Talk:Richard Gere/Archive 1

message: I have added a reference to his work in founding the New York Tibet House.--demonburrito 12:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tibet House 

message: Gere was on the Vogue cover with Cindy Crawford - but what was the date? Also - shame we don't read more about his reading habits as he's quite the intellectual when I've seen him interviewed! thegirlinwhite 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print 

message: I have added a reference to his work in founding the New York Tibet House.--demonburrito 12:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tibet House 

message: Gere was on the Vogue cover with Cindy Crawford - but what was the date? Also - shame we don't read more about his reading habits as he's quite the intellectual when I've seen him interviewed! thegirlinwhite 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print 

message: Like many of the Hollywood celebrities, Richard Gere appeared in a Japan-only commercial. This one is for "DANDY HOUSE-Exclusive Men`s Beauty Day Spa". Shawnc 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan commercial 

message: Selected filmography - selected by whom? How do we decide what does and does not go here? Tompagenet 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected filmography 

message: Could someone explain precisely what the issue is/was?  Which specific taboo was violated?  Did it have something to do with Richard Gere being a foreigner/non-Hindu, or is it really such a horrible, sinful act for anyone to kiss an unmarried woman (and not even on the mouth) in public? I'm aware that India is not the most sexually liberated country on Earth, but I didn't think it was on par with Saudi Arabia, either.  --Lode Runner 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Lode Runner.  In India, public displays of a sexual nature (including kissing) are very much frowned upon. Even couples holding hands in public can result in nastiness.  Risker 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kissing Incident" clarification? 

message: Now I can understand the reasoning behind keeping the gerbil business out of the article, but regardless of whether that should be allowed, is there any basis for the blatant censoring of the talk page? I actually find it a bit disturbing that people are deleting entire comments from others, but I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Is this sort of thing really necessary, or even allowed? 72.190.17.187 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from the policy on biographical editing:
Hope that helps clarify things. Risker 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, the fact that the Gere 'incident' (better not name it or this will be deleted) has attained cultural significance on its own has been ignored. The fact that a verifiably false rumour exists and is extremely popular is most definitely not poorly sourced or contentious. What we have here is a misuse of Wikipedia policy to stifle discussion. Algabal 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Editing 

message: The kissing incident is being given disproportionate weight in this article; it is longer than the section on his career, which is of course what makes him (and the kissing incident) noteworthy.  Several editors have contributed to this area, and I would urge them to determine how to prune it back to a paragraph or two. For example, quotes by Shetty more properly belong in the article about her.  Risker 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is so much interest, perhaps it should get its own article? Algabal 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproportionate weight being given to kissing incident 

message: As a way of showing that this urban legend actually exists, I thought it would be useful to list sources that specifically address this rumor. Please feel free to add... Sparkzilla 07:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Richard Gere Gerbil rumor 

message: Could someone explain precisely what the issue is/was?  Which specific taboo was violated?  Did it have something to do with Richard Gere being a foreigner/non-Hindu, or is it really such a horrible, sinful act for anyone to kiss an unmarried woman (and not even on the mouth) in public? I'm aware that India is not the most sexually liberated country on Earth, but I didn't think it was on par with Saudi Arabia, either.  --Lode Runner 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Lode Runner.  In India, public displays of a sexual nature (including kissing) are very much frowned upon. Even couples holding hands in public can result in nastiness.  Risker 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kissing Incident" clarification? 

message: The kissing incident is being given disproportionate weight in this article; it is longer than the section on his career, which is of course what makes him (and the kissing incident) noteworthy.  Several editors have contributed to this area, and I would urge them to determine how to prune it back to a paragraph or two. For example, quotes by Shetty more properly belong in the article about her.  Risker 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is so much interest, perhaps it should get its own article? Algabal 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem massively disproportionate, though it's just a recentism issue, not a BLP issue or anything similar. Metamagician3000 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seriously violates WP:NPOV in terms of undue weight. Quadzilla99 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia sometimes confuses itself with a newspaper and feels obligated to provide the latest news.  I agree that the editors who wrote it should cut it back.  -Jmh123 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproportionate weight being given to kissing incident 

