![]() | This page 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. |
Does anyone else think we should have a newer picture for this article? I think one from 1990 is a little old for an encyclopedia. Mwakin21 ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] -- Dafengluobote ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted rather lengthy addition to the section regarding allegations of homophobia for several reasons. The first is that the change to the first paragraph removed any sourcing whatsoever but added direct quotes that were not sourced at all. Considering this is a severe WP:BLP concern, that section was reverted back to what was there before.
The second, concerning Braveheart, was also reverted because of previous consensus to move that discussion to the main Braveheart article. The editor copy and pasted the material from Braveheart back into this article, which gives a redirect note to see the Braveheart article for discussion concerning that film.
The third section, concerning The Passion of the Christ. The section read: "In the film, the Hellenized Antipas is depicted as a luxurious, wig-wearing buffoon who surrounds himself with young male and female drunken revelers. The character of the Jewish high priest Caiphas is shown to be disgusted by the mascara-wearing Herod and his debauchery. The effeminate portrayal of Antipas in The Passion is common to other representations, including Jesus Christ Superstar. The origin of this tradition may have been Christ's description of Herod as a “fox” in Luke 13:32, using a feminine word meaning “vixen” in the original Greek." It was sourced to here, which leads to a dead link, yielding it unsourced, despite the fact it did allude to other films. Unsourced means it is a WP:BLP concern. I would admonish the editor to be wary of WP:BLP concerns in regard to what is written here, and what a source does, or does not support. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should try to show that Mel Gibson is not a sedevacantist as some have alleged, although his father Hutton might have been. Sedevecantism merits excommunication for schism, but people like Mel Gibson are not the same as sedevacantists. Rather, Mel's chapel is similar to the chapels run by the Society of Saint Pius X, whose excommunication was recently lifted. Furthermore, Mel has been in regular contact with a Mexican archbishop, who helps him remain in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. ADM ( talk) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In Catholic canon law, Gibson's divorce would be counted as a civil divorce, but the Church would not recognize the divorce as having any religious validity. Furthermore, under Church law, attempts at re-marriage would prevent Gibson from receiving Holy Communion because re-marriage is considered to be akin to adultery (see Catholic marriage and Sacramentum Caritatis). ADM ( talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Jean Cohen in the "Jerusalem Post", 12 March 2004, writes of Mel Gibson's rebellion against his ultra-conservative Roman Catholic father Hutton. In 1974, when he was 18, Mel left Australia for Israel after an argument with Hutton. According to Cohen, Mel stayed at Kibbutz Degania and became friends with Jamie Whittier and Claude Delancey, who have both claimed Mel began observing Jewish custom with a view to conversion. After less than six months in Israel, Mel apparently began taking conversion classes and told Hutton of his decision to convert. He changed his name to Moshe and began to dress as an orthodox Jew. Hutton flew to Israel in November 1974 and lured Mel back to Australia with a story about his mother being ill. Upon returning, Cohen claims that Mel was locked away from the world for two and a half weeks until he recanted on his conversion to Judaism. Apparently it was not long after that that Mel began making anti-Semitic remarks.
The American Jewish historian Richard L Rubenstein suggests Cohen's allegations shed "an interesting light on Gibson's motivation" for making "The Passion of the Christ": Rubenstein, 'Mel Gibson's Passion', ch 11 in Timothy K Beal and Tod Linafelt, eds, "Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture and the Passion of the Christ" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 109 at 114.
Why is there no mention of this part of Gibson's biography in the article? Have Cohen's allegations been discredited? I'm unsure as to who Whittier and Delancey are. Can anybody verify this information?
At the very least there should be a substantial mention in the main article on Gibson's relationship with Hutton. It seems significant in the development of his own Right-wing social views. According to Rubenstein, Hutton was after all one of the minority of Catholics who held out steadfastly against the Second Vatican Council reforms, and reiterated his allegiance to Pius IX and his war on Enlightenment thought. In the Rubenstein view, Mel's social views are basically indistinguishable from his father's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rmarks81 ( talk • contribs)
Since he is no longer a Traditionalist Catholic as stated in the article, shouldn't the category be moved? 67.77.70.240 ( talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Concerning; The Passion. I thought I saw an interview about lightning striking one of the actors. If there could be an explaination, prediction/theory, possibly, that industry, outreached education... and Hercules types of communications resemble film makers, but not artists, or those with general education. Luther. 75.250.192.74 ( talk) 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I edited this page to change "gays" to "gay people". The word "gay" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun, just as the word "black" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun. Using these words as nouns strips those categories of people down to a single characteristic. This isn't an absolute, but that use of the word should be avoided.
