Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 2

Please do not feed the trolls

This talk page has been archived because it was getting too long.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 8 2 06

Note, this page may need to be archived again.

Holocaust denial by his father

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

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

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

DUI

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

I've added a subheading for it at the bottom, but it'll probably be worth making it even less prominent as it really isn't a 'big deal,' depending on what his punishment is. JF Mephisto 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. agreed. And have a good weekend--Scribner 11:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruh-roh. The rumour is that Gibson was ranting about "the Jews" when he was arrested. There is absolutely no 'mainstream' confirmation of this at the moment so there isn't a chance of it going in the article, but it's definitely around.[1] [2]. Apparently it stems from a leaked police report. JF Mephisto 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you define "mainstream" and "confirmation". The article cites both the LA Times and the NY Times, both of which are typically considered mainstream media sources. Are you saying there is no confirmation because both publications cit unknown sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.243.151 (talk • contribs) .

Each quoting each other and TMZ. It's the kind of circular logic a Catholic would be proud of :D --Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The police report is real. He's lost his fucking mind. 68.0.118.116 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The police report is alleged to be real you mean. --Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The alchohol just lets his true personality and beliefs shine through. There is no longer ANY argument about whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semetic. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, claims to own Malibu like a duck, curses jews like a duck, makes sexist remarks about "sugar tits" like a duck, tries to urinate in the jail cell and vandalize phones like a duck, then it's a duck. Anybody who can't see that is in denial, and SHOULD be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.234.253 (talk • contribs) .

Typically when people drink alcohol it's assumed their "true" personality doesn't shine through - instead we lose the ability to control ourselves and make rational judgements - therefore, if anything, this proves Mel isn't an anti-semite as he only says these things when he has no control over himself and has a loss of rational thought.--Koncorde 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely that Mel's rational judgement would deteriorate to the point where he would inexplicably decide that Jews are evil in the time period that he was intoxicated. A loss of rational judgement would explain his voicing the opinion, though.

While I agree that the statement "In Wine, Truth" holds validity, you can't say in an encyclopedia "Person X is anti-semetic" because they said an anti-semetic thing. You can only say "Person X said an anti-semetic thing." One is a fact, and one is speculation. Pacian 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. One should also not claim that the sky is blue, just because one sees blue when one looks up. There are other possibilities: your contact lenses may have turned blue. It is only speculation to say the sky is blue. 68.0.118.116 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sky isn't blue in an objective sense. That's simply how we perceive the play of light in the atmosphere. Gravity would probably be a better example of what you're trying to get at. JF Mephisto 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A basic idea of Wikipedia is just to leave obvious judgements out. There's no need to say that he's an anti-semite if you instead can give well-sourced quotes that clearly show he is... (well sourced being a problem with this last one, perhaps....) Evercat 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the "Jew" quote should be here at all until a more reliable source than tmz.com turns up. Such an inflammatory claim needs a rock solid source to back it up. As a bio of a living person we are required to be more critical of sources than usual. Kevin 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's my point about the source. Eventually the officer will be on Oprah saying that he did indeed say these things, but until then the reports are not well substantiated. Kevin 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are def. a number of very reliable sources currently running Gibson's apologetic statement wherein he himself states that he said inappropriate things, and it seems highly unlikely that he would do so unless he had said them. Whether the things alleged to have been said are those things is of course in question, but it adds a great deal of credence to the accusations. Pacian 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole story is becoming clearer now. With current events about living people I think it's important for us to wait until the real story is settled, rather than try to write every detail instantly and in depth. In a years time the bit about DUI should probably be only a sentence or two anyway. Having it in such depth does detract from the neutrality of the article. Kevin 08:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

SEPARATE DUI ARTICLE

This DUI incident is starting to take up far too much room. Gibson seems to have sobered up and shut up his mouth and unless it happens again, it will probably become a minor incident. Please reduce the size of that section down to something proportional to the rest of the prose. If you need inspiration, please look at his NNDB profile for what is proportional. -- 75.23.154.140 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006: I agree about too much on DUI, so continue to use separate DUI article. After reading the police-report excerpts & analysis, I see the pro-Jewish slant: Mel threatened a police officer's life, but the obsession was on "anti-Semitic" remarks, rather than threatening to "get even" with an officer. The DUI sections should be edited as NPOV, giving a neutral, broad coverage to what happened and downplay the "anti-Semitic" talk; perhaps the Evening News has become the "Evening Jews" but this is not Jewipedia: I don't think most people even realize how pro-Jewish the Jewish slant has been about the DUI incident, even in national news. 172.162.136.14 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

08-Aug-2006 Neutrality: Over the past week, I have added 3 times that the original, lone arresting officer was Jewish, only to have "Jewish" removed from the DUI article. Jewish officer James Mee followed Gibson, stopped him, and received the remarks, before other officers arrived. I put history comments requesting neutral POV writing on DUI. 172.162.136.14 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is he actually Jewish? I don't think I've read anything that has confirmed his orientation.--Koncorde 11:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

10-Aug-2006 Seperate DUI Article: I have to say whether you like Mel Gibson after this or not if someone has gone through the trouble of looking up all the quotes regarding this incident and heaped up enough information to justify a seperate article then I think criticism should be directed at questionable points in the article not the existence of the article as such. After all that might look as if some people could be more interested in reducing the amount of information easily available on Wikipedia (at least regarding this incident) contrary to what Wikipedia is actually about: Sharing information.

Why censoring of "fuck"?

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

JF Mephisto 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC): You're quite right. Seeing as there is an article on fuck, I see no reason why it should not be used. Unless someone can point to a particular Wikipedia policy which bans the use of the word, it should be uncensored. I'm editting it for now.

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)

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

semi-protection?

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

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

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

Good points, I have just requested it. IronDuke 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection should not be used: as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred; It's the first bullet on the policy page, for chrissake. Liu Bei 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Call. It's rather annoying to check my watchlist and see that the article has been purged of its more controversial facts by some anonymous user. Thanks for giving the powers that be a little heads up. Charles M. Reed 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Some of my contributions have been repeatedly vandalized and deleted by unregistered users. 69.161.135.145 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Confusion

From the early life section:

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

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

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

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

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

I love Mel Gibson

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

What's nice is how this brings out all the antisemites. The previous anon probably wouldn't even classify itself as an antisemite, let alone Gibson. When did insanity become publicly acceptable again? Gzuckier 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is all a conspiracy to force him to make anti-semitic, misogynistic and egotistical remarks and, worst of all, drive 40 mph drunk over the speed limit. Who cares that he's an out-of-control racist when he's "handsome, cute, sweet, sexy" and "charismatic"?JF Mephisto 12:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem here, if Mel on his 85 mph drunken tear happened to come up behind an obviously Orthodox Jewish family in a van doing 40, I'm sure he would have been very careful not to do anything that might put them in danger. Gzuckier 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a forum here people but JF Mephisto your comments are a bit overboard. Its obvious Mel Gibson has an problem with alcohol, something he admitted himself. He has a problem that doesn't make a person "out of control". And when did Jews become a "race". Not that his comments were acceptable but they weren't racist. --62.245.143.34 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were racist. The Jews are a both an ethnicity (though this doesn't apply to converted Jews), and a religion (and this doesn't apply to non-religious Jews). Judaism is one qualification for Jewishness, belonging to descendents of the ancient Hebrews is another. Otherwise one could not be a Jew unless one was religiously observant. Please refer to Wikipedia's own article on Jews. Gibson blatantly wasn't referring to only religious Jews. As far as I'm aware, driving drunk at such a vast amount over the speed limit, then making outrageous anti-semitic comments, attempting to urinate in a cell and calling a female officer 'sugar tits' is a pretty good definition of 'out-of-control.' JF Mephisto 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when do you have to be prejudice toward a skin color or ethnicity to be racist? What he said went against an entire group of people, and hate knows no limits. Besides, Jews are a Semetic people, so, in a way, what he said was both anti-Semetic AND racist.

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

I think it is clear that by Mr. Gibson's treatment that America is a country where the laws don't apply to the wealthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.8.10 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

Mug shot?

Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson on July 28, 2006
Born	January 3, 1956 Peekskill, New York, USA
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)

Seconded. Hugh Grant doesn't have his mugshot as his main entry (it is included later on) and I would say that was more acceptable. Much of the current piece does not meet Wikipedias "Biographies of a Living Person" standard anyway so will require much cleaning up once this hoo-ha has calmed down. At the moment there are just an awful lot of cheap shots.--Koncorde 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks all that the image has to do is show who Mel Gibson is. If there is a free image alternative to show who a person is then per Wikipedia:Fair Use policy that image is to be used. If an editor can find an alternative image to the mugshot that is free then by all means upload that image and replace the mugshot. (→Netscott) 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship

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

Mel Gibson apology

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

I agree. The entire text of the section detailing Gibson's ongoing DUI incident should be merged with the article covering his apology to create a separate article dedicated to the controversy as a whole. Azathoth68 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, even create a sub-topic article on the July 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident (with a shorter title if possible). Put it all there, until the media frenzy dies down.

Later on we can either merge it all back, or just keep a summary here and use the {{main}} template to indicate the relationship. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added an external link to the text of the apology (no commentary), but it got deleted, citing "promotional" conflicts. Uh...EVERY link is a promotion. This topic is too politicized!

I 'spun off' the sub-topic to Mel Gibson DUI incident, in accordance with Wikipedia:How to break up a page, aka "Summary style".

