We will never disappear and who helped you with your career. You blew it pal!!! We all thought with the movie you made of Christ the passion that you might be but now its decisive that you are.
While his comments were in very bad judgement and should not ever be repeated by anyone, I just cannot help but wonder what everyone would be saying now if he had insulted Chinese people or Islamic people or Africans for that matter anyone else but the Jewish community?
I think this issue has been blown way out of proportion just like most matters in direct conflict with the Jewish faith. I am sure that everyone of us on this planet has made poor judgement calls when we have had a bit too much to drink or for some, even when we are sober. (Please note that I am not defending his actions in any waI just believe that they are of no consequence to worldly matters.)
It is time to put this issue to bed and let Mel get on with his life and career and make ammends with people of the Jewish faith. His comments will only be negative to his own career as many people will now not support his movies any more, its not as if he physically injured someone it was only by the words he used and he will hopefully remember to bite his tongue in the future. (RvK 9:00am PST August 5th 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.3.214 ( talk • contribs)
Someone here please make sure to add Mr. Gibson to "Category:Anti-Semitic people" whenever you get a chance -- I can't because I'm an Anon user. Tell the truth! Add him to this category promptly! -- 205.188.116.199 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited this bit out:
Due to the POV/conjecture nature and the fact it is more relevant to Hutton Gibson than it is to Mel (does not define which "ideas" Mel and/or his father were interested in therefore lumping it into the Antisemitic section "leads" the reader to a conclusion by placing him in False Light). See: This document
Along with Taylor (an independent) himself denying any affiliation (the demographic of supporters does not define his affiliation, nor should it therefore be reflected more so onto Mel Gibson) and the League of Rights stating it has no official membership even in the Herald, it's conjecture and POV to use the piece. I have no problem with it being edited back in, but perhaps it should be included in Personal Views along with his other "politics" as there is no obvious statement on the part of Mel that he followed the antisemitic wing of a party he wasn't part of or supporting.-- Koncorde 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not have time to do it today, but the Mad Max series really needs its own entry here in Mel Gibson's career summary along with Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Lethal Weapon, etc. It was a significant film series both for theater in general and for Mel Gibson in particular. -- Blue Tie 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we all know about Gibson's anti-semetic comments, and most of us know about his sexist comments toward a female officer. Howeevr, we must be reasonable. This guy is an actor, which means that his quotes notable are ones that have to do on comments with movies, certain directors and actors, or maybe on how it's like to act. What isn't good is seeing this quote in the section "Quotations":
"What are you looking at, sugar tits?"
A quotation is a notable saying from someone that contributes importance. We all know that he was drunk, though some belive that when he said his remarks, it was some kind of "truth serum". Whatever, it doesn't matter, but the fact is the guy was drunk. DRUNK! This isn't something he MEANT to SAY! Because even if he truly thinks it, he was still DRUNK. That may not be a worthy-sounding reason now, but it should later on. I'm not sticking up for him (well, being half-Jewish myself, I'm obligated to say I don't care for him anymore [and I really don't]), but this is not a NOTABLE QUOTATION.
Leopard Gecko 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
Leopard Gecko 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
"Although Gibson did not write the screenplay for Braveheart[27], the depiction of a homosexual character in the film drew accusations of homophobia."
Nevertheless, Gibson directed the scene. The way it was directed is the primal cause for controversy, not what was in the script. -- BKmetic 04:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? Direction has little to do with it. Their pretty clothes were made by the costume designer, their pitifullness and girliness created by the actors, and their weak-willed everything was the work of the screenplay. Direction is blocking, camera angles and lenses, and a general command of everything. Second of all, defenestrating a gay guy clearly isn't discrimination - in the Middle Ages plenty of people were killed, many of them homosexual. I'm sure that Peter Basil wouldn't have said, 'Oh, he's gay! I better not kill him.' when he was aiming a crossbow at Richard the Lionheart. They both get it, gay and straight. Hell, Wallace gets tortured for ten minutes and Murron nearly gets raped.