Someone apparently decried my change of this to be "unconstructive". As such, we can't change this without multiple opinions on it, due to 1RV.-- 99.17.1.168 ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the spelling of Gibson's middle name from Columcille to Colm-Cille. Mel Gibson's full legal name is "Mel Colm-Cille Gerald Gibson," as supported by the divorce papers filed by his wife's lawyer [2] and the response by Mel Gibson's attorney: [3] Claisen ( talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Eva Braun Gibson? I doubt that's his daughter's real name. The linked reference page (abcnews.com) doesn't mention that name, and it seems it's a joke. Can somebody edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.107.116 ( talk • contribs) -- Why Not A Duck 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention that his father is an outspoken holocaust denier? And why is it not mentioned that he has never publicly refuted his father's stated beliefs or otherwise acknowledged that the holocaust took place? This material should be included, perhaps in the antisemitism section or in the family section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Your information is incorrect. Mel Gibson told Diane Sawyer in 2004 that he believed 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That was primetime television. Coreyyeroc ( talk) 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Gibson's daughter, Hannah, marry a non-Catholic (albeit in a Catholic church)? Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that when Gibson made anti-semitic remarks to the police it was at a time when Israel was being heavily criticized for waging a ruthless war in Lebanon? ( 92.8.34.179 ( talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC))
Someone add the "list of people with bipolar disorder" to the bottom of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgibsonlover ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate "allegation" sections that are peppered throughout this encyclopedia. THere are a lot of allegations against a lot of hollywood actors, but you wont find them on Wikipedia. It seems that only certain authors with select POV agendas write "allegation" sections on certain individuals. Either put an "allegations" section on ALL major hollywood actors or delete it. This is why Wikipedia is so biased and corrupt....authors use sections of "Allegations" to peddle their personal biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 02:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is his picture almost 20 years old? Can somebody upload a more recent one? TheBearPaw ( talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering how popular he is, I'm shocked that this is the only free pic of him.-- Evilbetty1991 ( talk) 07:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Several of Mel Gibson’s Films have been criticised for being anti British in their depictions and for sacrificing historical accuracy in a way that depicts Britain or England in a more negative light then the original events. The movie Gallipoli depicts British officers drinking tea on the beach whilst Australian soldiers die fighting for them. In actual fact the landing on Nek was a diversion for a New Zeeland landing at Sari Bair not a British landing at Suvla, and in real live significant numbers of British troops died attempting to aid the Australians after a brief communicational error. The Movie also depicts the British officers as not caring about Australian soldiers (something there is no evidence of) and has the two main generals at fault as British rather then Australian as they were and there was almost no British Commanders at Nek. The Patirot was heavily critisied by the British press at the time of its release for both exadurating British Atroicies and ignoring American ones, which are considered to be as bad as if not worse then the British ones. It also protreys US general Francis Marion in a positive light dispite him having commiteed many attroicites and depicts Banastre Tarleton as both a war criminal and as murdering a child in cold blood even though neither particularly the later are based on very little evidence. Braveheart has also been accused of Anglophobia. The film was referred in The Economist as "xenophobic"[14] and John Sutherland writing in the Guardian stated that, "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia".[15] Colin MacArthur, author of Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema calls it "a f***in’ atrocious film"[16] and writes that a worrying aspect of the film is its appeal to "(neo-) fascist groups and the attendant psyche.[17] According to The Times, MacArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film."[16] The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice"[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonnap ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
217.171.129.72 ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You think we can get a more recent photo? And not the one you're probably thinking about. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the description of the incident and re-inserted it to address concerns brought to ANI. However, it should be noted that I'm not taking any position as to whether or not the incident belongs in the article. The reasons for the ANI report have been handled, and hopefully the revert war is over. The prospect of either including or omitting the information should now be discussed here. Equazcion (talk) 04:09, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
We don't include something just because it can be sourced. I don't deny what's on the video, or that it has generated some coverage. That is not being disputed. The question is "why is this relevant"? To establish relevance, we have to be sure that it complies with WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. We also have to question whether the importance of the information is worth the negative impression we convey, bearing in mind that WP:BLP is a prime consideration. We also have to examine whether the event has been widely reported or whether it was just a flash-in-the-pan (which comes back to WP:RECENT). I'm sure it can reliably sourced, but that's not really the point. I think we also need to be sure that this one example of misbehaviour should be reported, when we don't bother to report the many interviews in which Gibson has conveyed a positive and co-operative demeanour. Gibson's controversies are covered, but each of the events covered has had some notability and has led to discussion in the media, and frankly they relate to more serious issues. This is not in the same league. With all of this in mind, how important is this piece of information in an article that should be taking a broad view of its subject? I don't think it's relevant, and the mere fact that it happened, and can be proven, does not make it relevant. Rossrs ( talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In looking over the arguments here, I see 2 editors who spoke in support of the content, one gave Ghits as a reason, one gave "because of history". There were four editors who spoke against the content, citing Wikipedia guidelines and policies that relate, including WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK. There was one editor who did not take a position and effectively argued as the devil's advocate. That would constitute a consensus against the content. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll put my oar in and say this is too minor to be included here, as well. Indeed, there is a whole article about the controversy where this could go. Having said that... (see next subsection below) IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(continued from above) ...there should be an article on MG and his relationship to antisemitism, using material from the DUI article and the Passion article. Also, the current section in the main article of antisemtism should be expanded (nor massively, just a bit.) Last thing, there should be some mention of it in the intro, per WP:LEAD and per the fact that it's had a huuuuge impact on MG's career. Thoughts? IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the delay, folks. I'm going to cull out some of the trivia in the article when I get to it, though I'd love some suggestions as to where to where it could go. I dn't think the prankster/philanthropy stuff should just vanish from WP, but we need about 5% of what we hve for this article. The rest should go somewhere. But for the lead question, I propose this. Suggestions/criticisms more than welcome.