Fair Use image

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

Why not post an acceptable photo yourself? I do not understand fair use, or I'd do so myself. I think it's clear that a majority disapprove of the mugshot.DBaba 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a consensus issue... consensus never trumps policy. There is now a free image of Mel Gibson... therefore it can be used... I experienced this same issue myself on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I sourced a free image for her. By all means do the same here. (→Netscott) 18:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not have been clear; I wasn't challenging policy. You've asserted that "there's no reason that the image taken on July 28, 2006 is any more inappropriate": this is what I have disputed, not policy. Are you saying that this is the only photo you can find that you consider to be in keeping with Wikipedia policy? Or are you obliquely conferring unwillingness to work with fellow editors in reconciling policy with objective encyclopedic structure? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who claims to know what the heck you're talking about vis a vis "free" and "fair" images, and you're the only one who hasn't yet accepted a solution that is contextually reasonable.DBaba 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors are to edit according to policy. Policy does not require a given editor to go searching for alternative material when alternate material not in accord with policy has been removed. You have no logic in your argument. By all means find an alternative image. For now there are no fair use images displayed on this article again in accord with policy. If there is to be an image displayed of Mel Gibson to show who he is and editors have the option to use a free image for such puposes they are required to utilize such an image and not some fair use image instead. (→Netscott) 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted an image originally released for use with Promotional work to media sources and web outlets. I believe it is a "Fair Use" image, does not break any copyrights and such etc and is relevant to the subject (Mr.Gibson).--Koncorde 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could please check the image again Netscott and inform me whether it fulfils criteria now please.--Koncorde 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on your talk page... all that is needed is the source detail for the image Koncorde. With a free image of Mel Gibson available for use on this article however there is no valid reason to use a fair use image in its place. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The article is not about the career of Mel Gibson but about him. All that is needed is an image that shows who he is. If a free example of such an image exists it is always to be used in place of a fair use image. (→Netscott) 21:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I find that ridiculous. Bill Gates doesn't have his mugshot, nor does Hugh Grant or the dozens upon dozens of people (sportsmen, artists and actors alike) who have been booked by the Police in the last 50 years - they all utilise some form of 'fair use' image or otherwise to head their article, and the Mugshot is used (or in the case of Gates 'not used' at all) only in cases were details are given later in the text. If it's purely a case of 'free' images, then The Smoking Gun has a fine collection for you to start placing within the Biographies of each offender. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html --Koncorde 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

It's not a "bad picture" in terms of lighting and appearance, but it does single Gibson out for unfair treatment when compared to similar "felons" (as mentioned above and contained within Smokingguns mugshot archive). When it's Tookie Williams or Charles Manson it's almost expected that the image will be a mugshot, or a mugshot will be contained. But for someones Biography main image (which is supposed to be done in something approaching neutrality and dealt with sensitivity) I don't believe it is suitable. By all means it should be included, but it should be included with his crime. As an actor his initial/primary image should represent his profession just as OJ Simpsons represents his, and Freddie Mercury his. "Personal Attack" might be too harsh of a term, but I do think the "Free Image" rule is being used here in a fashion that's really out of sorts.--Koncorde 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find an image with a valid, cited fair use rationale. Until that time, this image is all we have. Interestingstuffadder 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted one, and am trying to fathom out just which hoops Netscott requires me to leap through (so sue me, I've never done an image in a topic like this before). However his argument is still even if it was a "fair use" it is superceded by a "free use" image. My suggestion was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Promo_mel_gibson.jpg --Koncorde 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Problem solved!

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

request for citation re 'Liquid violence'

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

from 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)

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

Unlock this article immediately

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

Demand, indeed! Nice use of the sarcasm. 7/10, I'd have given you a 9 but the "founding principles" bit made me snort coca cola up the back of my nose.--Koncorde 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke? Eh? I mean, it's only "locked" if you don't have an account or can't READ: Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled (see semi-protection policy). Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account. 67.171.150.161 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Peggy Noonan for Readers Digest

From Fox News:

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 …"

Which Gibson said that Hutton or Mel?!

Mel. (RD isn't going to interview, Hutton, fer crissakes)Gzuckier 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibson told Noonan he thought the Holocaust actually happened, refuting his father’s belief that it didn’t occur at all. But Gibson equivocated, citing a friend who’d been in the Holocaust because "he worked in a concentration camp." 67.171.150.161 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson actually said what any Revisionist would believes as well("atrocities happened"). While one can of course should have serious doubts about the Holocaust tales. Possibly he noticed that.

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

Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster

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

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

Picture

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

Indeed, this is not really a good picture. Intangible 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then find another fair use image. Until that happens, this will have to do. Interestingstuffadder 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Discussions

The Red Herring of Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitism

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

His father is a Holocaust denier.

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

• Unlike his father (name), a Holocaust denier, Mel Gibson has shown respect and sensitivity to Jewish people.
  • Or something like that. --Uncle Ed 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems perfectly fine to me as is. It's alot easier to back a claim saying his father was a denier than to prove he's "shown respect and sensitivity to the jewish people", which is pretty flowery. Liu Bei 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is now an official police report which documents that the police officer who arrested Gibson claims Gibson spouted anti-Jewish sentiments during his arrest, I would say that at the very least it is now fair to say, with citation, that Gibson has expressed said sentiments. Pacian 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good enough argument to convince the other anti-semetic drunks that Mel Gibson is either anti-semetic, or a drunk. Their circular argument will be: He spewed forth anti-semetic hate speech, because he was drunk. He was drunk because the Jews drove him to drink. Funny how some Mel Gibson supporters are in denial about two traits they share with him.

Your comment is agreeable but irrelevant. If someone says "Jews are evil", and then comes back and says "I didn't mean it, I was drunk," that doesn't change the fact that they said it. Ergo the fact would be "Person said anti-semetic thing." Thus it is okay to say that in an article about said person. Pacian 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, he never said he didn't mean it, he merely said he was drunk. Gzuckier 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if he was drunk? The guy is anti-Semetic, saying they caused all the wars, using the words "f--king Jews". I used to think the guy was alright, but ... he just went too far.

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

How antisemitic do you have to be to suspect a random cop might be a Jew? Gzuckier 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Very anti-Semetic. He claims that racism and prejudice is against his beliefs, but his own personal views got in the way of that.

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

Plus he needs history lessons, or he would know for example, the Jews had nothing to do with the Mongol invasions of Japan.

Well, the cop WAS Jewish... a REAL anti-Semite could spot a Jew from a mile away. Flannel 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Accusations of anti-Semitism

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

And, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with this comment: "The comments themselves, and the insuring aftermath, show the incredible power that large Jewish-controlled media conglomerates have over the American public and media." Is that really appropriate? Someone explain it to me, if it is. Eggos 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can say to that is, "the illiterati speak!"... what on God's green earth is "the insuring aftermath" supposed to mean? Not only is the edit inappropriate, it bespeaks inexcusable ignorance. [I assume the illiterate contributor meant ensuing aftermath, but the edit had no redeeming value whatsoever, even had its spelling been correct...] Tomer^talk 06:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not quoted in order to maintain neutrality (they are listed under his DUI, and available in news sources and the like). For an encyclopedia the entry need only note he said antisemitic things, and apologised and retracted those antisemitic things. The apology is quoted so as to make 'reparations' to his public image on the back of his apology. In all likelihood the apology will even be trimmed away in time but for now it is required in order to defend him not being included in an antisemite category amongst other things.--Koncorde 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"for an encyclopedia" it might be more informative to the reader to read whether he said "sometimes i feel that some jews irritate me a bit" or "i think all jews should die, hitler was right, kill them all, i donate tons of money to hezbollah". What is this trend on wikipedia of late to "help" the reader by removing as much information as possible so that they might have the joy of looking elsewhere to fill in the blanks? Gzuckier 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an entry for the DUI linked directly from the topic in question. It was created so that the main wiki didn't have to contain all the gory details. Wasn't my choice I must add.--Koncorde 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously still clinging to the belief that Mr. Gibson does not hold anti-Semitic views? Because otherwise, I can't imagine why you would encourage undermining the utility of this article by withholding his sourced, referenced, and confirmed statements regarding Jews from the section specifically concerning these statements (“Alleged anti-Semitism”). Sorry if I’m coming across here as impatient, but this is really getting absurd.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not for you or I to decide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public poll or oracle. If you can quantify and insert an NPOV part of the article that would justify his inclusion as an antisemite then feel free to do so. There is a single source of "antisemitism", which is balanced out by his retraction. Therefore the weight of the article is neutral. If there were more accusations, more statements, no retraction, no promised reparations, no "mitigating" circumstances etc then you could (and I'd be happy for you to) include him alongside Adolf Hitler as you seem so determined to do.--Koncorde 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

As others have pointed out, his denials "balance out" his earlier anti-Semitic remarks no more than calling Baruch Goldstein a "saint" whose "hands are innocent and... heart is pure," as his apologists have done, justifies removing him from Category:Mass murderers or Category:Hate crimes. That is: not at all.

Because the article now seems to include as much evidence to support Gibson's inclusion in Category:Anti-Semitic people as is typical of that category, I'll go ahead and make the edit right now.

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your comparison doesn't work there. Did Baruch Goldstein deny it himself, or not publicly identify with those beliefs? Gibson publicly does not identify with those beliefs and as part of Wiki's policy on Living Persons Biographies should not be included in the category until he does so. I have no idea where you're getting the "as others have pointed out" as nobody has pointed anything that could be construed as saying that. This topic seems destined for arbitration.--Koncorde 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Denying that you are an anti-Semite does not make it so. All else aside, is this not the essence of your argument against including him in this category? Could we agree to include Mr. Gibson in Category:Anti-Semites instead of Category:Anti-Semitic people (the two categories have different criteria for inclusion)?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a poll of public opinion. And I have no idea what you said in your second sentence. The essence of my argument is that Wikipedia specifically states articles should be NPOV. His antisemitism is a POV! You are purposely pushing your opinion onto the document whereas I am simply trying to maintain the documents neutrality. I don't much care if he is or isn't antisemitic - but I cannot in good faith allow him to be titled one because someone believes he is.

Attempting to fudge the category hardly strengthens your argument as it merely looks like you're just desperate. I've told you there is a category for "allegedly antisemitic person" which is where Eugene Robinsons quotes would come into play. He's still only an opinion though.

On another note a topic should only include a quote once - not in two seperate sections (or in 3 if you include the seperate DUI section) unless you intend to include the entirity of both apologies alongside.--Koncorde 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotes in the quotes do not include the entirety of his rantings and ravings, so unclear why the entirety of his ap;logogies would need to be included. Feel free to include a key excerpt from his apology in the quotes section, though...I agree that this would make the quotes section more balanced and I certainly wouldnt revert it. Interestingstuffadder 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the entirity of the rantings and ravings if you wish. The objection is merely to repeated use of the same quotes within 1 document, without affording the same courtesy to his apology. Personally I wouldn't include either merely a reference to his antisemitic words, and antisemitic apology - the reader can then pursue the details in the DUI. This solves any arguments over neutrality of this article.

