Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial by his father 

message: Liu Bei 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why censoring of "fuck"? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: LOL --Brat32 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection? 

message: 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:
# it is immoral to change American society
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I love Mel Gibson 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mug shot? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fair Use image 

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem solved!

message: "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)
replies: text: lager and whisky, liquid violence, eh? gee, most places that's just called a boilermaker. good grief. Gzuckier 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for citation re 'Liquid violence' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unlock this article immediately 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, this is not really a good picture. Intangible 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find another fair use image. Until that happens, this will have to do. Interestingstuffadder 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal that a new "People accused of anti-Semitism" category be created

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal: Can Gibson be Categorized as anti-Semitic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Changed nationality 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title: Summary of Votes 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Eric Cartman Comments in Trvia Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: - Good point: emphasize separate DUI article to focus attention/edits there. 172.162.136.14 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DUI and Jew thing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Summary of DUI Quotes Votes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Antisemetic remarks are true!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Films Section needs Mad Max series 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Homophobia in Braveheart. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prankster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandal protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is that really him in the picture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, in its current state, it's link spam. Removed. Jake b 18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson's Blog (see Accusations of anti-Semitism) 

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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  I just took the first three with references.  If someone thinks that they should be switched for something else that's fine too.--Twintone 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's been reverted back.  Wikipedia is used for encyclopedic entries and WikiQuote is used for the quotes.  Other bios have just a few or no quotes at all even from people more famous for their quotes (i.e. Winston Churchill, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg)   If it's not limited then there is no reasons to not put up every verifiable thing Gibson said.  I think we should consider reverting back to just a few quotes and linking to WikiQuote for the rest.  It keeps Wikipedia more encyclepedic.  Also if you incorporated specific things he said relating to areas in the article (i.e. his controversies etc) it would be more appropriate.  Having a blanket section for all of the things of note he said doesn't seem to fit with other bios on Wikipedia (I mean they don't even have quote sections for Churchill or FDR and didn't they say more important things of note?)
I'm going to revert back to my original change.  Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.)  Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent.  See below:
Quotes
A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill 
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: can someone explain the "freed the slaves award" listed under awards with characters of the tcv show aqua teen hunger force being other winners of this award? if not it gets removed!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.53.147 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards? aqua teen hunger force? 

message: In trivia:
"In the February 7, 1983 edition of People magazine, actor/comedian Jerry Lewis claimed that he was outraged by a slew of anti-Semitic epithets that actor Robert De Niro directed at him during an exercise in method acting during the filming of a movie."
What does this have to do with Mel Gibson? 24.22.104.180 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I just removed it earlier today for the second time.Nightscream 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is completely irrelevant to this article. Why not quote the millions of other anti-smites? Ridiculous. --Faithlessthewonderboy 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this here? 