Mel Colm-Cille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an American Australian actor, film director and producer and screenwriter. Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was 12 years old and later studied acting at the National Institute of Dramatic Art.
After appearing in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series, Gibson went on to direct and star in the Academy Award-winning Braveheart. Gibson's direction of Braveheart made him the sixth actor-turned-filmmaker to receive an Academy Award for Best Director. [4] In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial [5] but successful [6] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Its themes, combined with antisemitic remarks Gibson made during a drunk-driving arrest, have tarnished his reputation and negatively impacted his career. [Note: this last would need sourcing, and also need to be more fully fleshed out in the main body of the article.]
The movies he has acted in have grossed more than two billion dollars in the U.S. alone. [7]
Again, thoughts welcome. IronDuke 04:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Much debate on this topic. What is the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.109.194 ( talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5'9". ( 92.11.207.202 ( talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
Should the article mention that Gibson wears a wig? ( 92.11.207.202 ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
There are plenty of bald pictures of him in real life. ( 92.4.121.17 ( talk) 13:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
There are plenty of photographs from 2004 showing him almost completely bald. James Stewart's article mentions that he wore a wig, and so should Gibson's. ( 92.11.167.224 ( talk) 14:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
He is almost completely bald and his hair is a full wig, not just a hairpiece. ( 92.1.87.30 ( talk) 22:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
You see, he's almost bald: http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/melgibson_bald.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.87.30 ( talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
If he didn't comb over those bits from the side he'd look quite bald. I wonder which other Hollywood stars wear wigs. ( 92.14.227.137 ( talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Not a reliable source? So how come in that picture he is almost bald, and yet whenever he's in a film or TV interview he has a full head of hair? I suppose his hair in Braveheart was real too wasn't it! ( 92.14.227.137 ( talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
I think at the very least we should mention that Gibson wears a hairpiece. ( 92.12.20.168 ( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
1)
HarveyCarter (
talk ·
contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
inetnum: 92.0.0.0 - 92.15.255.255
netname: CPWBBSERV-NET
descr: Carphone Warehouse Broadband Services
country: GB
See Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls RashersTierney ( talk) 19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm not this banned editor "HarveyCarter" this is all irrelevant. ( 92.12.20.168 ( talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change section title from "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" to "Anti-Semitic Comments" simply "Anti-Semitism"
His Anti-Semitic incident has been well documented and acknowledged by Gibson himself (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident), and is not "alleged". This would be like calling John Edwards's affair "alleged".
Please consider this change. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.189.34 ( talk • contribs)
The whole 'Anti Semitic' comments made by Mr Gibbson need to be seen in context with his dispute at the time with Jewish leaders over the script of 'The Passion of the Christ'. Jewish leaders felt Mr Gibson was casting them in a bad light, Mr Gibson responded that he was respecting the historical integrity of the subject matter. Had he not become embroiled in the argument over the Script for 'Passion' he would probably have never made any comments about jews. Johnwrd ( talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{editsemiprotected}}
In paragraph just before the philanthropy heading, the blockquote is malformed. Search for the word blockquote in the displayed entry to find.
Skillen ( talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If he hiself confirmed it, then it is not alleged. Alleged means that it is an allegation, that it is not. Especially because he confirmed it. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Iankap is correct -- the statements are about as antisemitic as it gets, and MG agreed they were antisemitic. I believe he does not, however, think of himself as an antisemite. Therefore, it would be perhaps proper to discuss his "alleged antisemitism," but the remarks themselves are clear. IronDuke 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If it must be used in this form because the use of the actual word is unsourced, then it can't link to Nigger, because that doesn't make any sense, it implies that he said "niggers" even though the sources don't explicitly say so. The use of "n------" which links to Nigger is just a sneaky way to accuse him of saying it without having the word itself in the article. The implication suggested by the link is unsourced in the same sense that use of the word in the first place would be. If it must be sourced, then the link should be removed. Information implied by links is no different than actual text. If someone linked "jews" to "devil" that's no different than writing "jews are the devil".
Or the word should be simply used in its normal form, because this is a case of people going over the top with the policy on sources.