Mel Gibson's father is notable. Why does the section on Mel Gibson's family not mention him? I propose that a line be added stating that "Gibson is the son of Hutton Gibson, an Australian-based sedevacantist and holocaust revisionist". -- Adam Brink 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a traditional bia for conservatives to "distinct" or "hide" related aspects of a conservative personality. For example, for them, if G.W. Bush is a conservative politician, helping extreme-right regimes in the worls and supporting the weapons lobby, for them also it should have no link to Prescott Bush, who was active in the weapons commerce and a banker for NSDAP and Hitler. No, again, here we are trying to document and help science, so please mention Gibson's father opinions. They are needed for any serious and scientific research. PierreLarcin2 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, conservators will always argue that a fact is POV. Let's look for VietNam : selling weapons is POV, Tonkin's incident plot is POV, Phoenix's slaughter is POV. Simple : what is non-conservative is POV : abortion, disarmament, capitalism, freedom of the peoples, antisemistism of Gibson's, links of Gisbon with Rotary, non-existence of God... And of course, they are ready to make WAR to us [with guns and real bullets] to wipe-off our [anticonservative] POV : Gibson and his father are conservatives, antisemistic, homophobic, AND IT IS A TRUTH THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA. BECAUSE it is a proven FACT . PierreLarcin2 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The reader's digest quote is taken out of context and represents a POV. The quote as it stands now, with the context removed, looks as if he is denying the holocaust - when, in fact, he was refering to his father's statements. It should be removed or enlarged to encompass the context and the question he was asked. 98percenthuman 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman
I'm neither conservative nor defending Mel Gibson. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia a quality entity, taking quotes unfairly out of context for the sake of arriving at a point of view is not encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure that you are beyond debating with since your tyraid against things like Disney and a conservative agenda to hide things is tempered with your cowardice at not signing your posts! Fight the power unisigned person! 98percenthuman 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman
and then : what does it change ? You can show bollocks and not be more clever... Of course you're conservative : always hiding facts ! Always "keeping wikipedia clean" "Wiki is not a soapbox and you are a coward" or "you French bastard are scientific idiots", etc, etc. You do not need to be member of the Communist Parti of America to have a label not-to-be-a-conservative, you know... There are people hiding the facts everywhere and specially in communist parties... That's all what you found to hide the preds and facts about Gibson ? Always the same positions since Vietnam war... and of course Americans [parangons of freedom, science and technologies as we all know around the world] forgot to pay indemnities for crimes in Vietnam... I suppose that Gibson will never pay for his insults and ideologistic films...Of course he askef for pardon... and paid conservative politicians and conservative clubs [Rotary] GIBSON AND HIS FATHER ARE GOOD AMERICAN BOYS BECAUSE THEY HEAR GOD SPEAKING AND VOTE REPUBLICAN. REPUBLICAN IS NOT CONSERVATIVE : it is the party of freedom and war. Right ? PierreLarcin2 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's been new information added, but is a satirical website a prank? I think perhaps this should be included with either the trivia or "His critics", so I shall move it to the latter.-- Koncorde 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Given Mel Gibson's vocal anti-semitism and Holocaust denial over the years, as well as his refusal to condemn his father's even more vocal anti-semitism, should we include him in the category "Nazi actors"? Revision as of 15:58, 13 August 2006 (edit) 195.93.21.34 (Talk)
Certainly not. If your father, who raised and loved you, had one strange belief, would you really grind him into the dirt? And the 'numbers game' comment is accurate. - Augustulus
Gibson isn't a conservative at all. He's against the Iraq war, and he hates George W. Bush. Anti-semitism traditionally comes from the Left. Mel is also a friend of Michael Moore, and nearly financed his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004. Mel is a Nazi actor, just like his fellow left-winger Errol Flynn.
Since this article is vandalized several times a day, perhaps we need to protect it from edits from non-registered users? 98percenthuman 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That drawing doesn't look remotely like Mel Gibson. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use an actual photograph? Throw 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think his mugshot should be the main picture, because he looks so drunk and ugly.
Gibson is indeed a Republican Party supporter, as this article proves. He has been very active behind the scenes for years, although it's only in recent years that he has been more vocal in his support. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680277/posts
Actually since Gibson owns a vast collection of guns and encourages his children to shoot each other with paint ball guns in the woods around his mansion, I very much doubt he supports gun control. Gibson is certainly a Republican, but like Schwarzenegger he is liberal on some issues.