Oh, and for Banzai - please stop adding the category. You should not defame or libel a person on wikipedia and the "discussion" line is simply a delaying tactic. How about you don't put the category in until it has been "discussed".--Koncorde 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, the view that "denials don't make it so" has ample precedent, even right here on Wikipedia. Abu Daoud denies being a terrorist, for example, yet he's listed in Category:Terrorists. Would you remove him from this category because you think it's any more POV than anything else on this site? How about because it's defamatory? Before doing so, I'd suggest you read WP:POINT.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the WP:POINT bit yourself, there's a section for arguing over acts of "terrorism". I don't believe it is defamatory to accuse Abu Daoud of committing murder whilst part of DSO. He actively identified himself with an organisation that is/was officially recognised as a Terrorist or Militant group that conducted acts of Terrorism. Mel Gibson doesn't actively identify himself with antisemitic beliefs (and therefore under wikipedia policy for categories should not be included, as has been pointed out by myself and Elliskev along with other counts).--Koncorde 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gibson doesn't "actively identify himself" with anti-Semitic beliefs, whereas Abu Daoud actively used to identify himself with a terrorist organization; therefore, Gibson should not be listed under anti-Semites, while the latter is a terrorist? C'mon—this is a stretch. This line of argumentation sounds like Johnnie Cochran grabbing at straws.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm. I never said he was a Terrorist or what category he should be in, but I can see the argument as to why he is included. I can't see the argument as to why Gibson is included. I don't believe Abu's fine name is being besmirched by being connected with the slaughter of a dozen athletes. I do think Gibson is being besmirched if he's included in a section including Adolf Hitler, Goerring and the leaders of the Holocaust. I believe it is an over the top reaction to his statements that cannot be justified, nor should it be under wiki rules. If you wish to clear Abu's name feel free.--Koncorde 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about Mr. Gibson, not Abu Daoud, and I have no particular interest in clearing the latter’s name. But nor do I have any interest in defending Gibson’s name. Why not put him in a category to which, according to verifiable statements in the article, he would appear to belong? Why does it even matter who else is listed there alongside him?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because he could sue wikipedia?--Koncorde 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the quotes in the "quotes" section. Including all of the ranting and ravings would be inconsistent with the quotes sections format; this section consists of one or two sentence snippets (see the other quotes). As for including these quotes at all in this section, it seems difficult to argue that they are less notable than the other quotes included in this section. Interestingstuffadder 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely likely the "quotes" in the quotes section could/should be either inserted into the relevant parts of the article itself and removed from the quotes section (the quote section I would presume should be for snippets that do not fit into the train of the article, or would disrupt the flow). I haven't checked to see if this is possible or if the other non-antisemitic/apology quotes are repeats also (it's possible that they are). However the page runs the risk of overlapping/reincorporating much of what is already recorded in the seperate DUI wiki.--Koncorde 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, haven't these quotes been removed from the DUI section and relegated to a seperate article? (i admit I'm not certain, with the ever changing nature of this article) Interestingstuffadder 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I said. :D the page runs the risk of overlapping/reincorporating much of what is already recorded in the seperate DUI wiki --Koncorde 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly (sorry for not reading varefully)....there is some utility to having a list of seperate notable quotes on a celebrity's main article, particularly those quotes that are not mentioned elsewhere in that main article. Interestingstuffadder 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned that somewhere else amongst the discussion also. There would be no problem including a seperate wiki for his quotes as under other famous person articles. I have no idea what the template is however.--Koncorde 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this insistence on putting everything potentially controversial in seperate wikis? relative to lots of articles in the encyclopedia, this article isnt overly long. Let's just keep the quotes where they are? Interestingstuffadder 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No insistence from me. I was actually referring to the quotes that do not fit within the flow of the article. Controversial is fine, providing it remains NPOV--Koncorde 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you have no problem with the correctly cited "jews cause wars" and "sugar tits" quotes remaining in the seperate quotes section? Interestingstuffadder 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer them to be in context with the actual story and apology (the majority of quotes included in that section are movie based or regarding his faith - other quotes, such as regarding homosexuality etc are included as part of the case). I don't believe it is right to simply give one side of the situation as it instantly sets a bias POV. The Eugene Robinson quote for me is also POV, and is 'leading' the reader to his POV. Is Eugene a qualified doctor, psychiatrist, counsellor or in fact anything to do with the medical profession or an expert in the field of alcoholic studies? Really it should simply say something akin to "some critics have made the case alcohol would not implant antisemitic ideas in his head" rather than going into an unfounded, and unsourced diatrabe of what alcohol does and doesn't do or can achieve.--Koncorde 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But these are quotes and they are notable. yes, most of these quotes are from movies; he is a movie star, what do you expect. And I would argue that if any snappy one liners about homsexuality that hhe has made and which have gotten substantial media attention would definitely be includable in the quotes section. As for NPOV, he said these things and sources are provided; if you are arguing that it is pov to include these but not his retraction, as I already said, I would have no problem with you or another user adding a key line from the retraction to the quotes section. Interestingstuffadder 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed quotes and notable. But they're out of context. If he hadn't made an apology, twice, then there wouldn't be any case for me to argue that they're out of context.

• I believe really the Vatican II quote could be included as part of his views on the church.
• His "it was me in the cross" should probably be part of his Passion of the Christ section dealing with his cameo.
• Holocaust part of the overall piece on the holocaust (i.e. with the other quote he makes regarding people he knew working in the camps).
• The "Industry" quote stands alone as it has no predecessing section.
• Hamlet quote should probably be tied into the Halmet section.
• Family, probably should go in his Family section.
• Screw ups stands alone, though probably can be tied into his bar fights and alcoholism.
• Sugar Tits = part of the DUI section
• Fucking Jews = part of the DUI section.

I think the quote section is somewhat superfluous and detracts from the topic as a whole.

Oh and the new quote from Bryon Adinoff carries more weight and justification than Eugene Robinson I must say (one is pointless ranting from a unqualified source, the other is at least a specialist in the field - though the BAC section under Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body could do with a mention to provide counter point and balance.--Koncorde 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semetic category

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

In light of his purposefully misleading statements wrt The Passion of the Christ and his father's history of antisemitism [not to blame the sins of the father on the son, but Gibson himself is on record as stating that his father has had a tremendously influential rôle in his life...whether because he disagrees or agrees with his dad, I'm not going to presume to judge...], I have to admit, although he may not be a vitriolic or outspoken antisemite, I have pretty good reason to believe he's no philosemite. Tomer^talk 06:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Crying out to the Jewish community for help after a sincere appology that has been accepted by the Anti-Defamation League seems like the behavior of somebody who is not anti-semetic. Whether you think he is a philosemite or not, he certainly cannot be grouped into the anti-semite category.Karatenerd 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as how a person who gets drunk and browbeats his wife and children, then sobers up, apologizes, and professes his love for them cannot be said to have any hostility issues with regard to his family. Gzuckier 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He should not have apologized at all, except perhabs to the policemen arresting him. The whole issue strikingly demonstrates the influence hate groups like the ADL do wield.

No! The policeman should have apologized to him!Gzuckier 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor have I advocated that he be. I thought you were looking for feedback, not pandering for support. My bad. Tomer^talk 08:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, the ADL is hardly the ultimate arbiter of whether or not someone is an antisemite. The organization has long since lost any due respect outside the far left wing of American Jewish circles [occupied, sadly, by a distinct majority of American Jews]... But that's just my POV, hardly worthy of consideration in this article or any other...Tomer^talk 08:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to re-do this statement. I think that looking from a non-POV perspective that Gibson should not be in the Anti-Semetic category. I am not "pandering for support" but rather trying to discuss things. My un-biased opinion is that he is not an Anti-Semite.Karatenerd 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from his adherence to Traditionalist Catholicism and his recent drunken antisemitic rant, I don't know of any other tangible evidence to support putting him in that category. I can, however, understand whence comes the assertion that he fits like a round peg into the round hole of that category. Tomer^talk 09:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You talk as if his connection to Traditionalist Catholicism and his recent statements to a police officer are insignificant, not enough to suggest Gibson is anti-Semitic. I disagree. The views of Traditionalist Catholicism are well known, and alcohol is well know to lower inhebitions: Of course he wouldn't have said if sober. But clearly it was a thought in his mind. Sober, he had better sense than to say what he really felt. It didn't just materialize out of smoke just because he was drunk, it was there all along. 67.171.150.161 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See, if the thought "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" occurs to you even without speaking it, you are an antisemite. Gzuckier 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gzuckier, I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. But of course you are right, it does not take verbalizing a belief to make it yours. Just because a person doesn’t publicly admit, or openly talk about their anti-Semitic views doesn’t mean they don’t have them. In Mel’s case, many of his views are “spoken” through his actions, the projects he supports. Now we have his words as well, so his views on Jews in more or less perfectly clear. Therefore, as a factual thing, it has a place in the Wikipedia article. Jake b 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

no, for once i'm not being sarcastic. this is like one of those "you might be a redneck if..." things. In fact, to enlarge, if you think it's evident that "racial/religious/or other group X" is responsible for all "bad thing Y", you're a bigot; and if you think you're not a bigot because it's so obviously true, then you are REALLY REALLY a bigot.Gzuckier 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"see "I am not a Nazi polka" Gzuckier 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

That's all Wikipedia is, and that's all it can ever be: opinions. I suppose nobody would object to my delisting most of the living people on Category:Terrorists, since Wikipedia "can't take sides" on whether or not they are, in fact, terrorists?

No, of course not. A better solution would be just to accept the fact that Wikipedia will be stating an opinion one way or another no matter what it does, and so we might as well state the verifiable, sourced opinion that Gibson is an anti-semite.

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Banzai, see the list below. Add to it WP:POINT. --Elliskev 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Suggested reading

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• WP:NOR
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Categorization of people
• And this

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

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

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

If they had lucrative film careers they might. Interestingstuffadder 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think his apology has to do with money? He has hundreds of millions of dollars. Clearly he sincerely is sorry for his actions and wants to make things right with the Jewish community and you should respect that and take him seriously.Karatenerd 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that "Karatenerd" appears to be unfamiliar with the history of terrorist groups, many of whom do exactly what he presumes they don't (PKK, IRA, &c.)? And back on topic, it matters not one bit that Gibson claims not to be an anti-semite, or even that he apologizes for being an anti-semite. There's a reason for that Wikipedia policy against autobiographies, after all. As far as concerns those of us uninterested third parties editing this page, all signs point to the appropriateness of his inclusion in Category:Anti-Semitic people.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

There's no need to vote. He openly denied, apologised and disowned the words he had said as neither being representative of himself, or of his beliefs. For instance you could include Category:Criminals (providing the case is stated clearly within the bio). The sections posted by Elliskev clearly point out the various reasons for why he should not be placed within the categories. "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" (under use of categories, also covered in Invasion of Privacy#False light). In which case Mel does not publicly self identify with the belief as he refutes it entirely.--Koncorde 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: inclusion in Category:Criminals, that's actually not a bad idea, if indeed he's found (or pleads) guilty to driving while intoxicated. I realize you were just trying to make a point, but now that you've suggested it, I'll be sure to add him to that category if (when) he's convicted.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was being serious. He could well be included in that if anyone wished. But not the antisemitic due to wikipedia regulations.--Koncorde 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with a vote. Official policy:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." --Elliskev 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

---

I've got it!

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

I presume you are being funny and not serious. --Blue Tie 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it in a few minutes.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I POINT you to the suggested reading list. Please don't be disruptive. --Elliskev 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I fully support this compromise. Interestingstuffadder 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a compromise. A compromise is something two sides agree on or by the dictionary definition: "a middle way between two extremes". This is neither a compromise by definition, or a compromise between the two component arguments - particularly when one side of the argument has the full weight of Wikipedia guidlines behind it.--Koncorde 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...I think that the course of this discussion has more than demonstrated that this situation falls within ambiguities in wikipedia policy, eg what constitutes self identification and what can be taken back by a self-identifier, so, friend, it is not as clear cut as you suggest. Also, this seems to me to be very much a "middle way between two extremes". Interestingstuffadder

Two wrongs don't make a right. Two extremes don't make a middle ground. It makes for an erratic and unprofessional document. As for it not being "clear cut". It is. The biography guidelines ask for Sensitivity and that they should "adhere strictly" to wikipedia content policies - particularly the wikipedia:libel page. "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". Mel Gibson denies being antisemitic. It is therefore defamatory to include him in that category regardless of "verifiability" or "truth" of the matter. You cannot be two diametrically opposed things.