I've just been reading through the article and from here down seems like too much weight given to the diffent topics (up to the table). Does anyone else see issues with these sections in a biography of a living person? -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
While it is undoubtedly true that Mr. Gibson has melted down invarious times and places, and has said some foolish and even grossly insulting things, (some under the influence of alcohol) he is not a "White Supremacist". If someone wishes to offer a solid source showing he is a member of such a white supremacist group, that would justify use of that phrase. This "white supremacist" ephithet does not meet with the standards for living persons. I will attempt to remove it. Lindisfarnelibrary ( talk) 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please remove "White Supremacist" from the first paragraph. This is inappropriate and libelous without a credible reference. 129.236.30.149 ( talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The bio box in the upper right shows Gibson married 1980 - present. He was actually divorced last year. Someone should update that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.33.141 ( talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "In July 2010, it was reported that he had been caught on voicemail making misogynistic and racist remarks"
Calling a woman 'cunt' as many times as Mel Gibson did is undoubtedly misogynistic. SlamBurger ( talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SlamBurger and 86.150.97.102. These are multiple examples of misogynist behavior. I don't understand why someone deleted the section, despite ample sources and quotes indicating this was very serious. The issue of misogyny deserves equal attention to racism and homophobia, they are equally serious allegations, especially since the sexist quotes were accompanied with threats of violence and actual violence, thus I have restored the section. Agiseb ( talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Would someone explain to my why the addition of youtube.com here is acceptable? My understanding is that site is not acceptable for most things due to copyright issues. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about splitting the fallout from the phone call between "Family" and "Allegations of racism." It seems to me that the leak of the recording, and subsequent fallout, should all be in one place. It has already had a major impact on MG, in that his agency dropped him. Thoughts? IronDuke 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the best way to interpret "Smile and blow me". I'm pretty sure it was just an insult, not an actual demand for sex. So, maybe that bit should be rephrased? 70.43.199.66 ( talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a current picture of Gibson on here, rather than one twenty years old? I could see if he was dead, putting a picture up from when his career was at its peak. Maybe it's because his career is dead? 174.91.0.57 ( talk) 14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Name: Mel "Melon" Gibson
Octokels02 ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is Colum-cille hyphenated? I've never seen that anywhere else - if that really is how his name is presented the argument that he's Irish American (whatever that means) is even more nonsensical. 78.152.203.97 ( talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed the sections titled 'Allegation of'. He either did it or he didn't, so allegation is not appropriate imho. I do have a problem with these three sections though since they are covered extensively in other articles about his anti-semitism, homophobia and racism. Someone did clean them out so they weren't so bloated but do they really need to be in this article this way? Can't they be put under a neutral termology and put together instead of spread out like they are? It just seems wrong for a BLP to have so much negative information added in this way. There seems to be more negatives then positives in this article. I don't approve at all with his behavior but still there has to be way to make mention of the negatives so that it doesn't overwhelm this articles. Anyone have any suggestion?
Also there is an article about his DUI, this section needs to be scaled down a lot I think. I would like opinions about hsi too please. If there is an article about something, which there are since the articles are shown in the different sections, then usually only a sentence or two in the main artilce is usually mentioned, right? Thanks for any attentions to this, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This section does not discuss allegations - it details the subject admitting anti-Semitic remarks. Any reason not to re-title? Leegee23 ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The section should simply be titled "Anti-semitism". ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
in the tape mel says "“I left my wife because we had no spiritual common ground.”" should that go in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn't his voice then his spokesman would have denied it by now. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
She has indeed confirmed that they are. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
This article is awful, allegations and attack commentary. It is in need of a rewrite. There is also a thread at the BLP noticeboard regarding the article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, or to do a decent rewrite. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Gibson is far more famous for all the terrible things he has done than for his long-gone "acting" career. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
I'm sorry but we don't deal in truth we deal with reliable sources and as Yworo says everything links back to an unreliable source. I think it should all be removed at least the ones titled alleged. If it comes out in the next few days or more with better sources then we add what the sources say. We don't leave things like this in a biography of a living person. If you read that policy it says to delete this kind of matterial immediately. We can't continue to leave in items that say he is alleged to do this and alleged to do that, not in a BLP. The main source shown on this page that gave this information is not a reliable source for this project. If if doubt with a BLP delete and then discuss. How about we take the sections out and put them on this talk page and talk about them here? That is kind of stretching the rules of BLP too but each section needs to be thrashed out until we hopefully get some kind of a consensus. Does this sound like an acceptable way on how to deal with this? -- CrohnieGal Talk 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP explicitly permits sourced allegations to be included in article. See WP:WELLKNOWN (part of WP:BLP, mind you), which makes a very relevant example about that: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. -- Cyclopia talk 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Also: the "links back to an unreliable source" is a false argument. The point is not the veridicity or reliability of the original source. The point is that when RS pick up something, we cannot deny the fact that RS have discussed the thing and as such their discussion can deserve a place in an article. We don't go through the chain of sourcing (otherwise we would arrive to the paradox that every source is in the end unreliable, being after all the result of someone having made original research) -- Cyclopia talk 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Does anyone else think we should have a newer picture for this article? I think one from 1990 is a little old for an encyclopedia. Mwakin21 ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] -- Dafengluobote ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted rather lengthy addition to the section regarding allegations of homophobia for several reasons. The first is that the change to the first paragraph removed any sourcing whatsoever but added direct quotes that were not sourced at all. Considering this is a severe WP:BLP concern, that section was reverted back to what was there before.