Is this "blog" notable enough to be listed? Or is this link spam? The text suggests that the owner of the "blog" received a nasty-gram from Gibson's lawyers, but the link goes to the "blog" itself where there is no evidence other than the "blog" owner's word. Googleing for this didn't turn up anything for me in the way of a news account. I'm sure there are a ton of "funny" web sites out there about Gibson, and in my opinion he deserves all the shit that comes his way, but this "blog" text seems very marginal to me as far as offering any facts or value to the article. In my opinion, this is link spam. Jake b 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If the article does not describe his "Humanitarianism" or efforts that could be called Humanitarian Acts, then how can he be labeled as one? I think the article used to have some of humanitarian acts listed but these seem removed now. If these are so slim that they do not merit mention, I do not think he should be called an American Humanitarian. -- Blue Tie 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but the only thing that we're really worried about is negative material. Hbdragon88 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is up with the picture business? Can't we just find a picture which we can put up as fair use and leave it there? The idea that we can't use a fair use image because we could alternately use either fan art or his mugshot, which are in the public domain, is ridiculous. john k 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The current rule seems sufficient to me to say that we're okay without further discussion. I shall quote. Fair use images are acceptable if:
The mugshot and the fan art do not adequately give the same information, as the fan art does not actually look like Gibson, while the mugshot is both POV and a bad picture. john k 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) does have an aversion to fair use, guys, and they try to use it only when necessary. The German and Swedish Wikipedias even prohibit fair use images. The PlayStation 3 page had a massive editwar over free shot vs. publicity photo. A decent free image will almost always take precedence over a publicty shot, as that photo is fair use and not completely free. Hbdragon88 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.-- Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. 98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:
Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.-- Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
can someone explain the "freed the slaves award" listed under awards with characters of the tcv show aqua teen hunger force being other winners of this award? if not it gets removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.53.147 ( talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In trivia: "In the February 7, 1983 edition of People magazine, actor/comedian Jerry Lewis claimed that he was outraged by a slew of anti-Semitic epithets that actor Robert De Niro directed at him during an exercise in method acting during the filming of a movie." What does this have to do with Mel Gibson? 24.22.104.180 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense because the above entry had the important part edited out which was that the offending words of De Niro's were virtually identical to what Gibson said to the Malibu policeman. Don't you think that is information that is valuable for the reader to have? Perhaps not in trivia but in the section about Gibson's anti-semitic comments? I'll await your response before I reinsert... (sorry if I'm not doing this comment right as I'm new at this!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkondaks ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 May 2007
I think the article is far too uncritical of Gibson's stated opinions. It reads like it was closely combed through by his PR people, which is exactly what I would insist on if I was in Gibson's position. How can this be avoided? Certainly not by locking out editorial contributions from other parties who may have something to add to the article. He's controversial, so let the controversy run. And don't forget that Gibson will steer it and profit from it if he can. He's rich enough to bring a hundred libel suits.
There are a lot of quotations on the article and that's not counting the things he said during his drunken incident. What would be best, is to leave three and post a link to Wikiquote where the rest can be found. That is what is typically done for Bios. I've added the wikiquote link under the external links.-- Twintone 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. 98percenthuman 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Fwend 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert back to my original change. Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.) Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent. See below:
Quotes A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest we cut this again. The main reason is that we already have Wikiquotes, with an extensive Churchill section. Everyone has their favourite Churchill quotes, and it's hard to see how a section like this could avoid growing to a size we are trying to avoid. Can we seriously have a quotes section without blood, toil, tears and sweat, without the Few, without fight them on the beaches, without Iron Curtain? And those were just the ones I came up with immediately. Why waste valuable space duplicating something already win Wikiquotes? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Remove I agree with DJ Clayworth - I cut the quotes section earlier for precisely this reason. Wikiquote is a more appropriate place for quotes than wikipedia (& we already have a direct link to the wikiquote WSC page) & it is inevitable that any quotes section would grow & grow. AllanHainey 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC) If the Quotes section is retained, I suggest it contains a smallish number of well-known or notable quotes. The current selection is poor and unrepresentative. Ben Finn 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If a case can be made about why all of those things are wikipedia worthy and can be justified as a seperate section, I'm willing to listen. They are definately interesting and verifiable statements but I don't know if this is the right place for them.-- Twintone 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we open the discussion of a picture up. This is one of the only articles of a major celeb without a headshot of some sort. Again, the DUI photo shouldn't be used because its POV and that drawing looks more like John Stamos than Mel Gibson. RiverCampa 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I contend that there is nothing wrong with using the mug shot. It is recent and accurately depicts the individual. That is has negative connotations is a subjective attribute that is in the eye of the beholder, and as such is an attribute that applies to any and every picture. The latest available picture should be used. If it's the mug shot, so be it. If Mr. Gibson or his publicity organ would like to provide a copyright acceptable pic, or there is some other source, that would be better. But I see nothing wrong with the mug shot, as I said it is an accurate depiction, how can that be POV? Jake b 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The current photo is far too old; 17 years is a long time. A new picture really ought to be found. Eedo Bee 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This was mentioned before somewhere in some past discussion. The Gibson article really needs a specific section regarding the film, as that what really brought him so much "fame". It deserves an equal amount of mention just like the Hamlet/Braveheart/PotC stuff found in the article itself. Can someone please write something for it? I have not seen the film in quite a while so I'm afraid I can't do so. -- ResurgamII 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed user Sliat_1981 ( talk) is unhappy about Gibson's Australian roots not being mentioned at the top of the article. He's added the phrase "Australian-raised" to the opening sentence several times, and after it kept being deleted because it made the sentence too wordy, he's resorted to simply changing Gibson's nationality to Australian altogether.
The fact that Gibson was raised in Australia is arguably important. That's why I would like to propose a compromise solution: putting the info immediately after the opening line, like :
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer, who was raised in Australia."
If that's not acceptable, then maybe we could place it at the beginning of the second sentence:
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer. Being raised in Australia..."
Fwend 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- How about the term American-Australian or Australian-American? I mean, c'mon, the guy is an Australian citizen. Don't forget his earlier films had him with an Australian accent (some Lethal Weapon movie; I don't remember which one). ResurgamII 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine Fwend, not to mention he received the Officer of the Order of Australia (which is given only to Australian citizens) in 97'.