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

*The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question

*The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light."

If the man was convicted, charged and/or unrepentant a case could be made. In this case he denies all association with the category, apologises profusely, and it is (if not libellous) at least not the place of a NPOV Article to make that judgement call.--Koncorde 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that the case for Mr. Gibson's inclusion in such a category is made in the article text, the facts are included, and the facts are sourced. In addition, in the case of controversial, pejoratively-named categories, it's appropriate to explain the criteria for inclusion on the category page itself. See, for example, Category:Murderers, Category:Rapists, Category:Pederasts. There's no reason the same couldn't be done with Category:Anti-Semites; a copy-paste job from Category:Terrorists would be a good place to start.

So which is it? Explain criteria for inclusion on the category page, or simply include Mr. Gibson in both Anti-Semites and Non-anti-Semites? Come to think of it, why not do both?

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're reading because the case isn't made for him to be included in either. There are, of course, his private statements made into public record whilst drunk - but then there is his actual publicly issued retraction of those statements and apology. He is therefore not an "antisemite". If you wish then there is a subcategory Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people, but the same restrictions regarding defamatory statements remain. I repeat - Mel Gibson has apologised, has formally stated that he is not antisemitic, that he is ashamed of what he said, and that he does not believe in what he said. He therefore does not "publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question", in fact publicly he is on record as standing against it religiously.

Not to suggest the degree of offense is similar, but there are plenty of convicted murderers who deny being murderers. Does that denial remove them from the category? Particularly since occasionally one or them is proved to be correct in the denial? Gzuckier 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Conviction is a matter of public record. It's somewhat hard to deny you're a murderer when you're convicted and serving a life sentence (unless a sub category "convicted people who maintain innocence" is created). When they're vindicated publicly then they have the category removed. Personally I don't overly like the whole category system when it lumps people all together. When you include Murder in Cold blood alongside accidental death, alongside mass murder, alongside murder in self defence etc it gets a bit much.--Koncorde 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No case can be made for him being philosemitic as there's no credible source, denying antisemitism does not make philosemitic.--Koncorde 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a mockery. You're actually supporting the idea of creating a category of "non-anti-semites" just so Mel Gibson can be added to an anti-semites category? First, the new category would never survive CfD. Second, it's just plain ridiculous. Non-anti-semite?! Give me a break. This is WP:POINT in action. --Elliskev 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep to the subject folks

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

David Ahenakew disavowed his anti-semitic remarks and was still convicted of wilfully promoting hatred and is listed in the category of anti-semitic people. If the category's good enough for Ahenakew, it's good enough for Gibson. Fishhead64 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read Ahenakew's text you'll see why he is included in that category: "At his trial, he later recanted his apology and blamed his outburst on his diabetes, some wine, and a change in medication, a defense that was rejected by the Court. Strangely, however, he also testified that he still believed Jews had started the Second World War". So he recanted his apology for saying what he said, he did not deny being an antisemite, and then he went on to say during his defence that he believed the Jews were responsible for WW2 and therefore their own destruction.

Now whilst his initial interview with the press raises a few verifiable points (i.e. Jewish control over German industry/commerce prior to WW2) that alone doesn't justify having them wiped out in order to re-assert Nationalistic control, nor does it mean they "started it". Nor does referring to them as a disease garner any great sympathy for his ideas.

His appeal will be interesting to read. But until then it is right that he is included as an antisemite.--Koncorde 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Removal from Anti-Semetic category

• Mel Gibson is Only Human

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

He's an adult. The law doesn't make a distinction betwen words & acts said and committed when drunk and when sober; neither should we. He is quoted on a police report as making remarks that are undeniably anti semitic. Therefore, he is anti-semitic. Interestingstuffadder 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Like all material here, just provide sources saying that Gibson is anti-semetic and you can add it in. Thanks--Tom 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the NYT quotes him as making comments about the "fucking jews". Is this not a sufficient source for you? Interestingstuffadder 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In which case, this little ditty from the article also seems to help...a prominent jewish leader calling him an anti-semite: In response, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who was one of The Passion's most vocal critics, released a statement saying that Gibson's apology was "unremorseful and insufficient" and that the group hoped that "Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite." [5]

Gibson said that he has disgraced himself and his family and he is sorry for what he did. What more do does Foxman want? Yes, and hollywood has such high standards to hold up...this is the kind of ammunition Foxman craved as soon as he started criticizing the Passion. I'm not anti-semetic in anyway, and Gibson SHOULD be ashamed. I just don't like people being unfair. I also think the mugshot is unfair and I will be changing it.Karatenerd 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mugshot may be unfair as a primary image for this article. but it should be included near the discussion of this incident. Interestingstuffadder 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The ADL has been sued for defamation for unfairly accusing people of anti-Semitism before and has been mired in a number of controversies. I would hardly consider them a reliable source. Deuterium 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like George Bush might get drunk and suddenly shout out "I love Islam!" because when you're drunk you typically say the opposite of what you believe? Gzuckier 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Please don't insult us with your damned sneering arrogance, Jake B. Or some of us may argue that there is no question amongst "intelligent people" that many Israelis and right-leaning Jews amongst the diaspora are racists and gentile haters who campaign in a McCarthyist style (just look at the reaction to this case - utterly hysterical). I tell you what: I can provide more evidence to support my assertion than you can to support yours (cf ADL). And by the way, according to the ADL every single gentile in the world who isn't an Israel supporter is a Jew hater and racist who should be condemned and ostracised, so quoting one of the leaders is like quoting Hitler in an article on Jews. Many gentiles see the ADL as nasty, racist and very dangerous. And by the way, compare Gibson's comments with some of those posted by Jews on the Ha'aretz online forums: he's positively liberal compared to them (I quote from recent posts: .....99.99% of Arabs are terrorists [does this one sound familiar?].....let's just nuke them all and stop wasting our soldiers' lives.....you can't trust Muslims to hold to peace.....Mel Gibson is a Nazi.....etc etc ad infinitum, plus hundreds of comments saying the civilians of the Qana massacre got what they deserved. Try posting a comment there in which you ask for Israel to be calm, not over-react, and spare civilians - without actually taking a side - and quickly and inevitably you'll be called a Jew-hater, anti-semite and supporter of Hamas, Hizballah, Al Qaida, blah blah blah - and this is Israel's liberal media.) 86.7.209.101 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"And by the way, according to the ADL every single gentile in the world who isn't an Israel supporter is a Jew hater and racist who should be condemned and ostracised," That simply isn't true. And what do the postings on Ha'aretz have to do with the fact that Gibson is an anti-semite and probably has been since childhood? His father is a Holocaust denier, and it doesn't look like the apple fell far from the tree. The basic gist of your point is that it doesn't matter what Gibson says, he doesn't deserve this fallout, because the Jews are nasty as well? Why not just outright endorse what he's saying, and come straight out with it? JF Mephisto 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go yet again, the inevitable false dichotomy and infantile, paranoid McCarthyist logic (sic) as demonstrated by JF Mephisto: If you don't agree with a Jew or support the Jews then you simply must be a Jew hater, blah blah blah etc ad infinitum. I do not agree with a word he [Gibson] says, though I defend absolutely his right to free speech. Your interpretation of my post and assumption of my underlying views is as sophisticated and scientific as an essay by a five year old child. Go away, back to primary school where the world is a much simpler place and everything so black and white. PS Unfortunately for you Mephisto, my name is Joe (Joseph) Werthmuller: my Grandfather survived Auschwitz though lost his parents and sister there. Did yours? This gives me every right to comment on anti-Semitism in any way I want. Yes, we Jews who reject Zionism, colonial war and right-wing Jewish hatred and propoganda do exist, though we seem to be more hated than Adolf Hitler...... 86.7.209.101 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly over-sesitivity here with Mr Gibson's remarks, he shows he is human and makes mistakes, especially when drunk. What he has actually shown is that he is compassionate and remorseful for his actions, he would'nt have apologised otherwise. If he was anti-Semetic he would never have apologised. Is someone branded an alcoholic due to excessive drinking on the odd occasion, I dont think so. Religion is always an emotive topic, what I see in Gibson is a strong and passionate faith and I personal wish there were more like him:--203.45.94.81 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Phil 1 August 2006.

When did he apologize? He apologized for being drunk, not for accusing that the Jews start all the wars. Presumably, he believes the Jews started WWII. Frankly, I'd prefer a nonbigoted drunk over a sober bigot any day.Gzuckier 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the article "and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable".--Koncorde 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

In vino veritas. No matter how drunk and belligerent I get, I never start raving about blacks or gays. Because that isn't how I think - stuff like that doesn't come to mind. If what he's said is true - "fucking Jews," "the Jews are responsible for all the wars int he world," and asking the deputy if he was a Jew - taken into account with the past controversies regarding Passion, then he does need to be on the list. JF Mephisto 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"In vino veritas" is a subjective judgment. Maybe he said what he really feels, maybe he didn't. Unless he owns up to what he said, then it's simply a matter of your opinion versus what he says his true feelings are. His quotes, assuming they're accurate (and my guess is that they are), are in the article, as is his apology. Let people read both and decide for themselves. Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to divine what he "really" thinks. Azathoth68 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldnt try to divine what he really thinks. Instead, as he is a non-insane adult we should go by what he says. saying "the fucking jews cause all the wars" is undeniably anti-semitic. the fact that he was drunk has no bearing on this -- adults are held accountable for hat they say and do regardless of whether they are intoxicated. Interestingstuffadder 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He also tried to piss on the jail room floor. As I said, he wasn't playing with a full deck of cards that night. His quotes are in the article (and all over the TV), so let people make up their own minds. I wish people would stop trying to get Wikipedia to render official judgments on living people. Bill O'Reilly has the audacity to claim that he isn't a conservative, and Wikipedia doesn't render judgment on him and call him a liar. Instead, it lists his political positions and lets readers make up their own minds how to classify him. Azathoth68 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And, as I said, the law makes no distinctions base don intoxication and we shouldnt either. Interestingstuffadder 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is an encyclopedia, not a court attempting to render a verdict. Wikipedia is not here to pass judgment on living people. (Your argument, by the way, is invalid for other reasons as well. First, anti-Semitism by itself is not a crime or punishable offense in the United States, so there is no “legal standard” that can be applied. Second, if you were trying to establish anti-Semitism as a motive for another crime in a court of law, then the defense would have absolutely every right to introduce evidence that Gibson was drunk and acting irrationally, and it would be up to the jury to decide whether he was truly anti-Semitic. Wikipedia, however, is not a jury.) Azathoth68 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The report has been confirmed privately to the New York times on the condition of anyonymity from people close to the case. LA Times I think too. You also have to factor in Gibson's apology for saying "despicable things." It isn't gospel, but it's pretty damning. JF Mephisto 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Because the citing is alleged. For instance I could produce a document that states Interestingstuffadder said "Jews all suck" and post it up. This would then be used as sufficient evidence of anti-semitism on your part regardless of if you apologised for something you did or didn't do. The Police Report has not been confirmed by a valid source (only the usual 'silent' types, which could mean anyone or no-one) whilst the Newspapers are basing all their responses upon 1 original source which cannot and has not proved its authenticity in the first place (or even the entire report - where's the other pages?)--Koncorde 13:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If interestingstuffadder was quoted as saying this in the newspaper of record (the NYT) and the newspaper said it had corrobating evidence that this he said this, you would be absolutely justified in calling him an anti-semite. later aplologies don't matter -- he said it...this is particularly true in light of the numerous pieces of less direct evidence of his anti-semitism. now we have him making it absolutely plain on a police report. Interestingstuffadder 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Woah, bit of a leap there. His "less direct" evidence I suppose is "The Passion" (contentious at best) and refusal to badmouth his father (don't air your dirty linen in public). Otherwise he has repeatedly denied and justified his beliefs to the extent of saying that if he believed any anti-semitic ideas he would be going against the Catholic Church. This entire piece is based on TMZ's ability to get hold of an "alleged" police report in which various accusations are made against Gibson. As yet this single piece of evidence (and the only apparent piece) has not been corraborated by a single named source. The NYT, TMZ, LA Times etc have simply quoted each other (and subsequently other news sources have quoted them). At no point has the original source been questioned. The acid test for me is the fact that the BBC has kept its hand close to its chest throughout this, refusing to pillory a man before all the facts are available. Your logic crucifies a man in public long before the facts are revealed--Koncorde 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, NYT and LA Times verfied the documents independently. And so did the Chicago Tribute. And AP has reported independently that Gibson's comments are in an offical police report.[6] Crumbsucker 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Verified documents independently" = gave TMZ a ring/anonymous "law enforcement" official. The "official police report" still relies on an anonymous "law enforcement" source. That AP also changes TMZ's position from one of "the source has been redacted" to "considering eliminating the anti-Semitic remarks from its official report". It's all just repeating itself in a very cyclical way, self perpetuating news.--Koncorde 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you listened properly. Private sources within the Malibu PD have confirmed the contents of TMZ's report. It is not a seperate allegation. JF Mephisto 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