The second, concerning Braveheart, was also reverted because of previous consensus to move that discussion to the main Braveheart article. The editor copy and pasted the material from Braveheart back into this article, which gives a redirect note to see the Braveheart article for discussion concerning that film.
The third section, concerning The Passion of the Christ. The section read: "In the film, the Hellenized Antipas is depicted as a luxurious, wig-wearing buffoon who surrounds himself with young male and female drunken revelers. The character of the Jewish high priest Caiphas is shown to be disgusted by the mascara-wearing Herod and his debauchery. The effeminate portrayal of Antipas in The Passion is common to other representations, including Jesus Christ Superstar. The origin of this tradition may have been Christ's description of Herod as a “fox” in Luke 13:32, using a feminine word meaning “vixen” in the original Greek." It was sourced to here, which leads to a dead link, yielding it unsourced, despite the fact it did allude to other films. Unsourced means it is a WP:BLP concern. I would admonish the editor to be wary of WP:BLP concerns in regard to what is written here, and what a source does, or does not support. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should try to show that Mel Gibson is not a sedevacantist as some have alleged, although his father Hutton might have been. Sedevecantism merits excommunication for schism, but people like Mel Gibson are not the same as sedevacantists. Rather, Mel's chapel is similar to the chapels run by the Society of Saint Pius X, whose excommunication was recently lifted. Furthermore, Mel has been in regular contact with a Mexican archbishop, who helps him remain in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. ADM ( talk) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In Catholic canon law, Gibson's divorce would be counted as a civil divorce, but the Church would not recognize the divorce as having any religious validity. Furthermore, under Church law, attempts at re-marriage would prevent Gibson from receiving Holy Communion because re-marriage is considered to be akin to adultery (see Catholic marriage and Sacramentum Caritatis). ADM ( talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Jean Cohen in the "Jerusalem Post", 12 March 2004, writes of Mel Gibson's rebellion against his ultra-conservative Roman Catholic father Hutton. In 1974, when he was 18, Mel left Australia for Israel after an argument with Hutton. According to Cohen, Mel stayed at Kibbutz Degania and became friends with Jamie Whittier and Claude Delancey, who have both claimed Mel began observing Jewish custom with a view to conversion. After less than six months in Israel, Mel apparently began taking conversion classes and told Hutton of his decision to convert. He changed his name to Moshe and began to dress as an orthodox Jew. Hutton flew to Israel in November 1974 and lured Mel back to Australia with a story about his mother being ill. Upon returning, Cohen claims that Mel was locked away from the world for two and a half weeks until he recanted on his conversion to Judaism. Apparently it was not long after that that Mel began making anti-Semitic remarks.
The American Jewish historian Richard L Rubenstein suggests Cohen's allegations shed "an interesting light on Gibson's motivation" for making "The Passion of the Christ": Rubenstein, 'Mel Gibson's Passion', ch 11 in Timothy K Beal and Tod Linafelt, eds, "Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture and the Passion of the Christ" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 109 at 114.
Why is there no mention of this part of Gibson's biography in the article? Have Cohen's allegations been discredited? I'm unsure as to who Whittier and Delancey are. Can anybody verify this information?
At the very least there should be a substantial mention in the main article on Gibson's relationship with Hutton. It seems significant in the development of his own Right-wing social views. According to Rubenstein, Hutton was after all one of the minority of Catholics who held out steadfastly against the Second Vatican Council reforms, and reiterated his allegiance to Pius IX and his war on Enlightenment thought. In the Rubenstein view, Mel's social views are basically indistinguishable from his father's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rmarks81 ( talk • contribs)
Since he is no longer a Traditionalist Catholic as stated in the article, shouldn't the category be moved? 67.77.70.240 ( talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Concerning; The Passion. I thought I saw an interview about lightning striking one of the actors. If there could be an explaination, prediction/theory, possibly, that industry, outreached education... and Hercules types of communications resemble film makers, but not artists, or those with general education. Luther. 75.250.192.74 ( talk) 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I edited this page to change "gays" to "gay people". The word "gay" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun, just as the word "black" should be used as an adjective, not as a noun. Using these words as nouns strips those categories of people down to a single characteristic. This isn't an absolute, but that use of the word should be avoided.