message: This is a follow on from the discussions now archived in Gerbil archive 1 notably the Request For Comment area. Below is a summary of the arguments for and against inclusion of the infamous gerbil rumor. These items are being brought forward as part of a process to build consensus WP:consensus, and to preapre the issue for mediation and/or possible arbitration.
Case for inclusion
*Urban legend itself and its debunking have multiple credible sources
*Urban legend appears in other works (Family Guy, South Park, other pop-culture references)
*Double standard. urban legends are included in other pages such as Michael Jackson, John Gilchrist.
*Legend appears in some online biographies. Requires check to see if it appears in print biographies.
*Confirmation of falsehood to curious searchers
Case for exclusion
*Violates BLP (reason?)
*Not sensitive to subject's feelings
*No evidence that it has affected him personally or in his career so not notable enough for inclusion
*Legend has been appled to multiple celebrities
*No evidence anyone actually believes it
*No evidence it actually happened
*Undue weight
*Not "encyclopedic"
*Libelous
Other possibility
* Allow inclusion on urban legend page, but not on Gere page
I propose that once this list of reasons is agreed on, then each one is given a short rebuttal. This will create a framework for any external editor to quickly get up to speed on the intricacies of this issue. So, as a first stage I would be very grateful if each party could note their agreement to the above list, or add items as necessary. Thank you.Sparkzilla 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I for one think that "rumors of gerbilling" should be mentioned. Like or not he is the celebrity most associated with gerbilling. Try googling Gerbilling.69.223.129.195 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparing arguments for inclusion/exclusion of gerbil rumor for mediation/arbitration

message: Because of the archiving of the discussion, I feel compelled to point out for the benefit of editors new to this entry that a persistent problem has been the inclusion of false and unsubstantiated malicious rumours and allegations of a sexual nature. These false accusations were first removed over two years ago, and the legitimate WP:BLP grounds for doing so were already elaborated at that time. Since then, editors who wished to include these false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations have periodically done so, in violation of policy. They have given reasons such as: that there are sources provided for the allegations; or, that the allegations are not reported as true but simply as asserted; or, that denials of the allegations are included. Such reasons do not make it OK to include such allegations in Wikipedia. It is equally a violation to discuss these allegations on the talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is a strictly enforced policy, and one which makes clear the necessity of dealing with BLP entries in a sensitive, conservative, factual, encyclopaedic, and non-controversial way. Inclusion of denials or refutations is insufficient to establish NPOV. Furthermore, the notability of factual information must be notable in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, in relation to Gere's own notability, that is, in relation to his work or in relation to other non-trivial reasons for his notability. Notability cannot be established on any other grounds, such as general or cultural interest, nor on the grounds of notoriety. There is no consensus for inclusion of this material, and, given the lengthy history of this problem, such material should not be included at this entry. FNMF 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FNMF... this was posted on the special unique sensitive issue emergency response BLP Noticeboard (link to past ver) and deleted with the comment "I agree.  This is a content dispute which does not belong on this noticeboard." — Demong talk 07:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To FNMF. Yup. that's what you think. Now would you mind to please stop ranting and let the people who actually want to discuss this issue move ahead with the mediation process? Sparkzilla 07:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sparkzilla, the opinion is not only mine, as the archive shows. I believe it is necessary to point out the context of the problem at this entry, give that those who wish to continue debating this issue, or who insist on re-posting policy-violating material, are ignoring two years of objection grounded in policy. Nothing I have said prevents anybody at all from making comment on this issue. Furthermore, your personal attacks are unfortunate and unhelpful. FNMF 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that the consensus of higher authority on the BLP policy than the Richard Gere Talk Page was that the gerbil legend is not a BLP issue.  At this point I think this is kind of a dumb argument, but I'm curious what you do when discussion is deadlocked like this.  And it sounds like it's been going on for two years? — Demong talk 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Demong, good question: what you do is exclude the controversial material until such time as there is a consensus to include it. Consensus can be sought at various forums. There is no such consensus. Such material should not be included. FNMF 07:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant "what do you do" re: progress — Demong talk 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sparkzilla, you can discuss the issue all you want. Indeed, I have explained to you at inordinate length, as have others, that there are clear policy grounds for the exclusion of this material. These explanations have not been adequately addressed by editors wishing to include violatory material. My point about discussing this on the talk page is that, if the material does indeed violate WP:BLP, then it violates this policy wherever on Wikipedia it occurs. Thus, for example, when, two years ago, the rumour was first removed, the editor removing the rumour did so in a way that meant they did not then repeat the rumour in their talk page comment explaining the removal. This level of care in relation to policy has not been demonstrated by those wishing to "discuss" the issue two years later. It should be. Furthermore, please cease changing the title of this section. There is nothing inappropriate about the title. The purpose of my initial comment in this section was not to begin a debate about whether discussion of the false accusations against Gere should occur at this talk page, but to make clear the policy situation at this entry. Your insistence on altering this section title, combined with your personal attacks, is beginning to appear to be disruptive. FNMF 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have not determined whether it violates BLP or not. You think it does, others don't think so. That's why we are trying to create a framework for discussion, of which adherence to BLP is but one issue. The item will remain off the article page until that is determined by the dispute resolution process, but as part of the process to find out if it should be incluee or excluded discussion on this talk page is necessary and relevant. I hope you will particpate in a rational manner. Sparkzilla 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think the incident should stay in. Anchoress 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False and unsubstantiated allegations should not be included at this entry

message: * Let's quote WP:BLP specifically (it's in flux, but here's what it read at the time I was writing). 
Public figures
<P>
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
<P>
    Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.
<P>
    Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. 
 