At least he is still listed in Category:Humanitarians....for now... :) --Tom 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for mediation

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

Well, speaking somewhat seriously, one problem is that antisemitism is kind of a broad category. Perhaps we could subdivide it into practicing antisemites, theoretical antisemites, and antisemitic when drunk. lumping gibson in with hitler does seem a bit absurd, but ignoring something that is and has been discussed at great length doesn't seem right. Gzuckier 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people category. However I feel you could have the same problems as with the main antisemite categories.--Koncorde 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be just as problematic to include him in some qualified category. Regardless of how it's qualified, it's a characterization based on opinion. This is not the place for opinions on labelling living people. --Elliskev 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything is an opinion. We have Gibson's birthdate based on what we believe to be reliable sources. I suppose maybe the question is not so much "is he an antisemite", as it is "is he antisemitic enough so as to make that something worth labelling him as", since I am pretty sure if you followed most people around, you could find evidence for some degree of bigotry, antisemitism, etc. In keeping with the general question, do you characterize people by the worst things they've ever done, the best things they've ever done, or by their average behavior? Gzuckier 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

or option 4; Benefit of the doubt in a case where they might sue you :D I think it would be harsh to label him as such given this is hopefully the only time he will mount such an outburst.--Koncorde 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't having a cat based on opinions expressed by notable/verifiable sources protect us? Interestingstuffadder 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be out of fear of a lawsuit and CYA. How about common deceny? --Elliskev 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The guy has been accused of anti-semitism by a high official at arguably the most prominent US opponent of anti-semitism. This is notable and it is verifiable. Therefore it makes sense to put him in a category of folks who have been accused of anti-semitism. Your conception of "common decency" seems like POV here, as this is clearly notable and verifiable. Interestingstuffadder 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is responsible for repeating/publishing their allegations (and the responsibility is taken on by the person adding the category). It's why they say not to do it unless a persons public opinion is in support of that belief. Given his apology it's not exactly crystal clear that it is his opinion (seeing as he absolutely refutes it, and denies believing the "despicable" things he said). The accusations are verifiable, the quotes are verifiable - but so is are his defensive quotes, and the accusations do not qualify as guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.--Koncorde 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The Ahenakew precedent

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

The closest analogue in the US justice system are convictions for commissions of "hate crimes". In this instance, unless someone can demonstrate that Gibson's drunken driving and fleeing arrest were a result of hatred for Jews, there's no grounds to convict him of a hate crime. Statements in unspeakably bad taste, for sure, but that's not against the law in the US. Ahenakew's conviction was specifically for his antisemitic remarks. If citation-worthy evidence can be brought that Ahenakew is not antisemitic, I'd fully support removing him from the category as well. Tomer^talk 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the two. First, as TShilo12 mentioned, making anti-Semitic comments is not by itself a crime in the United States. Second, Ahenakew was not drunk and acting irrationally when he made his statements. He publicly offered up his views, and moreover, he did so as a political figure. Finally, he was formally convicted of promoting anti-Semitism. Wikipedia did not pass judgement on him; a court of law did. Mel Gibson has not been formally convicted of anything, and he vigorously denies being anti-Semitic. To label him an anti-Semite without qualification is tantamount to Wikipedia calling him a liar and convicting him in the court of public opinion. His comments and his apology speak for themselves; let people read both and make up their own minds. Azathoth68 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not discussing "convicted of antisemitic speech crime". his behavior in the form of speech is antisemitic; as i said above, any sentence of the form "all members of this racial/religious/etc. group are something bad" is bigoted, and anybody who says that is bigoted. in fact, anybody who thinks that is bigoted, but we don't have access to that data the way we do to recorded public utterances. denying bigotry is hardly proof of not being bigoted, even when it is sincere. some of the worst southern bigots truly believed they were/are not bigoted, and that they are in fact great friends of the "colored". as i said above, however, one problem is the overly broad category; frankly, if all mr. gibson ever expresses in terms of antisemitism is a short drunken tirade and a snuff film where jews are the bad guys, his antisemitism is basically his own business, as far as I'm concerned, even though I couldn't in honesty deny its existence. Gzuckier 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a fair and justified point. We all know George Bush doesn't like Black People, but we don't see him categorised as such :D--Koncorde 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, as your smiley suggests, Bush is nowhere recorded as ever uttering epithets against blacks. My point in citing Ahenakew is not, as Gzuckier rightly notes, the conviction - all the conviction highlights is the courts ajudicated that his remarks were anti-semitic, and that his pre-trial apology did not mitigate the fact that they "wilfully promoted" hatred against an identifiable group. My main point was his categorisation as an anti-semitic person, which (I assume) are based upon the remarks themselves, not whether Ahenakew actually owns up to being bigoted against Jews. As the conviction demonstrates, even subsequent remorse doesn't drain the comments of their meaning.

Finally, as for the idea of categorising Gibson as allegedly anti-semitic - surely many people are "allegedly" anti-Semitic. For example, Martin Luther and Martin Niemöller, now being dead, are unable to respond to subsequent charges: Their anti-semitism is deduced from their utterances. In a similar vein, Jean-Marie Le Pen is also categorised as anti-semitic, yet the WP article does not cite his response to the charge, if indeed he has ever made any. Fishhead64 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Less 'snark', more 'levity'. Hence ":D". We cannot tar with a broad brush as we risk drawing in people who have merely been accused off the cuff (such as Bush). I responded to Ahenakew elsewhere in this Talk page (to quote myself):

If you read Ahenakew's text you'll see why he is included in that category: "At his trial, he later recanted his apology and blamed his outburst on his diabetes, some wine, and a change in medication, a defense that was rejected by the Court. Strangely, however, he also testified that he still believed Jews had started the Second World War". So he recanted his apology for saying what he said, he did not deny being an antisemite, and then he went on to say during his defence that he believed the Jews were responsible for WW2 and therefore their own destruction.

Now whilst his initial interview with the press raises a few verifiable points (i.e. Jewish control over German industry/commerce prior to WW2) that alone doesn't justify having them wiped out in order to re-assert Nationalistic control, nor does it mean they "started it". Nor does referring to them as a disease garner any great sympathy for his ideas.

His appeal will be interesting to read. But until then it is right that he is included as an antisemite

As for the "allegedly" bit, that was also my concern and Elliskev - but at least it was more accurate than simply palming Gibson in with antisemites in a way that is against Wiki policy on living person biographies.--Koncorde 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've been off for a few days entertaining guests. It seems that there hasn't been any discussion on this. Do we have an understanding one way or the other? I'm inclined to believe that a consenus exists to keep the anti-Semitic people category out of here. As far as the derivative categories go, I'm against them, but not on the basis of official policy. I think we can deal with any of those on a case-by-case basis with "votes" and whatnot. Disagreements welcome. --Elliskev 01:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a matter of concensus or vote. This is simply a matter of policy. Avoid these speculative labels in the face of a living person's denial. --Blue Tie 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Changed nationality

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

You're missing the point that there is an Australian culture which operates independently of citizenship and race. Livivng in one country between the ages of 12 and 20 is highly significant. Given his recent antics I don't think many of my fellow Australians would want to claim him anyway *lol*. Grant65 | Talk 10:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm of Italian ancestry. But really, I'm just a plain old American White Guy. Now, my father, at one time, worked for The Government. Suppose like many American White Guys, as a child I had spent 10 or 15, maybe even 20 years in Asia with my father who maybe worked there. Would I be Asian? Asian-American, even? Of course not, don't be silly. The Australians may have a fondness for Mel, but that doesn't make him Australian. Jake b 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I go with american-born australian. he's immediately classified by most people as australian, and people are surprised to learn he was born in america. Gzuckier 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But he isn't American-born Australian, that simply isn't factually accurate. Jake b 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Westee seems to think that people get to chose what they are by virtue of their legal citizenship. As much as I and other Australians would like Rupert Murdoch to have become totally "American" when he abandoned his Australian citizenship, nothing could be further from the truth. Gibson is a less clear-cut case. There are many different reasons why people retain or change citizenship and Gibson has never been anything other than a U.S. citizen. Nevertheless, as Gzuckier says, Gibson is generally regarded as Australian. As Banzai said, his career started in Australia. He had a strong Australian accent in his first nine feature films, and he has strong family ties here (going back to his paternal grandmother). He did also own significant real estate in Australia but I'm not sure if he still has that.Grant65 | Talk 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And he doesn't like Bush, so he can't be a real American. He's just lucky the wikirightians aren't labelling him here as a terrorist.Gzuckier 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's neither WP:CIVIL or relevant. --Elliskev 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Grant65, Westee (myself) seems to think this is an encyclopedia with the purpose of providing factually acurate information to its users. This isn't a forum to discuss what or what does not make an Australian. Mel Gibson isn't an Australian according to just about every reasonable modern standard, plain and simple. Does he have Australian citizenship: NO NO NO. As far as family ties go well can you seriously argue that one paternal grandparent makes him an Australian (come on), and at least half of all Americans and Australians probably has at least one grandparent born somewhere else, that doesn't make a Russian American a Russian or an Irish-Australian an Irishman. And Mel Gibson is 50, he spent most of his life, including most of his childhood in the United States and not Australia; but thats all besides the point anyway. I am sorry but I see no real reason to debate this here. Lets just follow the normal objective conventions for an encyclopedia. Can't we just agree to list his nationality (American) at the top and then discuss his youth and career beginnings in Australia in the biographical section. He just isn't an American-born Australian. Also the current formulation American-born, Australian raised actor is just akward and not exactly true since as I said he spent most of his childhood in the US. Like I said I am not trying to "claim" him for America (as if I care!) but the article needs to be accurate. --Westee 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