ResurgamII 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Officer of the Order of Australia is awarded to non-Australians as well, not just citizens. I would also point out that for Mel Gibson to be a citizen of Australia he would have had to have been naturalized, which was a somewhat difficult process in Australia. I do not think Mel had this at the top of his head when he was a young man, drinking, whoring and carousing around. I suspect that he does not have dual citizenship. He did not say he had dual citizenship, he called himself a "hybrid". And I guess technically he is. His mother is Australian I understand, but his Dad is American. I do not believe that any evidence is available showing that he is a citizen of Australia. Any such information in wikipedia should be deleted. However, it is appropriate to mention that he was raised in Australia. The article already does mention that. -- Blue Tie 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose the following rule: for the purposes of such categorization (that has very little to do with science or objective truth) someone is to be considered primarily X-ian if he/she was born in X-land and did not explicitely renounce the quality of "citizen of X-land." Will hence be reverting to American. -- Aqualung 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
He's a dual citizen and he has said it himself: *(About having both American and Australian citizenship) "I think it's good to be a hybrid. You can be more objective. If you get shifted from one culture to another, you look at something unusual and say, 'What is this?'" Interview Magazine
The link in footnote 9 doesn't work. It points to " http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/115475p-104184c.htmlMel's", from which the last part, "Mel's" should be deleted. 193.91.181.142 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Nick)
Actually, there was a slight problem after Finding Nemo was released, where kids were flushing their fish down the toilet thinking it would free them to the ocean. So I suppose you could call that "controversial"... ;)
But yes, I absolutely agree: While in many cases tagging something as "controversial" is somewhat arbitrary, I think in the case of Passion of the Christ there is not much room to argue. I mean, people were calling it anti-Semitic before the filming had even finished. If that's not controversy, I don't know what is. -- Jaysweet 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia call Borat/Cohen "controversial"? I just couldn't find it. The word "controversial" is nowhere to be found on the webpage you mentioned. Note that "Controversy" is not the same; as a matter of fact you gave me a good idea: I'll replace "controversial" with something else, i.e. "controversy sparked by" or something else to that effect. Calling the "Passions" movie "controversial" has more-or-less subtle unintended connotations (or, at least I take them to be unintended (but again, I am probably too gullible)). Now getting to the issue of the media, how many of you have seen the media storming with accusations of controversy, and bashing Cohen for his film? Where is the turmoil caused by Borat, whose mockery of the kazakh nation is much more overt than whatever (presumed) anti-semitic message the "Passions" movie "boasts"? How come the American media hasn't rushed into condemning Borat and his movie just as they rushed into calling Gibson and his movie "controversial"? -- Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The word "controversial" as currently used in the Gibson article is not neutral. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that here it is used pejoratively and derisively (see Controversial#In_propaganda). Whoever put it there did not put it in good faith. Read the first two of the 5 pillars, esp. " Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view." As far as "not Wikipedia's job to lead the way in making beneficial changes to society," the very etymology of the word "encyclopedia" screams "education" (see Encyclopedia#Word_history): would you educate your children in anything other than "making beneficial changes to society"? -- Aqualung 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why my addition to the discussion was removed. Mel Gibson is clearly a lunatic (gift-wrapping dead rats...wtf???). Even if you view this article from a conservative standpoint, it's obvious. Panda
From CNN today:
Maybe not relevent. I'll leave it to someone who cares...
Jake b 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Did this game actually exist or was the creator just having a laugh? Wormy 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I linked to this in the Trivia section, but someone deleted it. I think it's fair enough for inclusion, just as something mentioned in passing. No? -- BigglesTh9 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont know... even if it is an external site I think this page has to adhere to Biography rules, and I dont really fancy the idea of Mel Gibson sueing Wikipedia. funny though! -- ISeeDeadPixels 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient that it be "incontrovertable". It must be validated by an objective reliable source. This is per WP:BLP -- Blue Tie 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
While I dont agree with what he said and I certainly think its a horrible thing to say, I think its funny how everyone denounces him and calls him a racist, while Jackie Mason teaches hate against muslim and arabs. Mel's were drunken rambling, Jackie's are hate crimes. Yet, if it's against muslims, not Jews, it's percieved as freedom of speech. Should be the same for both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.166.24 ( talk • contribs) .