Someone apparently decried my change of this to be "unconstructive". As such, we can't change this without multiple opinions on it, due to 1RV.-- 99.17.1.168 ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected the spelling of Gibson's middle name from Columcille to Colm-Cille. Mel Gibson's full legal name is "Mel Colm-Cille Gerald Gibson," as supported by the divorce papers filed by his wife's lawyer [2] and the response by Mel Gibson's attorney: [3] Claisen ( talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Eva Braun Gibson? I doubt that's his daughter's real name. The linked reference page (abcnews.com) doesn't mention that name, and it seems it's a joke. Can somebody edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.107.116 ( talk • contribs) -- Why Not A Duck 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention that his father is an outspoken holocaust denier? And why is it not mentioned that he has never publicly refuted his father's stated beliefs or otherwise acknowledged that the holocaust took place? This material should be included, perhaps in the antisemitism section or in the family section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Your information is incorrect. Mel Gibson told Diane Sawyer in 2004 that he believed 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That was primetime television. Coreyyeroc ( talk) 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Gibson's daughter, Hannah, marry a non-Catholic (albeit in a Catholic church)? Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that when Gibson made anti-semitic remarks to the police it was at a time when Israel was being heavily criticized for waging a ruthless war in Lebanon? ( 92.8.34.179 ( talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC))
Someone add the "list of people with bipolar disorder" to the bottom of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgibsonlover ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate "allegation" sections that are peppered throughout this encyclopedia. THere are a lot of allegations against a lot of hollywood actors, but you wont find them on Wikipedia. It seems that only certain authors with select POV agendas write "allegation" sections on certain individuals. Either put an "allegations" section on ALL major hollywood actors or delete it. This is why Wikipedia is so biased and corrupt....authors use sections of "Allegations" to peddle their personal biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 ( talk) 02:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is his picture almost 20 years old? Can somebody upload a more recent one? TheBearPaw ( talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering how popular he is, I'm shocked that this is the only free pic of him.-- Evilbetty1991 ( talk) 07:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Several of Mel Gibson’s Films have been criticised for being anti British in their depictions and for sacrificing historical accuracy in a way that depicts Britain or England in a more negative light then the original events. The movie Gallipoli depicts British officers drinking tea on the beach whilst Australian soldiers die fighting for them. In actual fact the landing on Nek was a diversion for a New Zeeland landing at Sari Bair not a British landing at Suvla, and in real live significant numbers of British troops died attempting to aid the Australians after a brief communicational error. The Movie also depicts the British officers as not caring about Australian soldiers (something there is no evidence of) and has the two main generals at fault as British rather then Australian as they were and there was almost no British Commanders at Nek. The Patirot was heavily critisied by the British press at the time of its release for both exadurating British Atroicies and ignoring American ones, which are considered to be as bad as if not worse then the British ones. It also protreys US general Francis Marion in a positive light dispite him having commiteed many attroicites and depicts Banastre Tarleton as both a war criminal and as murdering a child in cold blood even though neither particularly the later are based on very little evidence. Braveheart has also been accused of Anglophobia. The film was referred in The Economist as "xenophobic"[14] and John Sutherland writing in the Guardian stated that, "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia".[15] Colin MacArthur, author of Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema calls it "a f***in’ atrocious film"[16] and writes that a worrying aspect of the film is its appeal to "(neo-) fascist groups and the attendant psyche.[17] According to The Times, MacArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film."[16] The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice"[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonnap ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
217.171.129.72 ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You think we can get a more recent photo? And not the one you're probably thinking about. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the description of the incident and re-inserted it to address concerns brought to ANI. However, it should be noted that I'm not taking any position as to whether or not the incident belongs in the article. The reasons for the ANI report have been handled, and hopefully the revert war is over. The prospect of either including or omitting the information should now be discussed here. Equazcion (talk) 04:09, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
We don't include something just because it can be sourced. I don't deny what's on the video, or that it has generated some coverage. That is not being disputed. The question is "why is this relevant"? To establish relevance, we have to be sure that it complies with WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. We also have to question whether the importance of the information is worth the negative impression we convey, bearing in mind that WP:BLP is a prime consideration. We also have to examine whether the event has been widely reported or whether it was just a flash-in-the-pan (which comes back to WP:RECENT). I'm sure it can reliably sourced, but that's not really the point. I think we also need to be sure that this one example of misbehaviour should be reported, when we don't bother to report the many interviews in which Gibson has conveyed a positive and co-operative demeanour. Gibson's controversies are covered, but each of the events covered has had some notability and has led to discussion in the media, and frankly they relate to more serious issues. This is not in the same league. With all of this in mind, how important is this piece of information in an article that should be taking a broad view of its subject? I don't think it's relevant, and the mere fact that it happened, and can be proven, does not make it relevant. Rossrs ( talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In looking over the arguments here, I see 2 editors who spoke in support of the content, one gave Ghits as a reason, one gave "because of history". There were four editors who spoke against the content, citing Wikipedia guidelines and policies that relate, including WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK. There was one editor who did not take a position and effectively argued as the devil's advocate. That would constitute a consensus against the content. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll put my oar in and say this is too minor to be included here, as well. Indeed, there is a whole article about the controversy where this could go. Having said that... (see next subsection below) IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(continued from above) ...there should be an article on MG and his relationship to antisemitism, using material from the DUI article and the Passion article. Also, the current section in the main article of antisemtism should be expanded (nor massively, just a bit.) Last thing, there should be some mention of it in the intro, per WP:LEAD and per the fact that it's had a huuuuge impact on MG's career. Thoughts? IronDuke 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the delay, folks. I'm going to cull out some of the trivia in the article when I get to it, though I'd love some suggestions as to where to where it could go. I dn't think the prankster/philanthropy stuff should just vanish from WP, but we need about 5% of what we hve for this article. The rest should go somewhere. But for the lead question, I propose this. Suggestions/criticisms more than welcome.
