Do we really need a link to electmelgibson? What is the relevance of this? If he was running as a candidate then it would be relevant information, but that some people are running a petition to give to him to try to get him to run _if_ Schwarznegger declines to run again, seems irrelevant, and needlessly supportive of republican politics in California. Should it be removed? pmb

Huh.

Hmmm. Mel Gibson's nationality is an intersting one. He did get his start in acting in Australia, and most of his extended family lives out here, but he sure speaks like a Yank and has probably spent the majority of his life in America by now - and there were those strange comments he made about Australia when he was promoting his movie "Conspiracy Theory".

At one stage I played hockey with some of his many nieces and nephews - most of them were quite nice kids. Never really met Mel, but he did come to a trivia night I went to once and played on the team next to mine. Surprise, surprise, he was one of the answers for a trivia questions :) --Robert Merkel

I gather he was born in the US and moved to Oz at 12, broke into movies, made the big-time with Mad Max (for which they dubbed an American actor's voice over his because of his Australian accent in the US released versions), and he then moved back to the States. Mind you, I don't even own a VCR, so you can see how closely I don't follow the movies! Tannin

I don't have the quotes on me unfortunately but Gibson comes across as an American who just spent some time in Australia. I still see the local paper (The Advertiser) saying "Australian actor Mel Gibson" which I find strange, as Mel has made a permanent transition to the states and seems to have few ties to Australia in 2004. I think the key is in the accent, he re-adopted an american accent something like 15 years ago, I think it's clear which national identity he identifies with. Diceman 19:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted deletions made by User:Atob concerning Gibson's father's political and religious beliefs. The inclusion in this article is very relevant, because the color many people's views of Gibson's work, especially his upcoming Jesus movie. RickK 02:29, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That crap is now 70% of the article. Why don't you and your wife User:RK back off? Two lines on the issue is enough.

Minor point but if Mel was born in 56 and at age 12 move down under than that would be 68. How could his father had won on Jeopardy in the 70s to move them to Oz Smith03 01:31, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Too true. I've tried to turn it from an absurd joke into a real article by culling the crap about his father into a few lines (if he is so important, then the father should have an article of his own. But most of his son's article should not be given over to a one sided rant about his father's nutty ideas. Equally I have binned the farcical quoting of what the ADL says about his picture. That stuff is supposed to be linked to, not plonked in mind-numbing detail on such a scale as to make the article appear to be an article that should be called ADL opinion on Mel Gibson. Is it remotely possible that people might actually add in information about MEL GIBSON for once, rather than [[Mel Gibson on jews, jews on Mel Gibson, Gibson's nutty father, more Mel Gibson on jews, more jews on Mel Gibson, oh and did I mention, Mel Gibson on jewish reaction to Mel Gibson's reaction to the jewish reaction to Mel Gibson on jews and jews about Mel Gibson]]. FearÉIREANN 01:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please note that my last changes were made prior to any of RK's. I disavow myself of anything he added. And wasn't EntmootsofTrolls supposed to be banned? RickK 01:46, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am ashamed to see Wikipedians lie about Mel Gibson's beliefs. It is shameful to delete his quotes, and to portray him as something he is not. If you don't like his beliefs and views, fine. But don't rewrite this article to make him into your idea of what he should be. We had the same kind of censorship going on for a while in the Richard Wagner article, where anti-Semites repeatedly tried to remove Wagner's quotes, and kept on accusing Jews of being liars and paranoids. I shall not let censor and mislead people in this article. RK 14:02, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RK, this is about relevance, not hiding the truth. His father's opinions are largely irrelevant to this article. We should mention them in passing, mention that he may also share them, and move on. -- Tarquin 14:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This about Mel Gibson's own quotes, which are highly relevant. Even before the movie filmed he admitted that the purpose was to lay the blame the murder of God at the hands of those who were really guilty (i.e. the Jews); in recent days he said that the Jews would literally come to his home and kill him if he didn't cower to their demands. He also supports Holocaust denial very clearly, by dishonestly claiming his father's views are not Holocaust denial and not anti-Semitic. These are not the views of the father; the point is the views of Mel himself. There is no difference between what is going on here and what went on with the Wagner article. His own views are being hiden because some people are too gutless too discuss racism. RK 14:29, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous, RK. Gibson is an actor, is known as an actor and recognised largely as an actor. So the article's primary focus must be on that fact. His personal opinions are secondary. Yes they must be mentioned, but no encyclopædia article except a joke one should devote more than 20% of the text to a discourse on Gibson's personal views. Personally I think Gibson's views are nutty, bigoted and absurd. I understand your sensitivity over anti-semitism but you have to have to remember to contextualise, not propagandise, articles. Clumsy agendizing of articles undermines what you are trying to do. Instead of accurately enabling this article to cover everything in a balanced manner, your edits made it unreadable and as subtle as a brick, destroying its credibility and completely ruining any attempt to outline Gibson's views. Your OTT editing style has done this elsewhere and proved completely counterproductive. This isn't a 'lets expose anti-semitism' encyclopædia, it is an encyclopædia which covers everything, where relevant and in context. Please stop propagandising articles and start applying elementary standards of academic accuracy, relevance and context. And stop turning articles into 'lets expose anti-semitism' polemics when the anti-semitism is not the topic under discussion, merely a secondary topic among many and not the central issue. FearÉIREANN 19:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ahem. It is obviously very important to RK that we avoid any whitewashing of anti-semitism. I think he's right about that.