Adding this article to Category:Anti-Semitic people implies that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic person. WP:BLP#Use of categories has this to say:
Unless we have a good source that Gibson publicly identifies as an anti-Semite, this article should not be in the category, and any such edit should be reverted without regard for 3RR, per WP:BLP. — Ashley Y 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't even get Marlon Brando's page to be tagged with that anti-semitism category, despite alleged "anti-semitism" displayed by Brando which was discussed in the Brando article. ResurgamII 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The category anti semitism is listed under Gibson's DUI incident where it belongs. Ironduke, please stop agenda pushing which you admitted to earlier.-- 68.9.116.87 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the agenda is to label an article in this way because it contains a discussion of anti-semitism. I think that the discussion is along the lines of an accusation, which may not be completely a clean deal. But on the other hand Mel Gibson admitted making anti-semitic remarks. So the label is not entirely unappropriate. Now, when it comes to agenda pushing, your repeated reverts are also agenda pushing and you are doing so in a disruptive way ... not discussing. This could be considered vandalism and you might be banned. -- Blue Tie 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You might like to note that there are several founders and current leaders of white supremacist groups who deny that they are racist, if you think self-admission counts for something meaningful. These people repeat race-hate propoganda while denying that they are racist in the same way Gibson has, unless you see some different standard being applicable to Jews.
Frankly the fact that both his parents are indisputably anti-semitic (with his father's status being such that he is even an invited guest speaker at holocaust denial conferences) and that Mel himself has made repeated anti-semitic statements (which number a lot more than "at least two" as the current version states) should put this question on about the same footing as whether RFKs policial policies were in any way linked to JFK's.
No contest that "anti-semite" is a label that should not be applied lightly. However if you cannot interpret this (and in this of all cases) then WTF can you interpret? Have all the people noted as "sailors" on Wikipedia expressly and publically declared themselves as such or does the fact they've repeatedly sailed ships qualified them as this without their own personal endorsement? 220.233.94.28 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed hate speech from an anon IP and User:The world over. IronDuke 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by The world over ( talk • contribs)
User:The world over -- Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that Jewish people are still killing their sons? I notice that you are also ranting about Jews in the Henry Ford article. Do I notice a pattern here? Bus stop 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
From The World Over; To Iron Duke and Bus Stop -- Gentleman, my contributions to both the Gibson and Ford entries were followed in quick succession and without sufficient consideration, ie; they were written in the heat. So, in a spirit of good faith, and in compliance with "Staying cool when the editing gets hot" I would like to refer the following brief remarks to the Nine Tips of "Staying Cool..." Without going into lengthy detail, and since I am sure that both of you are familar with the above mentioned Nine Tips, I will make my point by refering to each tip by number. I do not believe that either of you complied with tips 1 or 2 or 4. Having said that, and after rereading my contribution to the Gibson entry, I did not comply with number 3, nor number 7 in the entry on Henry Ford (however, though I did engage in some editing which I did not give reasons for (ie, number 7) I fail to see where I engaged in any "ranting"). So, in an attempt to make amends I would like to take the time now to comply with number 6 and offer an apology to whomever took offence to my remarks, and I mean it. That being said, one can make a mistake without it qualifying as "Hate speech" or without having ones comments misrepresented by irrelevant questions ("let me get this straight, are you saying.....?"). Also, I would like to refer to you both to the "Dealing with Insults" section of "Staying Cool..." and remind you that I am a newcomer; and to tell you not as an excuse, but so that you know. In any event, though none of us complied fully with the tips, this entry is, as I said, an attempt to clean up my side of the street. The World Over
Wouldn't call Gibson anti-semitist, but moreso, a realist. It's a fact that Jews have the most political influence in mostly any Western country, and that as a result of that we're steered into wars to support horrible countries like Israel. Iran and Iraq were threats to Israel because they don't belong there--it's Palestinian land. Not only that, but the Israeli soldiers treat the Palestianians like trash (and even worse than that). 90% of the American media is owned by 5 wealthy Zionist Jews, as is the British media. As a result, you have to turn to independent studies for real news and the internet. Gibson doesn't hate all Jews, and neither does any "Holocaust Denier" (a stupid word since the phrase "Denier" actually denies the Holocaust). It's the elite at the top that were once Jews, but now live for corporate greed, manipulation, and power. It's not only Jews either, but from a population-to-representation standpoint, the amount of Jews in the upper echelons is both amazing and incredibly disturbing. 192.249.47.9 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Gibson's anti-semetic statements to the police officer are not simply "alleged", they are fact as he has publically affirmed the accuracy of the statements himself. 163.205.105.66 ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to keep the comments Mr Gibson made to the Police in context of what happened immediately afterwards. The State of California certainly thought the abuse of Mr Gibson was serious enough to actually change State Law (reported by BBC World Service). Within hours of Mr Gibsons arrest, full details of the comments he allegedly made were Posted on an Internet Web Site, this Posting did not give him any opportunity to explain or Respond to to what was written. The BBC has reported that the State of California has now made the selling of police arrest details to the Press illegal largely based on the police treatment of Mr Mel Gibson in that case. What Mr Gibson was subjected to was 'Condemnation by hearsay'. Johnwrd ( talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be making what I HOPE is a non-controversial change to the childhood section.
It currently notes that Gibson is 6th of 10 children, and that the family adopted 1 more bringing the total to 11.