message: I think the article is far too uncritical of Gibson's stated opinions. It reads like it was closely combed through by his PR people, which is exactly what I would insist on if I was in Gibson's position. How can this be avoided? Certainly not by locking out editorial contributions from other parties who may have something to add to the article. He's controversial, so let the controversy run. And don't forget that Gibson will steer it and profit from it if he can. He's rich enough to bring a hundred libel suits.
:Hi.  First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~), as it is customary.  If you want to discus this issue, we encourage you to do so in a more relevant section on this page, and if there isn't one, create one.  Make sure you do so at the top of the page, and place two "equal" signs on either side of the new section title, as I have done here.  As to your question, can you cite passages that you feel reflect a lack of criticism and a bias in his favor?  There is an entire section on things for which he is controversial and criticized, including several subsections each devoted to accusations leveled at him regarding his film work. Nightscream 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  I just took the first three with references.  If someone thinks that they should be switched for something else that's fine too.--Twintone 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's been reverted back.  Wikipedia is used for encyclopedic entries and WikiQuote is used for the quotes.  Other bios have just a few or no quotes at all even from people more famous for their quotes (i.e. Winston Churchill, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg)   If it's not limited then there is no reasons to not put up every verifiable thing Gibson said.  I think we should consider reverting back to just a few quotes and linking to WikiQuote for the rest.  It keeps Wikipedia more encyclepedic.  Also if you incorporated specific things he said relating to areas in the article (i.e. his controversies etc) it would be more appropriate.  Having a blanket section for all of the things of note he said doesn't seem to fit with other bios on Wikipedia (I mean they don't even have quote sections for Churchill or FDR and didn't they say more important things of note?)
I'm going to revert back to my original change.  Blue Tie feels there needs to be a concensus before removal, and I agree, but I feel the Wikipedia community as whole would agree (and so far everyone who has said something is in favor.)  Furthermore, I'm using the removal of the Quotes section from Winston Churchill as a precedent.  See below:
Quotes
A new "Quotes" section was added recently:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England." Winston Churchill 
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill It was cut today, but I have restored it. Yes, I know that this article is way too long, but I do not think that that is a reason to chop out some tasty meat, when there is flab --Mais oui! 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Can we open the discussion of a picture up. This is one of the only articles of a major celeb without a headshot of some sort. Again, the DUI photo shouldn't be used because its POV and that drawing looks more like John Stamos than Mel Gibson.   RiverCampa 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that some people here only want to accept a picture that's in the public domain, like a photo made by a fan. Anything else gets deleted (or commented out). Fwend 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added an appropriately-licensed photo that hopefully won't meet with too many objections. —Chowbok 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! Good job on finding that one. Garion96 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, goody. Keep it. ResurgamII 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This was mentioned before somewhere in some past discussion. The Gibson article really needs a specific section regarding the film, as that what really brought him so much "fame". It deserves an equal amount of mention just like the Hamlet/Braveheart/PotC stuff found in the article itself. Can someone please write something for it? I have not seen the film in quite a while so I'm afraid I can't do so. --ResurgamII 02:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad Max 

message: As some of you may have noticed user Sliat_1981 (talk) is unhappy about Gibson's Australian roots not being mentioned at the top of the article. He's added the phrase "Australian-raised" to the opening sentence several times, and after it kept being deleted because it made the sentence too wordy, he's resorted to simply changing Gibson's nationality to Australian altogether. 
The fact that Gibson was raised in Australia is arguably important. That's why I would like to propose a compromise solution: putting the info immediately after the opening line, like :
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer, who was raised in Australia."
If that's not acceptable, then maybe we could place it at the beginning of the second sentence:
"Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award winning American actor, director, and producer. Being raised in Australia..." 
Fwend 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he an Australian citizen? Does he have two citizenships? I don't know the guy well enough :-) Fwend 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Honorary awards of the Order of Australia are made to persons who are not Australian citizens.  JackofOz 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't answered my original question. I wasn't proposing to change his nationality, but to stop this edit war with a compromise. (Also you haven't signed your name) Fwend 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Australian connection 

message: The link in footnote 9 doesn't work.  It points to "http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/115475p-104184c.htmlMel's", from which the last part, "Mel's" should be deleted.  193.91.181.142 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the code 

message: I wonder why my addition to the discussion was removed.  Mel Gibson is clearly a lunatic (gift-wrapping dead rats...wtf???).  Even if you view this article from a conservative standpoint, it's obvious. Panda
::I am unable to find edits with your ip address.  If you created a log in id it would be easier to find and we could identify the reason.  If your contribution was to a talk page, it might be archived.  If it was to the article page, it could be that you were being highly POV. --Blue Tie 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmmm... 

message: From CNN today:
::The sheriff's deputy who arrested actor Mel Gibson for drunken driving has had his home searched by fellow officers investigating how a police account of the actor's anti-Semitic tirade was made public, it was reported Thursday...
::http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/12/gibson.officer.probe.reut/index.html
Maybe not relevent. I'll leave it to someone who cares...
Jake b 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the DUI 

message: Did this game actually exist or was the creator just having a laugh? Wormy 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you referring to? --Blue Tie 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This http://martypoom.tripod.com/  Wormy 14:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson's Safari 

message: I linked to this in the Trivia section, but someone deleted it. I think it's fair enough for inclusion, just as something mentioned in passing. No? --BigglesTh9 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Hate Juice 