On the other hand, Tarquin also is correct to raise the issue of how relevant a father's views are, in an article about the son.

DJ and I have moved massive slabs of text to The Passion and Hutton Gibson.

My experience over the last 2 years at Wikipedia is that extremely contentious controversies are best described by cutting them up into small, easy-to-digest pieces first. Then let the fur fly, as it were. And when the dust settles, we can sometimes integrate the various parts again.

Shall we give it ago, my brethren? --Uncle Ed 14:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Hutton discussion to talk:Hutton Gibson

I would also recommend keeping the current controversy to a basic paragraph in this article because the article is to focus on Gibson's overall life and career and not a focus on on current events. Gibson's religious beliefs are part of his life and deserve a paragraph, but not much more. All of the controversy could, and should, go into the article about the movie. We would not want an Oliver Stone article that focused primarily on the controversy surrounding JFK (movie) for instance. Every bit of controversy would belong in that movie's article.Ark30inf 18:31, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Factual problem here? My read of the present text distances Gibson from Emmerich. But those "Others [who] have claimed that it is informed by the writings of...Emmerich" refer to a New Yorker article, 2003 Sep 15, by Peter Boyer. I posess a copy of that issue, and starting on page 70, bottom of right column I find

He [Gibson] says that when he was researching "The Passion" one evening he reached up for a book, and Brentano's volume [Dolorous Passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ] tumbled out of the shelf into his hands. He sat down to read it, and was flabbergasted by the vivid imagery of Emmerich's visions. "Amazing images," he said. "She supplied we with stuff I never would have thought of." The one image that is most noticeable in "The Passion" is a scene after Jesus' scourging, when a grief-stricken Mary gets down on her knees to mop up his blood.

Following is a bit about how Gibson carries in his pocket (what he believes to be) an Emmerich relic, a piece of cloth from her habit. Now, perhaps Gibson is nevertheless "consciously unaware of Emmerich as an influence", as WP claims (without obvious source), or he has multiple personalities, or has been harassed beyond knowing what the truth is, or Boyer's making shit up as he goes, or what I have is a forged New Yorker (it came from a neighbour, not a newsstand, direct mail, etc.) ... but for now I'm gonna be one of the kooks who think Emmerich had some significant influence over Passion.

PS: even if it were purely New Testament, I see the point of those who say "the Gospels are not accurate historical records [but] contradictory texts rewritten decades after the story's time period by a Christian sect that was now cozying up to Rome and hated the Jews from which they had broken."

There is absolutely no reason to delete the Mel Gibson quotes. I am adding them back in. If you delete them again I will just add them back in again. Stop acting like thought police as that ruins the entire purpose of Wikipedia.

I think more could (and should) be said of Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Entertainment. Besides producing some of his own films like Braveheart and the Christ movie, they actively produce other works. It's at least as relevant as his political/religious beliefs, and could be connected (it is called "Icon" after all).

http://www.iconmovies.net/ --Feitclub 20:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) HE IS A NAZI PIG

The reason Gibson's father moved to Australia was that he was injured at work and had family in Australia. Australia would have been the wrong place to move to avoid service during Vietnam as (1) Australia had the draft and (2) Australian troops serviced in Vietnam. The only difference was that (I believe) in the US you could be drafted at 18 while in Australia you could be drafted at 19.

The reason for this myth was that Gibson himself made the statement once when a young man.

As for his father's other's views, all I can add is that he belongs to a Catholic offshoot that is considered schismatic and heretical. As for Gibson himself, he appears to be a "sede vacanist" --that is, a Catholic who believes that the papal seat is vacant since the death of Pius XII. amcalabrese

I'm not sure about Mel Gibson's status with Rome. Would anyone know one way or the other what Gibson's status is? Some of Gibson's statements led me to believe that he's still in communion, but I'm just not sure. JesseG 03:48, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is it accurate for Gibson's page to be included in the "Catholics not in Communion with Rome" category? I don't recall ever having heard that he'd been excommunicated...