I really don't think how one of Gibson siblings entered the family is important enough to make a comment on. Kind of like pointing out that 1 was conceived outside of marriage, 4 were planned and the rest were "oops" babies. Not very encyclopedic.
If the child was adopted after Gibson's birth, then he is merely number 6 out of 11 children.
The only exception to this might be if the child were adopted under truly extraordinary circumstances and it was a very telling story as to the values of the family. Otherwise, it is pretty mundane and kind of old fashioned to point it out.
No offense intended to the original author! Just trying to tighten up the article a bit. Interesting read, btw. The Pearl 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Including this category under the DUI article is enough. Gibson's bio doesn't warrant inclusion just because you or others want to label him an anti-semite, thats called POV original research. Thanks.-- 68.9.116.87 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson is not an example of anti-Semitism, therefore he should probably not be in the category. The individual incidents, however, should be, if there are articles for them. — Ashley Y 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In any event, being drunk is not a defense. Alcohol makes you loose your inhibitions, thus anything in your head, racist ideas for instance, might come out for no apparent reason.-- Gonzalo84 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've sprotected because of the amount of reverting going on. I don't normally put the tag on BLPs, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The "accusations of homophobia" section states that Edward II was a "mere puppet of Thomas of Lancaster." But a quick reading of the linked article suggests the opposite: Lancaster opposed Edward and was executed by him. The "Thomas of Lancaster" bit in that statement needs to be changed to Piers Gaveston - who is certainly the historical model for Edward's lover in the film. However, it would be equally accurate to use Hugh le Despenser - or his son, Hugh le Despenser the Younger - in this instance, if the issue is merely whose puppet Edward was. 4.225.134.193 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(Doh! The point being, I've forgotten my login info and can't make the edit myself, but it does need to be made, so an admin should make it.) 4.225.134.193 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award-winning American-Australian actor, director, and producer *and a virulent anti-Semite*."
In the article, in the "Family" section, Mel's kids are listed with their birth years. His two oldest sons appear to be twins, and thus the same age. Neither of them is named Bear, and nowhere does the article say that either of the twins has the nickname "Bear." Nor does the article state that Gibson has had any children with any women other than his current wife. The last sentence of this section reads thusly: "Mel Gibson's eldest son, Bear, attends Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va." This seems to contradict the earlier part of the section. First of all, if the information provided in the article is completely accurate, Gibson does not have an "eldest son"; rather, he has two sons of the same age who are older than all his other male children. And who is Bear? I don't know if this is extremely unfunny and uninspired vandalism, or simply an editorial oversight. I don't really know enough about Mel to correct it myself. Perhaps there's a Mel Gibson expert out there who would care to comment? 69.205.44.251 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi... uh... i'm a history major, but i'm sure it doesn't take one to know this....
I saw Apacolypto.
1. The civ were not Mayans. It was the Aztecs who performed blood rituals for their sun/snake god, Quetzacoatl
2. This does not take place during 600 AD. It takes place appx. during the spring of 1519
3. The location of the film would have been in modern-day Mexico City, which was called "Tenochititlan" by the Aztecs
Can someone please fix this embarrising Apacolypto section? thank you.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AK2 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Also, he is grouped under Roman Catholic entertainers and he is most certainly not Roman Catholic. He is a member of an off-shoot "traditionalist" Catholic group that thinks Rome is too liberal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.64.139 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, December 29, 2006
I think it might be worthwhile to note that his anti-Semitism and hatred of George Bush are linked. BonniePrinceCharlie 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Israel. It existed before Israel, so it's completely independent. Israel is a massive leech on our resources, and for what reason should we support them? They violate every possible international law out there, have roughly 600 nuclear warheads (provided by us of course) despite not being registered as a nuclear power, and have carved their society out of the skulls and lives of countless Palestinian men, women, girls, and boys. I'm strongly anti-Israel and more Americans are opening up to it--they are of NO benefit to us. They don't even have oil. AIPAC is a large reason we're over there now, alongside corporate greed interests. Anti-Semitism would be hating the Jewish people for following Judaism...end of story. 192.249.47.9 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
His defense of being Alcoholic was referenced in a recent South Park episode when Cartman says, "Oh, no! She used the Mel Gibson defense". This certainly doesn't warrant it's own section, but perhaps if other references are also made, this may be germane.
The Category:Anti-Semitic people should be added to this page, because the comments he said were clearly anti-semitic, and thus prove his antisemitism.-- Sefringle 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
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:
This action to Mexican children was done in partnership with the Rotary through Rotarian Foundation http://www.rotary.org/newsroom/programs/060411_gibson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreLarcin ( talk • contribs) 23:12, January 3, 2007
I thought I read soemwhere once that he was born in New York. Doesn't that rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, January 25, 2007
I removed some material that was not sourced or didn't reflect the citation. This whole section needs work as it appears like original research in its present form. Rather than remove it entirely lets find some reliable sources. Thanks!-- Tom 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Block quote
hey my name is ramona and i search something about your religion
Hey mel gibson arguably gave his best performance in the movie the patriot and its not noted here. The movie won an academy award and 16 others. Iam too lazy to do so but could someone please add this to this article? it really was an awesome movie and it deserves to be mentioned here. OSFockewolf 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) mel gibson is the best
Just like to point out that Mel Gibson has also appeared in the following movies. Also the comment under Film Career, Mad Max, that "Gibson made his film debut as the leather-clad post-apocalyptic survivor in George Miller's Mad Max" is incorrect. He actually made his film debut two years earlier in a very ordinary Australian movie called Summer City.