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

• This seems strikingly premature. This is still a current event, and the article consists of a lot of contested statements. Let's wait a few weeks and see if anything dramatic happens, or if reliable sources reach a consensus, before attempting to squeeze it in here. Septentrionalis 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's a current event yes, but one completely lacking in substance. It had arrests, it had anti-semitic remarks. These things do not justify a spin-off article. We didn't have one for John Rocker. A celebrity arrest is not notable enough for its own article unless the arrest would be notable enough without the celebrity. If Cher were arrested smuggling a bomb onto a cruise ship, id say yes, if Cer were arrested for snagging some drugs, I'd say no. The same standard applies here. -M^ask 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think it would be best to have a very short summary of what happened in Mel Gibson's actual article and then supply a link to the article about his drunk driving arrest. Maintaining two articles (1 article and one section as big as an article) about essentially the same thing is kinda pointless.Karatenerd 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the two seperate articles. The DUI article is too long to be added here in full as a section and I don't think it would possible to make the article very short and brief without leaving out important details and facts around the incident. Maybe at some point in the future when the issue is not so current it can be merged but right now I think keeping two seperate articles is the right decision. --Westee 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep them separate for now and re-evaluate in two or three weeks.--Anchoress 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nah, merge them. It's a very trivial thing. Just zis Guy you know? 08:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The DUI incident is far too long to be incorporated. It'd take over his entire biography.--Koncorde 11:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep separate for now, and reassess down the track. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keek them separate. In fact, this section in the Mel Gibson article is already too long with unnecessary opinions of people who are not involved in the accident. These should be moved to the DUI article and kept under title Reaction or something like that. Mhym 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This information is ALSO in the the Mel Gibson article? --HResearcher 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect desire to keep unpleasant info about Mel off of his main article is an underlying reason why the details of the DUI incident are included in a seperate article. Interestingstuffadder 12:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat simplistic view. If each section had an equally devoted amount of time and effort sourcing then it would fit right in. Unfortunately it doesn't and currently (as a piece of 'news' rather than encyclopedic evidence) it runs to over 2000 words, nevermind once you include the two seperate totals of quotes/reaction etc. Currently the topic is very reactionary, and to me seems to be getting more attention for its "notoriety" and a chance to put the boot in, than any real attempt to create a working encyclopedic entry.--Koncorde 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong in my case.--Anchoress 19:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The DUI article is lengthy, detailed, and well-cited; to put it in the main article would give up much of its length and detail, and I don't think we should be looking to remove factual, cited information from Wikipedia. The arrest is very notable; you can't watch any news program for five minutes without hearing a Mel Gibson story. Will the arrest be notable in five years? I don't know and neither do you -- let's revisit it then. For now, there's too much info there to put under a subheading, so to keep this article manageable, let's leave the arrest one separate. It's not about making Mel Gibson look good, it's about making Wikipedia easy to use. --SuperNova |T|C| 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge This doesn't need it's own article. It's not that lengthy. --HResearcher 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's almost 2000 words and 30 references and citations. That's quite "lengthy" especially when compared with the amount of space afforded to equally important topics (i.e. his 30 year career in the movies vs 10 seconds worth of angry slurs).--Koncorde 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The DUI stuff is too long for an article about Mel Gibson. It overpowers. Which may be what some people want. But it is inappropriate to the article -- its unencyclopedic. --Blue Tie 17:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Far too much information to cover. It's best if a small synopsis of the events are placed on Gibson's article (how it is now) then link to the main article above that section. Throw 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. It's information about Mel Gibson, so it should be in the Mel Gibson article, whether it's a current event or not. I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Billy Joel has gotten drunk and crashed his car like three times into houses and trees and stuff and none of those get their own article. Keppa 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the comparative sizes of the articles we're on about. Joel has 4 lines dedicated to his accidents. Gibson has over 14 already, and if you incorporated the 1980 words and 34 references from the DUI wiki then you'd literally take over his entire bio. 30 year career > 10 seconds of madness. Perspective is required.--Koncorde 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Can we say piling on? Let's see Roman Polanski sexually abused a 13 year old girl and yet that incident does not get its own article. Should we make separate articles for every DUI incident in which a celebrity is involved?? I think not.--Getaway 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You would compare sexual abuse with a man shooting his mouth off when drunk? Polanski's act has changed his entire life. Mels is merely 'another' DUI in a list. Misdemeanour vs capital (or at least a more harsh) offence by a man who absconded from justice and has still not been punished?--Koncorde 10:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for unwittingly making my point for me. Duh, of course they are not of the same level. --Getaway 13:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not unwitting. Polanski's choice formed and influenced the remainder of his career. Gibsons is background noise. The seperate DUI incident keeps a whole oot of chaff and unnecessary (and unencyclopedic) entries out of the main bio until such time as it can be condensed down to what is important.--Koncorde 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge info could easily be summarized in Mel's article. Cvene64 08:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: SuperNova gives a good summary of reasons above —and all those reasons will still apply in the indefinite future. To remove information about the incident to make it fit here would be truly perverse. —Toby Bartels 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose:Judging by the size, thoroughness, and overall quality of the article, I believe the subject needs its own article to treat it adequately. The main article is already sufficiently developed to not be able to accommodate a merger of this size. To reduce the content would reduce the quality of the article and leave the subject inadequately treated.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Votes

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

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

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

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

Eric Cartman Comments in Trvia Section

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

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

Yep, sure looks like a case of Weasel Words. I second it being removed.Karatenerd 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about weasel words, it looks like plain old-fashioned cruft to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, folks, it may come as a shock to you, bt Eric Cartman is a fictional character. Eric Cartman "does" things because the animators and directors make "him" do things. It seems that some of you people are watching a litle too much TV. Even if there were a real person named Eric Cartman who said those things, then he would barely merit one sentence in Mr. Gibson's biography. -- 75.25.183.36 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The DUI and Jew thing

Folks, I know that this is Wikipedia and all, but I think that this DUI and Jew thing is getting disproportionate space in Mr. Gibson's biography. It might currently be newsworthy, but that does not make it so notable that it deserves more than 50% of the room in Gibson's biography. -- 75.25.183.36 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the remark early on that there is Wikinews, and then there is Wikipedia. There's a blurring of the line somewhere but not to the extent some would have it.--Koncorde 20:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody hasn't grasped the concept of the dui thing having moved to its own page. Gzuckier 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

- Good point: emphasize separate DUI article to focus attention/edits there. 172.162.136.14 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Keep quotes: I say keep both quotes. Each of these quotes received quite a bit of media attention (notability) and are verifiable. They are thematically different -- one has to do with alleged anti-semitic thoughts, the other one is just drunken foolishness. And if the consensus is to keep one, I say we should keep the sugar tits quote, as the anti-semitic issue is discussed elsewhere. Interestingstuffadder 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote it all. He said it. There is a verifiable source. Apologizing doesn't suck the words back into his mouth. BabuBhatt 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but his apology should at least be posted with them so as to not cast them in an "unfair" light then in that case. After all his apology is just as deserving and verifiable a source.--Koncorde 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, I would support inserting a succinct little snippet from his apology into the quotes section to provide balance. Interestingstuffadder 22:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but someone keeps removing the other quotes that you keep re-adding (and I think they'd be better served as part of the article than just sticking out). Waiting for the furore to die away is prudent for all concerned probably.--Koncorde 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

If the quote is notable and verifiable, go right ahead. Interestingstuffadder

Hitler has an entire seperate wikiquote section dedicated to his many verbose statements about Jews.--Koncorde 22:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

add an equal number of quotes from his apologies for balance. 64.163.4.225 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Koncorde makes a good point. The "fucking Jews" quote is redundant because it's already mentioned anti-Semitism. Including just the "sugar-tits" quote is probably the fairest compromise. It's both memorable and relevant.

That's how the page is right now. Any objections to that? --Jaysweet 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, though I would prefer some of those quotes from various other parts to be part of the overall text rather than thrown in at the end out of context.--Koncorde 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no clear consensus. I don't like the idea of merging all of these quotes back into the article / not incuding notable quotes that are also included in the main article. A seperate quotes section has utility: it collects notable little snippets for easy access. Again, I completely agree with including a quote from his apolology in the quotes section for balance. Interestingstuffadder 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't repeat itself just to include "snippets for easy access". The Quotes section should be for quotes that do not fit into the main bulk of the text (i.e. unrelated quips such as "actors write books..." or similar) or would significantly detract from the flow of the text (i.e. sizeable quotes, or irrelevant ones) or quotes not included amongst the rest of the text (otherwise his bio would be drowned by a quotes section at the bottom).--Koncorde 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to fear an ovelong quotes section. If this section only contains quotes that have received documented media attention as memorable one liners (like the jew quote), this section will not grow overlong. Also, a seperate quote section, even if it has some material repeated from article space, does have utility...sometimes folks are just interested in notable things said by famous people. Interestingstuffadder 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem over the size of the Quote section if it's filled with valid stuff not simply repeated from elsewhere. However I think it's overused for what are (for the most part) completely trivial things, and/or repeating itself. Originally it was even worse with people quoting the Fucking Jews part in the Antisemitic, DUI and Quotes portions. The current balance (with the Sugar Tits [possibly the most trivial thing in the universe] included in the Quotes [as there's no "tie in" unless someone wants to start a misogeny section] whilst the Fucking Jews part goes in the actual Anti Semitic section as it's a valid/linked topic). The soundbites can be found in thousands of other sources and references. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes for the sake of it.--Koncorde 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde. I don't mind a quote in the anti semitic section, but to double it in the quotes section too seems to be too much. Actually I think the quote section should be moved to Wikiquote. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I still like it with one quote, the "sugar-tits" one (it's non-redundant, memorable, relavant, and also kinda funny) -- but you are absoluetely right, IntStufAdd, that there is no clear concensus. Let's here from some more users! ---Jaysweet 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you. Run one "DUI arrest" quote, and have it represent the incident. We should probably include one of the Jewish quotes, and I suppose maybe "sugartits" if it becomes quotable. Honestly, can we just leave these quotes on the DUI incident page? I hate to make this look less than encyclopedic. If we get a few more quotes, I'm making a Wikiquote page if it doesn't exist already (I didn't see a link on the page.) -Umdunno 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Minimize quotes Just because he said something does not make it particularly relevant to an encyclopedia article. I particularly think that these quotes should be deleted as trivial:

• "I regard Mad Max as a Star Wars in the gutter." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 91.