: Significant public figure? Check. Multitude of reliable, third-party published sources? Check. Negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it? Check. Messy divorce? Not really that messy. Important to the article? The Biography Channel seems to think so. Public scandal? Check. New York Times? Check. Seems clearly important enough to include. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose closing. This is a more appropriate venue, finally, after being discussed on half a dozen other places. Notice has been placed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Re: Jossi's comment) Very reasonable objections. We should use The Independent as the main source for the first sentence, that's not a tabloid (British Press Awards "National Newspaper of the Year" according to our article on it), and makes the connection explicitly. The New York Times similarly makes the connection between the ad and the divorce explicitly, and should be used as the source for the second sentence. The other high quality references should be sprinkled throughout for the pedantic. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Independent says "They said they had shelled out the £21,000 cost of the advertisment in May 1995 to "alleviate the concerns of our friends and fans" in the wake of an article in the French magazine Voici that the relationship was a sham." That's not a speculative connection, that's an outright statement, even quoting Gere and Crawford themselves. The BBC also explicitly makes the connection, stating the ad was in response to rumours about the couple's sexual orientation. The NYT, as I wrote, does not mention the first sentence, but explicitly connects the second and third. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|AnonEMouse}} 

message: Looks like tabloid stuff rather than encyclopedic stuff to me as what I get when I read it and the New Yok Times source is "Famous couple is having marriage problems." WAS 4.250 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times is not a tabloid. Gere & Crawford chose this bastion of British newspaper publishing to place an advert. IMO this is the notable event, both in the content and the unusualness of the venue. Once noted then other sources (perhaps not as austere) can be used to supply the context. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|WAS 4.250}} 

message: What drives the notability of this matter is the advert placed by Gere & Crawford in The Times, commenting on the status of their marriage. The placing of this kind of advert, in such a publication, is possibly unique and is noteworthy for that fact alone. WP is duty bound to note this important event.
The advert declares that the couple are both heterosexual and committed to each other within the marriage. WP then needs to place this statement in its appropriate context. As the statement specifically refers to the couples sexuality, individually, then sources need be found where there are questions regarding the sexuality of the individuals. This provides the context of the rebuttal. WP also should find if the statement about the endurance of the marriage is established, and the subsequent announcement of the couples separation again places this in context.
The opponents of the placing of this subject in the article may have a case where there only the allegations and the later separation of the couple. With the placing of the advert in a major British notability newspaper is provided.LessHeard vanU 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is original research, and not providing "context". Sure, we can most definitively describe the letter they published. Sure, we can describe that they have separated. Sure, we can report that some media outlets are speculating about the letter, and about the separation.  What is in dispute, as per the RFC header is the current wording of that text that is in violation of WP:SYN and asserting opinions as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example statement; "Joe Blo said that his ability was the result of his unusual physique." End of statement. We know JB is talented, but at what and how is his physique important. Context is required (if it isn't already in the text). This is not OR, it is making sense of a piece of text. Naturally the context needs to be from cited sources, but it all stems from the one comment. JB's statement may not have been notable in the first instance, but Gere and Crawford's is. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not disputing that Gere and Crawford's letter is not notable. I am not arguing that the letter should not be used in this article as a source. What I am disputing is the obvious violation of WP:SYN as in the disputed text's current version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside that this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine or a disreputable tabloid newspaper, the whole thing certainly looks like original research by synthesis to me, and that is all the more inappropriate when dealing with the lives of living persons. Once you start having to move from one argument to another to justify edits, building justification on justification, you can be pretty sure that you've embarked on an original research project, even if you end up finding some kind of citation for every individual sentence. We are not here to carry out that sort of project on the private life or sexuality of Richard Gere, or any other living person. Metamagician3000 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Alright, I've read throught the text of WP:SYN and believe a working version of words can be formulated. The closing sentence of WP:SYN states, "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." The Independant article specifically does make the link between the allegations and the advert, although the context of the subsequent announcement of the ending of the relationship needs to be looked at (although the ending of a marriage is a notable event and would be mentioned in the article anyway, but I am looking at the context regarding the advert here). Bear with me. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think I can improve much upon AnonEMouse's suggested text, other to attribute the Independant cite as the major source which specifically notes that Gere and Crawford comments that the advert was in response to the allegations. This directly addresses WP:SYN's requirement "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic..." as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Comment by {{User|LessHeard vanU}}''' 