message: I will be making what I HOPE is a non-controversial change to the childhood section.
It currently notes that Gibson is 6th of 10 children, and that the family adopted 1 more bringing the total to 11.  
I really don't think how one of Gibson siblings entered the family is important enough to make a comment on.  Kind of like pointing out that 1 was conceived outside of marriage, 4 were planned and the rest were "oops" babies.  Not very encyclopedic. 
If the child was adopted after Gibson's birth, then he is merely number 6 out of 11 children. 
The only exception to this might be if the child were adopted under truly extraordinary circumstances and it was a very telling story as to the values of the family. Otherwise, it is pretty mundane and kind of old fashioned to point it out. 
No offense intended to the original author!  Just trying to tighten up the article a bit.  Interesting read, btw.The Pearl 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adopted siblings 

message: Including this category under the DUI article is enough. Gibson's bio doesn't warrant inclusion just because you or others want to label him an anti-semite, thats called POV original research. Thanks.--68.9.116.87 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I don't want to label him an antisemite. Please reread -- carefully -- the discussion above, then come back with appropriate remarks. Thanks. IronDuke 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear attempt at getting around consensus that category anti-semetic people is not approriate.--68.9.116.87 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you paying any attention at all to what's being said here and on your talk page? Your posts make it seem as if you're not. It makes it difficult to communicate meaningfully with you. Also, are you using this an alternate account? IronDuke 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel Gibson has been referenced notably in reliable news media reports concerning antisemitism. Once regarding his film, The Passion of the Christ and then with the DUI incident. His article more than qualifies for addition to the :Category:Antisemitism. (→Netscott) 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are four references in four sections of this article mentioning antisemitism. Please give it a rest now. (→Netscott) 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mel is a poster child for antisemitic controvesy. I know fans don't like it, but there it is. IronDuke 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not but there is no denying that antisemitism with regard to his person has been very notably discussed repeatedly by numerous reliable sources. There are four separate sections of this article that make mention of antisemitism, I'm failing to understand the issue of folks feeling that this article on him should not be a part of the antisemitism category. (→Netscott) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's the implication that Mel himself is an anti-semite. While many may claim he is, and his drunken tirad was a step backward, he doesn't identify as one. Still, the tirad really did push it over the edge. It's one thing to call Rush Limbaugh a rcist; it's another to prove he was at a klan rally. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any such implication. Clicking on the category makes this clear. See, for example, Abe Foxman. IronDuke 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am suspicious of this coming off as a POV, but there is a valid point that this does not link him directly to anti-semitism.  I was dissappointed to see however that someone added the POV categorization of "anti-semetic people" today.  The accusations are far too few to label him with as strong a category as "anti-semetic people."  The history/evidence of the issue still is too sparse to say throughout his life he may have been an "anti-semetic."  Just adding my two cents.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If I were to kill a man (or a woman, in certain parts of the world), I would be a murderer. I do not have to "identify as a murderer" in order to be considered a murderer. I do not have to have killed people throughout my life in order to be considered a murderer. I may have apologized profusely in prison, I may have made some nice music, paintings, poems, movies, or whatever - I'm still a murderer. I may have been drunk and stoned and in Hollywood at the time of the incident. But I'm still a murderer. Likewise, if Mel Gibson, Mel Brooks, Brooke Shields, or whoever makes anti-semetic remarks, they're an anti-semitic person. Is it really that complicated? It's not POV to label the trunk of a pine tree as "something that is brown", even if we could all hypothetically agree that brown is the worst color of them all. --Action Jackson IV 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess it isn't that simple. If only it were :) --Tom 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Antisemitism]] 

message: I've sprotected because of the amount of reverting going on. I don't normally put the tag on BLPs, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging after protecting isn't optional. I'd think an administrator should know this already. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only semi-protected. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but...the tag is...key. Untagged articles aren't categorized and users aren't clearly informed of what's what unless they try to editting. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected 

message: The "accusations of homophobia" section states that Edward II was a "mere puppet of Thomas of Lancaster." But a quick reading of the linked article suggests the opposite: Lancaster opposed Edward and was executed by him. The "Thomas of Lancaster" bit in that statement needs to be changed to Piers Gaveston - who is certainly the historical model for Edward's lover in the film.  However, it would be equally accurate to use Hugh le Despenser - or his son, Hugh le Despenser the Younger - in this instance, if the issue is merely whose puppet Edward was. 4.225.134.193 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Thomas of Lancaster. 