Apparently, Gibson is one of the Catholics that was unhappy with Vatican II and believes that Mass should be said in Latin. As such he might not be in communion with Rome, but he has not been excommunicated. I believe that it is okay to attend Latin Mass. I am not aware of the exact rules so that is all I can comment on. He did visit Sister Lucia one of the three children to see the aparition of the Virgin Mary at Fatima! Dwain 00:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to the article, he belongs to a "breakaway church", which I assume means one not in communion with Rome. --Angr/_(comhrá) 22:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"A member of a Roman Catholic breakaway church that chooses not to follow current Church teachings deriving from Vatican II..." Well, what's its name? Is there some reason to be cloy? 64.168.31.202 18:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking into this a little more, and I wanted to mention that the Fr. Louis Campbell mentioned as being an "Independent (Sedevaticanist)" priest was apparently a member of FSSP at one point (I haven't found anything saying he isn't still), a traditionalist priestly society in full communion with Rome. Also, I have read that some priests are indeed "Independent," meaing that they have no parish to which they belong; however, that does not make them "Sedevaticanist." I would perhaps agree with the statement concerning POV below; regardless, I think the issue of grouping Mel Gibson in with "Catholics not in Communion with Rome" should be examined more closely.

I removed an irrelevant comment someone put in, calling Mel "just a great guy" and adding an emoticon. I thought this to be useless and thus deleted it, i hope nobody minds.

===>Complaint: Clearly, the quotes chosen here are for a political agenda, one that is anti-Gibson. If we were being honest and giving a wide range of his quotes, they wouldn't paint him in such a critical light. Obviously, they are deliberately intended to make him look like a bad person. Justin (koavf) 21:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing Gibson from the LGBT rights opposition category because it is completely inflamatory. Mr. Gibson has not declared himself some sort of opponent of gay rights. He has obviously been put in that category by someone who is simply anti-Mel Gibson, therefore him being in the category violates NPOV rules. -- OldRight 19:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am adding the LGBT opposition category because of his well-known (though not well documented) view against the gay comminity. The below is a quote from an article i found on the subject "Gibson's political viewpoints, while lauded by middle America, have been described by some "conservative" and "far right." Some gay rights groups have accused him of homophobia for his conservative Catholic views on homosexuality, and for allegedly depicting homosexuals as villains (The Man without a Face, Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ).

On occasion he has spoken plainly to the press about his views. "They take it up the ass," Gibson told a Spanish publication El Pais in a January 1992 interview, referring to homosexuals as he bent over and pointed to his rear-end. "This is only for taking a shit.""

The article is linked at [1]--Bud001 07:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That remark does not qualify him as an LGBT rights opposition. How is he opposing anybody's rights by showing his opinion? And perhaps not even his opinion and just a joke. --Vizcarra 18:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If that logic holds, then no one in your view would be a LGBT opposition activist. Guys such as Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson and Anita Bryant are also excpressing their opinion, and these people counts. Plus it has been long known that Mel Gibson is a traditionalist catholic. Do you really think someone who is anti-semetic be any more gay friendly?--Bud 05:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing remotely anti-semitic about Mr. Gibson, you illiterate mud slinger! -- Judson 10:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So now all traditional Catholics are LGBT rights oppositions activists? The difference with Fred Phelps and Anita Bryan is obvious. Mel Gibson is an actor, producer and director of movies he is not an activist. Can you provide sources that he attempts to take off rights of gays? Such as Anita Bryant? I know you don't. I know you can't prove he's anti-semitic either. --Vizcarra 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • "There is nothing remotely anti-semitic about Mr. Gibson..." :) Nothing remotely anti-semetic? How about his "fucking Jews..." statement? (see below). I'm sorry but this qualifies at least as "remotely anti-semetic" :) Hu Gadarn 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I dont know much, but making a movie emphasizing the Jew's role in the execution of Jesus is not exactly jew-friendly, considering governments throughout history has used that excuse to persecute the Jewish population within their midst. Also, Being traditionist catholic, Gibson rejects the view of Vatican II that officially declare the jewish people not guilty for the crime of killing Jesus. He created Passion out of writing from a nun's that smacks of nti-jewish bigotory. His father denies the holocaust and he refused to talk about it. I will give you that his homophobia is not proven, but his antisemitism is. And please keep this Discussion civilized, Judson, calling people illiterate mud-slinger is hardly polite. --Bud 20:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • "emphasizing the Jew's role in the execution of Jesus" how was his version different from the NT version regarding the "Jew's role"?
  • "rejects the view of Vatican II" as far as I know he rejects the views of Vatican II because they're more liberal than traditional Catholic views and not purposely to "declare the jewish people not guilty..."
  • Have you read the nun's book? Any quotes that prove "jewish bigotry"?
  • Any proof that any "jewish bigotry" that may exist in the nun's account is present in the P of the C? --Vizcarra 20:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Quote: "The Second Vatican Council condemned attempts to lay blame for Jesus’ death either upon all first-century Jews as a group or upon Jews of later generations (Nostra Aetate 4)."