message: Agree with Jossi- facts may be relevant and worthy of inclusion, current form violates too many policies. Alex Jackl 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Comment by {{User|Ajackl}}''' 

message: The disputed material should not be included.  Above and beyond all the volumnious arguments here offered, which in this outsider's opinion reflect an obsession with the man's sexual orientation, I think the editors may have lost sight of the larger picture.  This is a really poor Wikipedia entry.  A disproportionate amount of space (one-third) is already allocated to a "current events" style section on the 'kissing in India' controversy.  The rest of the bio is spare and "listy".  Wikipedia is not a tabloid; it is not even a newspaper.  It is by no means Wikipedia's job to determine the sexual orientation of celebrities.  The bio will certainly not be improved by adding another sizeable section concerning old news about an old marriage and old tabloid gossip.  -Jmh123 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Metamagician3000 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree completely, well said Ronnymexico 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|jmh123}} 

message: There seems to be a lot of back and forth about whether or not Gere actually has a half-brother named Henry Januszewksi, born in Germany.  I have not been able to locate the hypothetical article being used as a reference by some editors; however, I went at it from a different angle, researching Gere's mother - she is well documented as a Mayflower descendant.  The available records show her to have had only one marriage, to Homer Gere.  There is no mention of her having a son Henry.  In fairness, there are discrepancies in these records, as they have different dates/locations of birth for her, and many do not list all of Richard Gere's siblings.  Nonetheless, the one thing they are consistent about is that she has had only one marriage.  
Like many, I suspect that Henry's name had been in the article when we first read it, and we did not think to question it at the time.  Having done a bit more research, I would suggest that there are valid questions as to any relationship between Richard Gere and Henry Januszewksi, and until there are multiple sources tying the two together, we should omit the line about Henry.  
Does anyone else have other suggestions?  Risker 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the Biography channel to ask them if the reference to their magazine is correct, but so far I have received no response.  There is a Biography magazine, but it isn't in any of my local libraries.  If anyone could find that issue, that would be one way to check.  I agree that the line should be omitted until confirmed. -Jmh123 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say to also semi-protect this article until we have some confirmation of whether this Mr. Januszewski is actually related to Gere. According to a German Wikipedia user who mistakenly posted on WP:AIV, Januszewski (or somebody affiliated with him) was repeatedly adding this "information" to the Gere article on de:wiki until that article was protected, and is now doing the same to the English article (this one). I checked the history of the German article, and it seems the IP adding this information haapens to be in the same IP range as the user adding it to the German article - to me, this looks like somebody trying to further this bit of information whether it's true or not. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Henry" issue 

message: I am a Richard Gere fan, and I understand the desire some people have to whitewash what can be politely referred to as the "gerbil" rumors. However, they are persisitent enough that I feel they deserve their own section in the Gere article, if only to deride them as demonstrably false. I would like to know what other people think. Here are a couple of quick links I found that point out how silly these unfortunately persistent rumors are. They are nonetheless real, and worthy of mention in the article.
http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 
*Can you find reliable sources on the issue?  The above links are really not reliable enough for something like this. WilyD 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can say that I agree with you that the Gerbil rumors SHOULD be mentioned. I believe they are extremely noteworthy. There are multiple sources, and like or not it is part of pop culture.WacoJacko 07:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes Article, Urban Legends Reference, Etc. 

message: Here is an msnbc article that mentions the gerbil rumor and the possibility that Stallone started it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042702/
a story on the same by People :
http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1232786.php/Stallones_confession_about_Richard_Gere_feud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 
:Please sign your comments with four tildes.  Thanks.  The MSN source you cite is a gossip column on their website.  Notice the banner, "TABLOID TIDBITS Rumors, scandals and foibles, oh my!" The second is not from People magazine, it is from a gossip website called monstersand critics.com, which in turn cites another gossip site.  There are not reliable sources or better references. -Jmh123 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can say that I agree with him that the Gerbil rumors SHOULD be mentioned. I believe they are extremely noteworthy. There are multiple sources, and like or not it is part of pop culture. However, it should be mentioned in the context that it IS a rumor, albeit a popular one. We cannot change history, this rumor DOES exist!WacoJacko 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better references then Snopes/Urban Legends regarding false "gerbil" story 

message: I think yes, it deserves mention, as a rumor, it is known to the vast majority of americans, and it is inevitable that some foreigner would come across this and not have any idea what it is. Wiki is an information resource. Also, if you look at the trivia section of the following wiki page, the Gere-Gerbil thing is already mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Legend_%28film%29  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 cents on the gerbil thing