message: "Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Academy Award-winning American-Australian actor, director, and producer *and a virulent anti-Semite*."
:Vandalism seems to be getting really out of hand on this page.  I don't know if it should be protected, or even how to do that, but maybe someone with more Wikipedia experience can help out? Alki 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't protect articles. That's an administrator-exclusive function, though I'd probably prefer  Wikipedia virgin such as yourself to certain others as Admins. Anyway, as bad as it might seem, I've seen worse. There are ways of requesting protection, but I'd imagine it would only be rejected in this article's case. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: In the article, in the "Family" section, Mel's kids are listed with their birth years. His two oldest sons appear to be twins, and thus the same age. Neither of them is named Bear, and nowhere does the article say that either of the twins has the nickname "Bear." Nor does the article state that Gibson has had any children with any women other than his current wife.
The last sentence of this section reads thusly: "Mel Gibson's eldest son, Bear, attends Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va." This seems to contradict the earlier part of the section. First of all, if the information provided in the article is completely accurate, Gibson does not have an "eldest son"; rather, he has two sons of the same age who are older than all his other male children. And who is Bear? 
I don't know if this is extremely unfunny and uninspired vandalism, or simply an editorial oversight. I don't really know enough about Mel to correct it myself. Perhaps there's a Mel Gibson expert out there who would care to comment? 69.205.44.251 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: Hi... uh... i'm a history major, but i'm sure it doesn't take one to know this....
I saw Apacolypto.
1. The civ were not Mayans. It was the Aztecs who performed blood rituals for their sun/snake god, Quetzacoatl
2. This does not take place during 600 AD. It takes place appx. during the spring of 1519
3. The location of the film would have been in modern-day Mexico City, which was called "Tenochititlan" by the Aztecs
Can someone please fix this embarrising Apacolypto section? thank you.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AK2 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misinterpreted what is going on here and it wouldn't be appropriate to change the article as it is accurate. This is a movie about a Mayan civilization as Gibson stated repeatedly in its promotion. The fact that he got practically every possible historical detail wrong has been noted by many Mayan historians. This however doesn't make it a movie about a differnt civilization, it just makes it a deeply inaccurate movie about Mayans. Attriti0n 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh.... someone needs to change this.... 

message: I thought I read soemwhere once that he was born in New York.  Doesn't that rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk • contribs) 22:05, January 25, 2007
: "I thought I read somewhere once" would make this a no - but it shouldn't be too hard to find a citation for this. According to http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000154/ he was born in Peekskill, N.Y. --Action Jackson IV 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthplace 

message: I removed some material that was not sourced or didn't reflect the citation. This whole section needs work as it appears like original research in its present form. Rather than remove it entirely lets find some reliable sources. Thanks!--Tom 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prankster section 

message: Block quote
hey my name is ramona and i search something about your religion
*Ramona -- This is the "Talk" page for the "Mel Gibson" article. This page is for discussing how to write that article. Please type four tildes (~) after your posting, so that your name and the date and time will automatically appear in your posting. Bus stop 12:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey 

message: Hey mel gibson arguably gave his best performance in the movie the patriot and its not noted here. The movie won an academy award and 16 others. Iam too lazy to do so but could someone please add this to this article? it really was an awesome movie and it deserves to be mentioned here.
OSFockewolf 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add in The Patriot 

message: Just like to point out that Mel Gibson has also appeared in the following movies. Also the comment under Film Career, Mad Max, that "Gibson made his film debut as the leather-clad post-apocalyptic survivor in George Miller's Mad Max" is incorrect. He actually made his film debut two years earlier in a very ordinary Australian movie called Summer City.
1.	The Singing Detective (2003)
2.	Chicken Run (2000) (voice)
3.	Pocahontas (1995) (voice) 
4.	The Man Without a Face (1993) .
5.	The Chili Con Carne Club (1993)
6.	Bird on a Wire (1990) 
7.	Mrs. Soffel (1984)
8.	The River (1984) 
9.	Tim (1979)
10.	Summer City (1977) 
Leon Pinkerton203.41.250.147 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD.  I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times.  Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here!  --Jaysweet 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over lead text 

message: I do not agree with stating this obscure "award" by some website under awards and accomplishments - so I suggest to remove this last one:
Named the "Second Most Jew-hatingest of Hollywood" beat out by nonother than Richard Simmons on the Frigid 50 list Film Threat (2006)
- There should be stated only real and respectful awards, not some questionable hate-awards made by haters
--Ibuko 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's removed. Garion96 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. --Ibuko 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and accomplishments 