• "Actors only write books when they run out of money." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page ix.

• "The worst thing that can happen to you is you can screw up. I've done that before and it's not too damning. I've done some real stinkers. Luckily, most were early on." Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 64.

• "Hey, I'm for love, not war. How about we have a beer?" An inebriated Gibson to the infuriated driver he had just rear ended in Toronto. In 1984 he pleaded guilty to drunk driving and was fined $300 and banned from driving in Canada for 3 months. Excerpted from Wensley Clarkson's "Mel Gibson; Living Dangerously," page 175.

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

Wiki isn't supposed to be censored at all, even for "G" ratings. I made a similar point regarding many of his quotes previously. Some are interesting, others should be part of the article they refer to, others are completely irrelevant and trivial of note.--Koncorde 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, see also Wikipedia:Profanity. Concerning the other quotes, I also wonder if that book "living dangerously" is a reliable source. It seems more like a gossip book from looking at some of the reviews. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Quote it all. He said it. There is a verifiable source. Apologizing doesn't suck the words back into his mouth. BabuBhatt 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if it's quoted, but it should be quoted in the context of the DUI incident. A statement made when you're drunk and upset just isn't the same thing as a sober and deliberate one. Fwend 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of DUI Quotes Votes

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

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

I summarize as follows:

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

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

These votes would clearly support REMOVING that quote:

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

These votes would clearly support KEEPING that quote:

• Keep all Quotes = 3 Votes

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

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

Total = 3 Votes

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

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

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

Antisemetic remarks are true!!!

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

Nice contribution. I'm sure Mel routinely checks here on the off chance you may post your opinion.--Koncorde 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be fair and assume good faith. I empathise with this poster's concern. The reality is, however, this is not a forum. --Elliskev 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--Elliskev 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It is time to put this issue to bed and let Mel get on with his life and career and make ammends with people of the Jewish faith. His comments will only be negative to his own career as many people will now not support his movies any more, its not as if he physically injured someone it was only by the words he used and he will hopefully remember to bite his tongue in the future. (RvK 9:00am PST August 5th 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.3.214 (talk • contribs)

You are living in a dream world if you think a comment about Chinese, Islamic, or black people would garner less attention. I agree with you that people shouldn't care, but not because his comments weren't stupid, instead because nobody should focus this much time on what actors (people who lie for a living) say and do. You show your own antipathy for Jews with your ridiculous and unfounded suggestions that everyone shows them a nicer time than all other "less-than" races. But it's ok...I understand...your bias is clearly shown and the basis for your point of view is adequately demonstrated by your blatant Christianity. I refuse to get into arguments with people like you. Here's a good page for you: Deductive reasoning. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See here for an example of celebrity whose silly racist remarks (not about Jews, amazing!) caused his career to implode. Or how about this example of someone whose career took a major downturn for insulting Christians? And as far as insulting Islam, forget about it! Face it, this would be major news no matter which group of people Gibson chose to insult. --Jaysweet 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(It's also probably worth noting that both the John Rocker and Sinéad O'Connor controversies get their own section on the relevant Wikipedia page, another argument for keeping the DUI incident in Gibson's main page...) --Jaysweet 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The DUI is within Gibsons wiki. However it is not the role of an encyclopedia to cite every quote and detail that spills from an incident (or else each wiki would be bogged down by needless verbiage and opinion) hence keeping the seperate entry until such time as the facts deemed encyclopedic can be used (if any, all, or none).--Koncorde 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone here please make sure to add Mr. Gibson to "Category:Anti-Semitic people" whenever you get a chance -- I can't because I'm an Anon user. Tell the truth! Add him to this category promptly! --205.188.116.199 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Australian Sunday Herald and "League of Rights" accusation

I edited this bit out:

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

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

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

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

I question its inclusion as well. At the very least, it should include summation of the quote about how he didn't know it was an anti-Semite group.

But, it did give me a chance to practice how to do citations properly! :) :) --Jaysweet 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations are a pain in the bum. I tend to just copy what someone else did and edit in the new URL :D. The document I put up has a very interesting bit on his conspiracy theory background involving Clinton though. Really 'out there' stuff. --Koncorde 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OT= Off topic, but it also = "OUT THERE"?!? Didn't you see Conspiracy Theory?! :D --Elliskev 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Films Section needs Mad Max series

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

Quote Section Clean-Up A Must

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

"What are you looking at, sugar tits?"

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

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

While you may be right that it's not a notable quotation, I disagree with you that because he's an actor, the quotes included in his article should be restricted to his professional life.--Anchoress 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't even really a quote at all. I could insult someone to their face, but that doesn't make it a quote.

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

Of course it is. In fact some of the most famous quotes in the world are insults.--Anchoress 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please give an example of such a quote, then, if you may.

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

Check out the Wikiquotes for [Winston Churchill], [Groucho Marx], [Richard Nixon]? There are so many.--Anchoress 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Those insulting quotes may be known to many people, but consider this: they were sober. And it was something they really felt. They weren't by some drunk person saying,"What are you looking at, sugar tits?".

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

Neither was this quote by "some drunk person." It was by a drunk Mel Gibson, and that's what makes it significant. Also, I get drunk (too drunk) all the time, and though I have made rather rude comments to women in that state, I sure as hell have never called a female cop "sugar-tits"! Egads... --Jaysweet 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So is all this hype really necessary? Everyday, I've heard updates on the so-called "controversy". There's lots of people "like that" out there in the big, bad world. I mean, so what? They're just words. He's not stabbing anyone personally in the back. I'm not saying what he said and did was right, what I'm saying is that being intoxicated like he had will never result in anything good. What about Farrakhan? He's the head of an entire religion, and he's always making hate speeches toward whites and Jews! He means what he says! And all of a sudden Mel Gibson spews out a couple of stupid remarks, while drunk! Of course you're going to say something stupid when you're drunk, unless you get killed in an auto accident first! He even wants to apologize to leaders of the Jewish community, that's something. After all, his father has been spewing hatred towards Jews and denying the Holocaust, so Mel wanting to make an apology would probably be against "daddy's orders". But whatever, he made a mistake. He did not mean what he said, and this whole thing has blown out of proportion.

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

Did you read the Farrakhan article? The percent of that article dedicated to his anti-Semitism is quite high, appropriately so. Just because somebody else is worse, well, that's irrelevant.

I'm not so sure the prominence of the DUI article on this page is appropriate, but it's sort of silly to pretend like it isn't newsworthy. Name the last time a celebrity went on a rant, even a drunken one, against a particular race or ethnicity or other group, and it didn't result in a huge controversy destructive to his or her career?

Or do you still remember John Rocker for his baseball ability? ;p --Jaysweet 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, I had never even HEARD of John Rocker before until his rant about New York City, but that's not the point. He was obviously a famous enough baseball player to even BE interviewed. We all have our own opinions, there have always been hateful people in the world, what makes Mel Gibson so surprising? --Leopard Gecko 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Homophobia in Braveheart.

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

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

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

Isn't his father family too?

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

Actually his father is already mentioned in the early life section and I beleive that is enough mention of him, I see no reason to mention him again in the family section which deals with his wife and children. Also his father líves in Pennsylvania and not Australia, at least according to the Wikipedia article on him. --Westee 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I aggree. Let's not swamp the article with information about Gibson's father. It seems like that is an attempt to sneak in bias.Karatenerd 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea to mention his father"s ideas. It is obviously a good reason for Mel Gibson's political positions and also his alcoholism. Mel Gibson and his fans are politically conservative.

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

That's POV regarding conservatives for starters. Just because a man wont openly lambast his own fathers beliefs does not mean he supports them (particularly when other evidence and statements are to the contrary).--Koncorde 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What says Koncorde is the usual argument of right conservative wing : of course political positions are taught from father to son : a good example is Bush grand senior [Prescott, nazis american banker], Bush senior [who sold weapons to Saddam Hussein] and Bush junior

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

That's funny, because I vote Socialist Labour and am a "staunch" liberal of the very real kind (not some pretend American one), therefore your rant it somewhat misguided. :) Gibsons father is Gibsons father, they are not the same man. Whilst Gibsons father may have had an influence on him until that influence can be sourced then it's neither here nor there (unless you want to go back through every document of every historical figure and include similar details). Gibson has distanced himself from his fathers beliefs on a number of occasions. You have to remember that Gibson, if he did lambast his father, would be giving more air time to his fathers thoughts and ideas - and instantly drag his entire murky past into the limelight (something Mel has tried to get away from). Your argument regarding "scientific research" is laudable (how is it scientific?) and your subsequent demands including myself and others who disagree with you as "Conservatives" that would "make WAR to us [with guns and real bullets] to wipe-off our [anticonservative] POV" was entirely irrational and without basis.--Koncorde 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Conservative hypocrisy, al usual. I'll answer on tomorrow.. or later. I am fed up by conservative persons and they "fadeToGrey" ways to hide truth and BRING EDIT WARS.

That's what you did by coming dirtying my perso page ? You know, as every stalinian may know : the only way to answer is non-violence. Have a good evening and make a good digestion of your violence and hypocrisy. 84.100.98.2 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, dirty? No, you personally attacked me and any editor on Wiki by accusing us all of being gun toting murderous conservatives. Your personal page is there for comments/talk, and it seems this is not the first incident in which you have been involved.

I have absolutely no idea what a "fadeToGrey" is, or what that means I or anyone else has supposed to have done, nor have I taken part in any "edit wars" or have any wish to start one. Quite why you chose "Stalin" I'm not sure. Do all socialists follow Stalin?--Koncorde 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust quote

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

again a Conservative defending Gibson...Why shouldn't we ALSO add a context around the holocaust, explaining why the term is good, or not, making correlation to possible slaughters which should be, or not holocausts.. Well Gibson is antisemistic, and then ? OF COURSE he said that for that point. I understand that for white race-suprematists like Disney or pro-Bush, or bureaucrats, Gibson is NOW a problem. Anyway, the truth is that he and his fathers said such horrors.. and think it. So....Why should we HIDE and TEMPER the pure truth ? Always this conservative trend to HIDE things... 84.100.98.2 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) PierreLarcin2 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

What is your obsession with Vietnam or belief that everybody is being "Conservative" if they want an encyclopedic entry? There's the rest of the internet for your conspiracy theories regarding the Rotary club, Republicans and Americans. Mel Gibsons entry is not one.

Your attack on 98percenthuman was unwarranted as he made a very valid point, that a quote out of context can be used to attack or besmirch or mislead. That doesn't make his opinion "conservative".--Koncorde 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

FIRST. I have no obsession. BUT you, YOU project opinions on me that, according to your mind, I would have in my brains. This is a theist position. I am not supposed to be like your decide I should be.