1. The Singing Detective (2003) 2. Chicken Run (2000) (voice) 3. Pocahontas (1995) (voice) 4. The Man Without a Face (1993) . 5. The Chili Con Carne Club (1993) 6. Bird on a Wire (1990) 7. Mrs. Soffel (1984) 8. The River (1984) 9. Tim (1979) 10. Summer City (1977)
Leon Pinkerton 203.41.250.147 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD. I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times. Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here! -- Jaysweet 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with stating this obscure "award" by some website under awards and accomplishments - so I suggest to remove this last one: Named the "Second Most Jew-hatingest of Hollywood" beat out by nonother than Richard Simmons on the Frigid 50 list Film Threat (2006) - There should be stated only real and respectful awards, not some questionable hate-awards made by haters -- Ibuko 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Is his first name Melvin or is it really just "Mel"? I know that Sacha Baron Cohen (as Borat) once called him "Melvin Gibsons", but that doesn't really prove it either way. - EJ220 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several facts not being represented with regards to the incident. CSUN students who attended the event themselves allege via a facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2257023176 that Gibson was patient during the entire ordeal, that Estrada was disruptive, and that she not only cut in line, but snuck into the event, which was reserved only for film students and faculty who had questions about Gibson as a filmmaker, not about his depictions of Mayan culture. Furthermore, university officials themselves ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/23/entertainment/e141124D56.DTL) are defending Gibson, not Estrada. The SF Gate reports that the two refused to give up the microphone. Wikipedia's citation of only TMZ.com, an incredibly sensationalist website for entertainment journalism, as a reliable source, is very poor journalism. Jtown1234 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is also a crooner with the same namesake. See crooner
The section needs to be restored so that it mentions his anti-gay interview from December 1991. That was why he hosted the GLAAD event in 1997. It is also significant since as late as his Playboy interview from July 1995 he was still refusing to apologize. ( Gibsonism 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't generally edit contentious and disputed topics like this one so I will leave you this article to do what you will with. See: [9] IvoShandor 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not use that black and white faceshot of him from the movie Payback 86.144.221.3 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the picture of him in 17 years old? Since we're talking ancient history, here's a few other items that are as old as Mel's picture: Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry was arrested for drug possession; the President of South Africa promises to free Nelson Mandela; U.S. President Bush breaks his 1988 'no new taxes' campaign pledge. Can someone please bring us up to recent history with an image of good ol' Mel from this century? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
is mel gibson still an actor, it seems his main focus now is directing?? Jimmypop1994 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember hearing about Gibson flipping out on the set of one of the Lethal Weapon movies (or something he did with Glover, maybe not Lethal Weapon) on local news. I don't remember much about what they said happened except that he got angry at glover and someone in the crew; called Glover a 'nigger', and said something about the crew member being a jew.
Has anyone else heard about this, or have any credible sources as to whether or not it is true? I don't know if it is true or not, or maybe it was a prank he pulled. I heard about it on local news during the coverage of his DUI/rant recently, but none of the local news stations' websites have anything in the archives about the story.-- 70.243.243.5 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little curious about this now... from a little Googling, I found quite a large number of bio and triv pages that mention that Mel Gibson is pro-death penalty, but couldn't come up with a single reliable source (I figured IMDB was borderline, so not surprised I got reverted there :D ). Oddly, one fan site had footnotes scattered about the bio, but then the footnotes themselves were indecipherable. D'oh!
So what's the skinny? Is this just a rumor then?