message: Is his first name Melvin or is it really just "Mel"? I know that Sacha Baron Cohen (as Borat) once called him "Melvin Gibsons", but that doesn't really prove it either way. -EJ220 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Name 

message: There are several facts not being represented with regards to the incident.  CSUN students who attended the event themselves allege via a facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2257023176 that Gibson was patient during the entire ordeal, that Estrada was disruptive, and that she not only cut in line, but snuck into the event, which was reserved only for film students and faculty who had questions about Gibson as a filmmaker, not about his depictions of Mayan culture.  Furthermore, university officials themselves (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/23/entertainment/e141124D56.DTL) are defending Gibson, not Estrada.  The SF Gate reports that the two refused to give up the microphone. Wikipedia's citation of only TMZ.com, an incredibly sensationalist website for entertainment journalism, as a reliable source, is very poor journalism.  Jtown1234 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  This page is only semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. CMummert · talk 11:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that certain facts are not being represented, then by all means, add them, and the sources that support them.  I read the SFGate.com source, and added the details provided by that article, as well as the source, but for future reference, you can certainly do this yourself if you wish.  However, I saw several bits of wording and turns of phrase that were not in the SFGate.com source that you provided, such as "demanded", "enraged", "shouting insults", and "clearly disgusted".  I removed those.  That source also doesn't say that he was "patient throughout the entire ordeal", but corroborates his invectives toward Estrada, and says nothing about her being disruptive, cutting in line, sneaking into the event,  or the exclusivity of the event.  I also don't see how his depictions of Mayan culture are not pertinent to "Gibson as a filmmaker".  And while it does indicate that one campus official praised Gibson, he did not take sides over the conflict between him and Estrada.  I don't know if these assertions are derived from the facebook source, but I cannot access that page, because it requires that I log in, and I do not subscribe to that service, and I don't even know if that is considered a credible source or not by WP standards. Nightscream 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was requesting an edit because I thought the page was protected, not semi-protected, because my account has only been active for a little bit.  You are right, much of what I discussed was from the facebook, which, of course, is not a journalistic organization, but it does capture the feelings of what the students who actually attended the event -- and they're not happy with Estrada at all.  Anyway, here's a better source, the student newspaper's account of the incident -- http://media.sundial.csun.edu/media/storage/paper862/news/2007/03/26/News/Mel-Gibson.Lashes.Out.During.apocalypto.Screening-2789703.shtml When I'm allowed to edit the page, I will.  Jtown1234 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, why are you not allowed to edit it now?  In any case, if you want, I'll add the info from that source tonight when I get home from work. (EST). Nightscream 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just because my account is too new; the "edit" feature doesn't come up yet for the article page just yet.  Jtown1234 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cal State Incident 

message: Apparently there is also a crooner with the same namesake.  See crooner
:I removed it from crooner, couldn't find a reference for it. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crooner 

message: The section needs to be restored so that it mentions his anti-gay interview from December 1991. That was why he hosted the GLAAD event in 1997. It is also significant since as late as his Playboy interview from July 1995 he was still refusing to apologize. (Gibsonism 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it back. --DrBat 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia section 

message: I don't generally edit contentious and disputed topics like this one so I will leave you this article to do what you will with. See:  IvoShandor 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust and Mel 

message: Why not use that black and white faceshot of him from the movie Payback86.144.221.3 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to find another free content image to replace this image. Since this is a free content image, it can not be replaced by a fair use image. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this page needs a newer image 

message: is mel gibson still an actor, it seems his main focus now is directing??Jimmypop1994 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Directing and producing. He's more of a money guy these days as no one will touch anything with him on the screen. But actually, was he ever *really* an actor??? Proxy User (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson the Actor 

message: I remember hearing about Gibson flipping out on the set of one of the Lethal Weapon movies (or something he did with Glover, maybe not Lethal Weapon) on local news. I don't remember much about what they said happened except that he got angry at glover and someone in the crew; called Glover a 'nigger', and said something about the crew member being a jew. 
Has anyone else heard about this, or have any credible sources as to whether or not it is true? I don't know if it is true or not, or maybe it was a prank he pulled. I heard about it on local news during the coverage of his DUI/rant recently, but none of the local news stations' websites have anything in the archives about the story.--70.243.243.5 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flip out on Danny Glover? 