SECOND, I criticize this coward manner, for conservatives, to invert positions.

What do conservatives and bureaucrats actually on worldwide medias  :-) ?

1/ For example, pro-American bring a war under the name of freedom. I[rak, Lebanon]

2/ They reinforce the deviation of vote under the name of democracy [Congo, Mexico]

3/ They censure information, reinforce Government control under the name of Encyclopedia and objectivity [wiki, army-"embedded" / journalists and newspapers] ["Patriot act", "Echelon"]/

4/ They evangelize abroad under the name of freedom to think [Christian "Missions" in Cote d'Ivoire and Palestine, Irak and Nigeria]

On the long term, pervert concepts on such a worlwide scale will not be good for American positions. For info, actuality does not seem that terrorism has been pacified...

THIRD. Of course there is an obvious link between Gibson, Rotary and Conservatives.

IF YOU WOULD OPEN YOUR EYES INSTEAD PROJECTING YOUR VISIONS ON MY BRAINS AND PERSON, you would simply query Google on "Rotary Gibson conservative" and find strange that Gibson gave 1 Million USD to Mexico, through ROTARY network, just before elections that were won "with a few votes of advance" by the conservative and pro-american new Mexican President...And this money for a "social" program.... through a conservative network [whaahahahahhaahahhahahaahahahahhaahah].

But your did not query Google of course, you better imagined, as a lazy person, that you had the truth... it is so easy to threat an opponent as a coward and being afraid to search a library...

FOUR, Rotary does support conservatives and only conservatives [Dianne Feinstein is a question and Democrat Party is a question regarding left-wing politics...]. Gibson support conservatives.

There are few Jews in Rotary and Gibson likes Jews a few. I am just amazed that Gibson is not OFFICIALLY and SINCE A LONG TIME an active member of the Rotary...

FITH, Regarding Gibson, friends, family and politic positions, Gibson and all his environment are conservatives and racists. The fact that you try to smooth that is simply a way to force your visions onto a real world. You should stop thinking you are an intellectual. You are just a violent, who came on my personal page for showing your violence. As Gibson does. PierreLarcin 84.100.98.2 09:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it would be best if everyone here would be civil and avoid personal attacks. Second, 84.100.98.2, can you please cite some reliable sources, so that we can verify that your recent claims aren't original research? I'd be much obliged, thanks. Luna Santin 09:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is about how to improve the Mel Gibson article, not to express ones own views about anything under the sun. If you have sourced information about all the claims you make regarding other issues, please go to the articles in question, using this talk page only for discussing how to improve this article. --Iafrate 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Theist? I have no belief in any God. If you think you rants above, and in previous arguments you have had, are not obsessive; then I'm William Shatner. Quite what any of it has to do with Hutton Gibson being included on Mel Gibsons page I have no idea.--Koncorde 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Prankster

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)

Nazi

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

He doesn't subcribe to being a member of the "Nazy" party, therefore how can he be a Nazi actor? See earlier category discussion for guidance.--Koncorde 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Is systematically destroying a city full of civilians (e.g. Tyre, Lebanon) a nazi thing to do? Or banning interracial marriage a supremacist thing? Should we include that under the "Nazi states" with racial supremacy laws? Revision as of 02:07, 14 August 2006 (edit) 71.247.1.192 (Talk)

Anti-Semitism is not the same thing as Nazism; while we're at it, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks. Luna Santin 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing suggestion. I was just editing the Günter Grass article, a writer who just admitted that he was a member of the Third Reich's Waffen-SS during the WWII and the editors over there are of the opinion that Mr. Grass should not even be called a Nazi, but yet Mel Gibson shoots off his mouth, says some moronic comments while he was pulled over during a DUI traffic stop and there are folks over here that want to label him a "Nazi actor"!!! Amazing! The double standard is tremendous. You don't suppose that since Gibson is conservative and Grass is a liberal has anything to do with the unequal treatment, do you?--Getaway 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gunter shouldn't be called a Nazi, being part of the Waffen SS (as part of the school kid division sent to Dresden with Germany on its last legs and desperate for anyone fit enough to stand on two legs) after conscription doesn't make him a subscriber to the Nazi party, and nor does Mels antisemitic remark.--Koncorde 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm confused. The Nazi's were "Left Wing", antisemitism traditionally comes from the left, and Errol Flynn was a left wing Nazi just like Mel Gibson? Wow.--Koncorde 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a leftist. Errol was left-wing because he openly supported Castro, and was a supporter of the Spanish Republic in the Civil War. Mel may be right-wing on social issues like abortion and euthanasia, but he's left-wing on almost everything else.

Considering Nazi'sm is distinctly against Liberalism of any sort, I find it hard to see how Errol or Mel could be seen as such. If you check Hitlers background you'll find that his "socialism" was a front for engineering Germany's climb out of the doldrums by using free labour and energising the masses of unemployed by offering work, he himself was an expansionalist nationalist. Quite how that relates to Mel or even Errol is beyond me.--Koncorde 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal protection

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

Is that really him in the picture?

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

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

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

That may be but that would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV. Wikipedia isn't to criticize, it's to give the facts neutrally.Throw 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How can it defeat the purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV when it is the most current publicly available picture? Are you saying it's not him? The picture has been "Photoshopped"? If that's the way he looks, that's the way he looks. Jake b 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not saying Gibson's mugshot isn't him or than it has been photoshopped. It does, however, pit Gibson in a negative light, as being arrested for DUI isn't flattering. Sure, that's the way he looks – piss drunk; it isn't a photograph he would hand on his wall. A picture that shows him clearly as the subject of his Wikipedia article is more appropriate that doesn't have any connotations behind it. Throw 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Republican

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. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680277/posts

That's not entirely true. He supported that candidate because the candidate appealed to his "Conservative" side (in particular the return to Christian values). That's not to say if a "Christian values" espousing democrat came along he wouldn't support them also. Even that article itself states that he usually "Gibson said he doesn't usually support political candidates", but did so in this case. Why did he do it? Because he was probably worried about Arnie getting in during what was a complete joke of an election.--Koncorde 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What he means is he doesn't usually support candidates publicly. Gibson is more right-wing than Schwarzenegger, who is considered a RINO by most real conservatives.

That's surely your interpretation/POV than actual factual/verifiable evidence? If you take "Republicans" to be solely on the 'party line' then you'd find an awful lot of RINO, there's sizeable dissent (even with Cheney) within the party to the popular view just as there are conservative Democrats (DINO's). I'm not sure who the Democrat party put forward for the position or what they stood for during that particular election.

Gibson is only "right wing" with regards to his religiously indoctrinated views - however he has never publically (to my knowledge) attacked the civil rights of any person (though has expressed his own personal disgust/dislike) and supports many causes that are traditionally liberal (i.e. gun laws, freedom of the press/media) and opposed military action (i.e. Iraq) and been critical of sensationalism and the behaviour of Bush's regime (revealed during his Apocalypto interviews) to make it difficult simply to tar him as one particular party follower. Chances are no party particularly appeals nor would be a viable option lest he commit his beliefs to public scrutiny even more than they already are.--Koncorde 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have very little to do with how the article can be improved. Also, if you ARE going to talk politics then I want to point out that it is ludicrous to argue that Republicans attack "the civil rights of any person." Also, it also ludicrous to argue that Republicans do not believe in "freedom of the press" and it is ludicrous to argue that only Democrats believe in freedom of the press. These are merely your incorrect take on what the Democrat and Republican parties stand for. As for the article, I agree we just don't know if Gibson is a Republican or not, but he has made it very clear that he is a conservative, not a liberal by any hopefully stretch of the imagination. --Getaway 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr, keep your hat on; I was defending Mel against the insuation he was "Right Wing" and therefore must be a Republican (so it was our anonymous friend making the two analogous) and had specifically made the point on more than two seperate occasions that 'Conservatives' exist on both sides of the political spectrum (of which Republican and Democrat aren't technically diametrically opposed). I said "traditionally liberal" I never said which side of the line that fell on (as "Liberal" technically used to be part of the Republican agenda) as I thought would be obvious seeing as I included two completely contrary examples of what is "liberal" that I know Gibson has supported i.e. "gun laws" (Republican typically, but also some Democrats) and "freedom of the press" (universal - I never even insinuated one side would be against it) and utilised the "civil rights" to emphasise that whilst he may have conservative views he hasn't to my knowledge attempted to have them enforced as per being "Right Wing".

They have everything to do with keeping the article NPOV, which is "improved" IMO rather than casting political aspersions based on his support of a candidate without any quantifying reasons from the man himself.

I suggest you take a chill pill.--Koncorde 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I originally linked it specifically to a copy of the letter from Gibsons lawyers, but it appears someone changed the link to the main page for some reason.--Koncorde 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in its current state, it's link spam. Removed. Jake b 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian

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)

http://www.google.nl/search?q=Mel+Gibson+charity
Fwend 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was previously mentioned (something to do with charity events in Mexico and various other south american, plus donations to other charities) but has been deleted at some point.--Koncorde 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was "poorly sourced" according to another editor I talked to. If you delete everything that's poorly sourced from Wikipedia you might as well delete half the content, I guess. I thought the policy was to add "citation needed" tags, unless the content was libellous or otherwise unacceptable. Anyway, I'll see if I can find some sources. Fwend 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

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

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

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

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

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

What information does a picture of Mel Gibson convey? (→Netscott) 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What Mel Gibson looks like, surely? He doesn't look like the fan art image, and the mug shot shows what he looked like at one particular, extraordinary moment, not what he normally looks like. john k 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed what Mel Gibson looks like. No one would argue that Mel Gibson wasn't identifiable from this image. You might have a look at this talk. User:Blue Tie and I discussed (lower in the thread) an exception to the fair use rule that would not permit the usage of booking photos. I would suggest editing Wikipedia:Fair use towards such ends. (→Netscott) 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use already provides an exception, in that the POV problems of a mugshot mean that it does not "adequately give the same information" as a non-mugshot fair use image would. john k 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't... and the reason it doesn't is that the same argument could be said for a "positive" picture of him. (→Netscott) 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the mugshot is already in the article, next to the DUI section, so a regular picture at the top would be defensible, wouldn't it? I agree with the OP that this picture removing is getting absurd. Fwend 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The absolute best solution would be for a fan to upload a decent image they took of him and release it under GFDL (a free license) and then add it to the article. (→Netscott) 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that would not be the best solution, because a picture taken by a fan would be unlikely to be of decent quality. What the hell is wrong with a fair use picture? Wikipedia's pathological aversion to fair use is incredibly annoying. john k 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think wikipedia has an aversion to fair use, but some editors go too far in being concerned about it. A publicity photo that is INTENDED to be used for publication purposes, and brought in with fair use rationale should be fine. --05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, what about publicity photos? Is there a spacific policy on this particular type of photo? Jake b 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

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)