Mel Colm-Cille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an American Australian actor, film director and producer and screenwriter. Born in Peekskill, New York, Gibson moved with his parents to Sydney when he was 12 years old and later studied acting at the National Institute of Dramatic Art.
After appearing in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series, Gibson went on to direct and star in the Academy Award-winning Braveheart. Gibson's direction of Braveheart made him the sixth actor-turned-filmmaker to receive an Academy Award for Best Director. [4] In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial [5] but successful [6] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Its themes, combined with antisemitic remarks Gibson made during a drunk-driving arrest, have tarnished his reputation and negatively impacted his career. [Note: this last would need sourcing, and also need to be more fully fleshed out in the main body of the article.]
The movies he has acted in have grossed more than two billion dollars in the U.S. alone. [7]
Again, thoughts welcome. IronDuke 04:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Much debate on this topic. What is the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.109.194 ( talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5'9". ( 92.11.207.202 ( talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
Should the article mention that Gibson wears a wig? ( 92.11.207.202 ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
There are plenty of bald pictures of him in real life. ( 92.4.121.17 ( talk) 13:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC))
There are plenty of photographs from 2004 showing him almost completely bald. James Stewart's article mentions that he wore a wig, and so should Gibson's. ( 92.11.167.224 ( talk) 14:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
He is almost completely bald and his hair is a full wig, not just a hairpiece. ( 92.1.87.30 ( talk) 22:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
You see, he's almost bald: http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/melgibson_bald.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.87.30 ( talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
If he didn't comb over those bits from the side he'd look quite bald. I wonder which other Hollywood stars wear wigs. ( 92.14.227.137 ( talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Not a reliable source? So how come in that picture he is almost bald, and yet whenever he's in a film or TV interview he has a full head of hair? I suppose his hair in Braveheart was real too wasn't it! ( 92.14.227.137 ( talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
I think at the very least we should mention that Gibson wears a hairpiece. ( 92.12.20.168 ( talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
1)
HarveyCarter (
talk ·
contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
inetnum: 92.0.0.0 - 92.15.255.255
netname: CPWBBSERV-NET
descr: Carphone Warehouse Broadband Services
country: GB
See Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls RashersTierney ( talk) 19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm not this banned editor "HarveyCarter" this is all irrelevant. ( 92.12.20.168 ( talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change section title from "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" to "Anti-Semitic Comments" simply "Anti-Semitism"
His Anti-Semitic incident has been well documented and acknowledged by Gibson himself (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident), and is not "alleged". This would be like calling John Edwards's affair "alleged".
Please consider this change. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.189.34 ( talk • contribs)
The whole 'Anti Semitic' comments made by Mr Gibbson need to be seen in context with his dispute at the time with Jewish leaders over the script of 'The Passion of the Christ'. Jewish leaders felt Mr Gibson was casting them in a bad light, Mr Gibson responded that he was respecting the historical integrity of the subject matter. Had he not become embroiled in the argument over the Script for 'Passion' he would probably have never made any comments about jews. Johnwrd ( talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{editsemiprotected}}
In paragraph just before the philanthropy heading, the blockquote is malformed. Search for the word blockquote in the displayed entry to find.
Skillen ( talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If he hiself confirmed it, then it is not alleged. Alleged means that it is an allegation, that it is not. Especially because he confirmed it. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Iankap is correct -- the statements are about as antisemitic as it gets, and MG agreed they were antisemitic. I believe he does not, however, think of himself as an antisemite. Therefore, it would be perhaps proper to discuss his "alleged antisemitism," but the remarks themselves are clear. IronDuke 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If it must be used in this form because the use of the actual word is unsourced, then it can't link to Nigger, because that doesn't make any sense, it implies that he said "niggers" even though the sources don't explicitly say so. The use of "n------" which links to Nigger is just a sneaky way to accuse him of saying it without having the word itself in the article. The implication suggested by the link is unsourced in the same sense that use of the word in the first place would be. If it must be sourced, then the link should be removed. Information implied by links is no different than actual text. If someone linked "jews" to "devil" that's no different than writing "jews are the devil".
Or the word should be simply used in its normal form, because this is a case of people going over the top with the policy on sources.