message: I'm a little curious about this now... from a little Googling, I found quite a large number of bio and triv pages that mention that Mel Gibson is pro-death penalty, but couldn't come up with a single reliable source (I figured IMDB was borderline, so not surprised I got reverted there :D ).  Oddly, one fan site had footnotes scattered about the bio, but then the footnotes themselves were indecipherable.  D'oh!
So what's the skinny?  Is this just a rumor then? 
I'm not sure how important this is for the article anyway, but now I'm curious. --Jaysweet 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death penalty? 

message: Please vote at the bottom, and follow the format:
Some other talk about the merger has gone on at:
Talk:Mel Gibson DUI incident#Merge
--RidinHood25 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MERGE VOTE: Mel Gibson DUI incident 

message: Can the quotes be better sourced or removed? Not sure if they add much. Other thoughts? Thanks, --Tom 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think removal would be best. It's not very encyclopedic. IronDuke 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation section 

message: I've placed the Balance and POV tags on the article. The criticism section and alcohol abuse sections alone (not including any criticism elsewhere in the article) make up about a third of the article.  I know he's a controversial guy, but this is undue weight.  It needs to be abridged. 69.110.129.251 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and POV tags 

message: I may have missed a discussion on this, but why is the photographer/owner credited?  I've never seen that before on any other Wikipedia article.  Seems like a subtle form of advertising.  Anyway, I'll give notice for a few hours before I remove it in case there is a good reason why it is there.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current picture 

message: The belief that he´s a paleoconservative is not NPOV. It´s an interpretation. Like it´s stated in the entry, there are several interpretations of his political beliefs. To state that he´s a conservative, would be acceptable, but it´s arguable if he´s really a paleoconservative. He probably would like to see a Christian-Democratic Party in the USA, since he seems to have some differences with both major parties.Mistico (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleoconservative 

message: I have heard a rumor float around that Mel started out as a boxer. Even if this isn't true, would it be worth mentioning on his page if a source could be found?--ProfessorTom (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the rumor that he's the Queen of Ecuador?  Or the one where he's married to me?  Can we use those?  I mean if we can prove that I wrote them down?  Or maybe with experiments?  Sugarbat (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxer rumor 

message: It can be argued that "Family Guy" may have been a little nicer to Gibson than "South Park" was; he may even like "Family Guy" better than "South Park." 
Has there been some kind remark made be Gibson to tell if he's a Family Guy fan over South park?  What's the point of this statement?--Skeev (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in satire? Or speculation at least... 

message: Does Mel Gibson really qualify as a "Historian"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.14.112 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian 

message: I kept looking at "Executive producer: Mel Gibson" in the credits of Carrier An Icon Productions and Carrier Project Production (an interesting 10-hour miniseries somehow associated with WETA-TV in Washington, DC.) and saying, 
: Hmmm, do we need Mel Gibson (disambiguation), or is this producer n-n?
Well, turns out that the Icon Productions tie shows they are one and the same, and the lk at Carrier (documentary) acknowledges it.
I don't have a change in mind for this article (and i'm certainly not suggesting OR additions), but i can't help thinking that when MG and PBS are in the same bed, editors should at least have their eyes open for mainstream discussion of what it implies about one or the other. --Jerzy•t 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you always talk in staccato riddles? What are you trying to say? "Tie shows" is that a show about how to pick out a tie? As for adding something about the documentary in this article, why not? Go for it. Just a sentence under his Icon Productions would be fine. Although his big contribution to the project was to put up the money for Icon Productions and nod affirmative to using some Icon money to give to the makers of Carrier. Nothing else. As for "in bed with PBS", when the green light was given for production, i.e. to make the film, there was not set place for the film to appear. It could have been distributed and appeared somewhere else. When the financing is green lighted, that doesn't mean that a distribution agreement is in place. So, it is no big deal. I wouldn't get to excited. IP4240207xx (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBS ''Carrier'' series 

message: The image :Image:Bounty sc.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Brave mel.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Bounty sc.jpeg 