I'm not sure how important this is for the article anyway, but now I'm curious. -- Jaysweet 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please vote at the bottom, and follow the format:
Some other talk about the merger has gone on at: Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident#Merge -- RidinHood25 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: The voting has been going on for more than the required time. Propose: CLOSE-NO MERGE - Deadline: October 15, 2007
Is there consensus that Mel Gibson DUI incident should be merged with the main article? I just want to make sure there's agreement before I start moving info over! Popkultur 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote to keep them separate because the DUI incident article is very long and detailed. Claisen 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can the quotes be better sourced or removed? Not sure if they add much. Other thoughts? Thanks, -- Tom 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed the Balance and POV tags on the article. The criticism section and alcohol abuse sections alone (not including any criticism elsewhere in the article) make up about a third of the article. I know he's a controversial guy, but this is undue weight. It needs to be abridged. 69.110.129.251 ( talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I may have missed a discussion on this, but why is the photographer/owner credited? I've never seen that before on any other Wikipedia article. Seems like a subtle form of advertising. Anyway, I'll give notice for a few hours before I remove it in case there is a good reason why it is there. Chicken Wing ( talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The belief that he´s a paleoconservative is not NPOV. It´s an interpretation. Like it´s stated in the entry, there are several interpretations of his political beliefs. To state that he´s a conservative, would be acceptable, but it´s arguable if he´s really a paleoconservative. He probably would like to see a Christian-Democratic Party in the USA, since he seems to have some differences with both major parties. Mistico ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have heard a rumor float around that Mel started out as a boxer. Even if this isn't true, would it be worth mentioning on his page if a source could be found?-- ProfessorTom ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It can be argued that "Family Guy" may have been a little nicer to Gibson than "South Park" was; he may even like "Family Guy" better than "South Park."
Has there been some kind remark made be Gibson to tell if he's a Family Guy fan over South park? What's the point of this statement?-- Skeev ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Does Mel Gibson really qualify as a "Historian"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.14.112 ( talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I kept looking at "Executive producer: Mel Gibson" in the credits of Carrier An Icon Productions and Carrier Project Production (an interesting 10-hour miniseries somehow associated with WETA-TV in Washington, DC.) and saying,
Well, turns out that the
Icon Productions tie shows they are one and the same, and the lk at
Carrier (documentary) acknowledges it.
I don't have a change in mind for this article (and i'm certainly not suggesting
OR additions), but i can't help thinking that when MG and
PBS are in the same bed, editors should at least have their eyes open for mainstream discussion of what it implies about one or the other.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bounty sc.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Check it out: The article says Gibson was born in January, 1959, and that his father moved the family to Australia in 1968, after winning the lawsuit in February of that year. So they must have moved sometime between February and December of 1968, right? So then why does the article say that Gibson was 12 at the time of the move (see "Early life")? At most, in December of 1968 the nipper would've been nine. Am I right?
I know it's just a little thing, but it's bugging the Pursuit Special out of me. Sugarbat ( talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Doods -- what's the haps with the reference list at the bottom? Why's it so fugly? On the right side, is what I'm talking about. I'd fix it but that coding's not my strong point and it will take hours that I don't have right now. But I respectfully beg someone smarter than I (in that regard) to investigate and prettify. Thanking you most sincerely in advance, Sugarbat ( talk) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 09:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture, a mugshot, is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It gives the impression that the man is always a drunken wreck. It needs to be changed. 24.60.239.47 ( talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried really hard to include a relevant detail re Mel Gibson's "Tiger Diet", but wikipedia, either through incompetence or through deliberate blocking, prevented me from updating the relevant passges into the section on his family and personal life. Here is the relevant passge:-
"Mel Gibson is also known for following a diet("Tiger Diet") consisting of raw meats, avocadoes and olive-oil. [2]
Any reason as to why anyone might block any new insertions? Uusally, only sites like Gorge Bush's have to be blocked from being edited. Loki0115 ( talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything on The Church That Mel Built in Malibu. Why not? It's relevent. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/27210/ Proxy User ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is some questionable, controversial and even libelous material here that will be removed per WP:BLP by tonight or tomorrow am if it is not sourced. I have put up the {BLP dispute} notice here because such info can and should be removed IMMEDIATELY. This is not a matter for discussion on whether unsourced material can stay, as someone mistakenly wrote on my talk pageabout his father's article. Carol Moore 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
<-----back dent You're lucky this article isn't 2/3 about the "controversies" which many articles about people who mispeak are. But just going through a period of annoyance at stuff that just could be made up about people being in Bios. Carol Moore 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any source where Mel Gibson calls himself an independent ? I´m quite sure he´s a conservative but there are evidente to show that he doesn´t have political affiliation. 81.193.215.94 ( talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled onto this page but it's obvious to me that the last sentence of the introduction is mired with POV language. "In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial[2] but successful[3] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ."
Adding "controversial" and then adding "successful" for the sake of evening out the criticism reaks of POV tweaking and tit-for-tat. I suggest taking out this POV adjectives and letting the text of the article deal with these issues. There's no topically pressing reason to include this in the introduction.
update:
Ward3001 has reverted my edits saying that it's sourced and true. I've pasted a section from wiki's NPOV policy to clarify on this point. Just because something's cited and true doesn't mean it's not NPOV: "a common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article''." Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 20:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Australian-American actor
I have an issue with this... Yes, he lived in Australia as a kid, and he has 1 Australian Grandparent, but he is more than 50% irish with his mother actually being born in Ireland. Wouldn't it make more sense to have him listed as an Irish American Actor, or just call him an Actor without the nationality mentioned in the opening paragraph? TheTruthLeadsMe ( talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)