I've just been reading through the article and from here down seems like too much weight given to the diffent topics (up to the table). Does anyone else see issues with these sections in a biography of a living person? -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
While it is undoubtedly true that Mr. Gibson has melted down invarious times and places, and has said some foolish and even grossly insulting things, (some under the influence of alcohol) he is not a "White Supremacist". If someone wishes to offer a solid source showing he is a member of such a white supremacist group, that would justify use of that phrase. This "white supremacist" ephithet does not meet with the standards for living persons. I will attempt to remove it. Lindisfarnelibrary ( talk) 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please remove "White Supremacist" from the first paragraph. This is inappropriate and libelous without a credible reference. 129.236.30.149 ( talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The bio box in the upper right shows Gibson married 1980 - present. He was actually divorced last year. Someone should update that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.33.141 ( talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "In July 2010, it was reported that he had been caught on voicemail making misogynistic and racist remarks"
Calling a woman 'cunt' as many times as Mel Gibson did is undoubtedly misogynistic. SlamBurger ( talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SlamBurger and 86.150.97.102. These are multiple examples of misogynist behavior. I don't understand why someone deleted the section, despite ample sources and quotes indicating this was very serious. The issue of misogyny deserves equal attention to racism and homophobia, they are equally serious allegations, especially since the sexist quotes were accompanied with threats of violence and actual violence, thus I have restored the section. Agiseb ( talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Would someone explain to my why the addition of youtube.com here is acceptable? My understanding is that site is not acceptable for most things due to copyright issues. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about splitting the fallout from the phone call between "Family" and "Allegations of racism." It seems to me that the leak of the recording, and subsequent fallout, should all be in one place. It has already had a major impact on MG, in that his agency dropped him. Thoughts? IronDuke 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the best way to interpret "Smile and blow me". I'm pretty sure it was just an insult, not an actual demand for sex. So, maybe that bit should be rephrased? 70.43.199.66 ( talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a current picture of Gibson on here, rather than one twenty years old? I could see if he was dead, putting a picture up from when his career was at its peak. Maybe it's because his career is dead? 174.91.0.57 ( talk) 14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Name: Mel "Melon" Gibson
Octokels02 ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is Colum-cille hyphenated? I've never seen that anywhere else - if that really is how his name is presented the argument that he's Irish American (whatever that means) is even more nonsensical. 78.152.203.97 ( talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed the sections titled 'Allegation of'. He either did it or he didn't, so allegation is not appropriate imho. I do have a problem with these three sections though since they are covered extensively in other articles about his anti-semitism, homophobia and racism. Someone did clean them out so they weren't so bloated but do they really need to be in this article this way? Can't they be put under a neutral termology and put together instead of spread out like they are? It just seems wrong for a BLP to have so much negative information added in this way. There seems to be more negatives then positives in this article. I don't approve at all with his behavior but still there has to be way to make mention of the negatives so that it doesn't overwhelm this articles. Anyone have any suggestion?
Also there is an article about his DUI, this section needs to be scaled down a lot I think. I would like opinions about hsi too please. If there is an article about something, which there are since the articles are shown in the different sections, then usually only a sentence or two in the main artilce is usually mentioned, right? Thanks for any attentions to this, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This section does not discuss allegations - it details the subject admitting anti-Semitic remarks. Any reason not to re-title? Leegee23 ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The section should simply be titled "Anti-semitism". ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
in the tape mel says "“I left my wife because we had no spiritual common ground.”" should that go in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn't his voice then his spokesman would have denied it by now. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
She has indeed confirmed that they are. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
This article is awful, allegations and attack commentary. It is in need of a rewrite. There is also a thread at the BLP noticeboard regarding the article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, or to do a decent rewrite. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Gibson is far more famous for all the terrible things he has done than for his long-gone "acting" career. ( 92.5.16.189 ( talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
I'm sorry but we don't deal in truth we deal with reliable sources and as Yworo says everything links back to an unreliable source. I think it should all be removed at least the ones titled alleged. If it comes out in the next few days or more with better sources then we add what the sources say. We don't leave things like this in a biography of a living person. If you read that policy it says to delete this kind of matterial immediately. We can't continue to leave in items that say he is alleged to do this and alleged to do that, not in a BLP. The main source shown on this page that gave this information is not a reliable source for this project. If if doubt with a BLP delete and then discuss. How about we take the sections out and put them on this talk page and talk about them here? That is kind of stretching the rules of BLP too but each section needs to be thrashed out until we hopefully get some kind of a consensus. Does this sound like an acceptable way on how to deal with this? -- CrohnieGal Talk 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP explicitly permits sourced allegations to be included in article. See WP:WELLKNOWN (part of WP:BLP, mind you), which makes a very relevant example about that: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. -- Cyclopia talk 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Also: the "links back to an unreliable source" is a false argument. The point is not the veridicity or reliability of the original source. The point is that when RS pick up something, we cannot deny the fact that RS have discussed the thing and as such their discussion can deserve a place in an article. We don't go through the chain of sourcing (otherwise we would arrive to the paradox that every source is in the end unreliable, being after all the result of someone having made original research) -- Cyclopia talk 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)