message: Doods -- what's the haps with the reference list at the bottom?  Why's it so fugly?  On the right side, is what I'm talking about.  I'd fix it but that coding's not my strong point and it will take hours that I don't have right now.  But I respectfully beg someone smarter than I (in that regard) to investigate and prettify.  Thanking you most sincerely in advance,  Sugarbat (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference list formatting 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "pb" :
** Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson". Playboy. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved May 17 2006.
** Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson." Playboy. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved May 17, 2006.<ref name=pb>Grobel, Lawrence, "Interview: Mel Gibson". Playboy. July 1995. Vol. 42, No. 7, Pg. 51. Retrieved May 17 2006.
* "pboyer" :
** Peter J. Boyer,  The New Yorker, September 15, 2003
**  He took more time off acting in 1991 and sought professional help. That year, Gibson's attorneys were unsuccessful at blocking the Sunday Mirror from publishing what Gibson shared at AA meetings.<ref>The Advertiser, September 22, 1991
DumZiBoT (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: The picture, a mugshot, is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It gives the impression that the man is always a drunken wreck. It needs to be changed. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The detail is fairly minor, in an article which is already overlong. But cited additions from reliable sources are almost always welcome! IronDuke 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: There doesn't seem to be anything on The Church That Mel Built in Malibu. Why not? It's relevent. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/27210/ Proxy User (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be better versed in it, why don't you write it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on Mel's Church? 

message: Is there any source where Mel Gibson calls himself an independent ? I´m quite sure he´s a conservative but there are evidente to show that he doesn´t have political affiliation.81.193.215.94 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson as an Independent 

message: I just stumbled onto this page but it's obvious to me that the last sentence of the introduction is mired with POV language. "In 2004, he directed and produced The Passion of the Christ, a controversial[2] but successful[3] film that portrayed the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ."
Adding "controversial" and then adding "successful" for the sake of evening out the criticism reaks of POV tweaking and tit-for-tat. I suggest taking out this POV adjectives and letting the text of the article deal with these issues. There's no topically pressing reason to include this in the introduction.
update:
Ward3001 has reverted my edits saying that it's sourced and true. I've pasted a section from wiki's NPOV policy to clarify on this point. Just because something's cited and true doesn't mean it's not NPOV: "a common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're off-base on this. Are you actually disputing that Passion of the Christ was controversial? Are you disputing that it was highly successful? It isn't POV, it is widely published fact  and here. The controversy is discussed briefly in the section regarding the film itself and also regarding the allegation that Gibson was anti-Semitic. Controversial does not necessarily imply negativity and to read it that way is a bit POV in and of itself. That the film was highly successful at the box office is indisputable - it grossed over $370 million domestically (12th highest all time), and over $611 million worldwide (41st high all time). The citations are in the lead to lend support to the wording. The wording does not imply that the film was negative or the writer's opinion is negative, it states clearly and with supporting citation, that it was controversial. Period. Some people hated it, some people loved. People fought verbally over it even before it was released. Any deeper interpretation of the meaning is certainly POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Wildhartlivie is quite correct. There can be no dispute that Passion was both controversial and successful. Indeed, MG's intro is very, very mild -- possibly contrary to our guidelines. IronDuke 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Needless to say, I agree with Wildhartlivie and IronDuke. I am restating it here for purposes of consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: remove "controversial" and "successful" 

message: Mel Columcille Gerard Gibson, AO (born January 3, 1956) is an Australian-American actor
I have an issue with this... Yes, he lived in Australia as a kid, and he has 1 Australian Grandparent, but he is more than 50% irish with his mother actually being born in Ireland. Wouldn't it make more sense to have him listed as an Irish American Actor, or just call him an Actor without the nationality mentioned in the opening paragraph? TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he would more identify with Australia. He did give a LOT of money to NIDA, and that was where he learned his craft. - 124.184.172.93 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he spent more than his childhood in Australia.  He married an Australian woman and several of his children were born in Australia.  He was educated and began his career in Australia.   He was a permanent resident until the 1980s and still owns property in Australia, which he visits.  He's also been awarded an honorary "Order of Australia".   His links to Australia are pretty strong.  On the other hand, there's no mention in the article that he has even visited Ireland.  I don't believe that substituting Australian-American for Irish-American would be an improvement.  Currently, it says "actor", and I think that's fine, but it will be interesting to see how long it remains that way.  Rossrs (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Australian-American Actor