So if one rejects Vatican II and its teachings, that means that Mr. Gibson Rejects the above statement. Ergo, He believe the opposite. Thus, he believe in Jewish blame for the death of Jesus, thus anti-semitic. In addition, as a celebrity, he fully understood the impact of his movies and statements. His silence when questioned about his father's Holocaust denial says as much about him as any other. If he is truly against his father's anti-semitism, he should have spoken out, just as many has spoken out against other celebrities' bad behavior as a poor role model for youngsters ("honor thy father" not withstanding, good Christians should speak out againt their parent's misguided beliefs if only for the purpose of clarifying his own position).

What gives you the idea that Hutton Gibson (Mels father) is actually an "Antisemite", just because he doesn't believe in the socalled "Holocaust" (or certain issues clamped under this loaded umbrella term)?!

Furthermore, when a celebrity use his money and power to produce a film that promotes a certain viewpoint, its often representative of his/her views: Madonna wrote children's books about her religion, John Travolta made a movie to promote Scientology. There's nothing wrong is producing a movie about Jesus's death, its his money, but lets call it what it is: it is a film that depicts/promote his own POV/beliefs, and it does portray a bias against the Jewish people.  --Bud 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Not really, that's a non sequitur. Rejecting one, some or even most of Vatican II does not imply rejecting all single one of them. Also the idea that rejecting the statement that he's anti-semitic does not imply the idea of being philo-semitic.

Not talking about his father may imply respect for him more than about his ideas, it is his father after all. He may not be the perfect Catholic, but he's an actor not a religious leader. The "certain viewpoint" that his movie promotes is that Jesus died through great suffering. What bias against the Jewish people does he portray? --Vizcarra 20:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that. He is a controversal person and thus each is entitled to his/her opinion. As for the biased comment. it was well known at the time of the release that a (later cut) part of the movie that says something vaguely (i cannot remember the exact line) that "the blood is on your (jew's) hands". That comment has set forth centuries of anti-jewish condemnation. together with other historical elements, it formed the basis of anti-semitism in much of Europe that was only halted after the Holocaust. Whether the line was cut because Gibson find it offensive or he finds it too damaging to hsi PR is unclear. As for the nun's writing, it is fully discussed in the article about Passion the movie itself here on Wiki, and i quote: "Gibson intended the movie to be faithful to the New Testament, but did use extra-biblical sources to flesh out the screenplay. One of those, “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” was written by a sickly, stigmatic nun named Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774–1824,) a German nun of the Augustinian order. Virtually illiterate, she dictated her visions of Christ’s passion, which often depicts the Jews as more vicious and bloodthirsty than the Romans." These "Passion Plays" and passion-related writings often arte much much more anti-semitic then the original gospels. --Bud 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The line is "All the people said, ‘His blood on us and on our children’" which is found in the New Testament (Matthew 27:25), in fact in the movie it is not the crowd who yells that but a Jewish leader, and even then he decided to keep the line in the original language and not be captioned into English.

About the nun's account is similar to the NT, the Romans weren't as eager to crucify Jesus as the Romans were. The Romans had very little intention in killing Jesus. I haven't read the nun's account so I can't say much about it. --Vizcarra 21:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that Mel Gibson is of Scottish descent (I'm pretty sure Gibson is a Scottish name). However, I have also heard that he is of Irish descent (which would make sense, with him being a Catholic and all). Does anyone have a link on this?

btw: So then, it would also make sense if we said he was Italian or Hispanic. --johno95 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Both parents are of Irish descent. I don't think I have a link (altough plenty of sites just mention him being "Irish Catholic") but I read one of the new book bios and it said that at least one of his paternal grandparents were Irish, and his mother was "fully Irish". I am pretty sure the other grandparent was Irish, too. Vulturell 05:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this para:

Although at one point Gibson possessed an Australian accent that was so thick that his voice was dubbed in the US release of Mad Max (along with the rest of the cast), in the early 1990s he began to lose the accent after having lived in the United States for over a decade. He now has a fully American accent.

Not a big thing but I feel this para is slightly misleading. The voices were all overdubbed not for any clear or logical reason, the US distributers were probably just over cautious and trying to protect their financial investment. Fact that ALL the voices (including the non-Broad accented characters like Max's girlfriend) were dubbed gives it away. There's also the issue of the bizarre and exaggerated accents in the film as fitting its story and setting: these probably also encouraged the overdub. As an actor, Gibson's accent will shift from role to role anyway. That said, his "Max" accent is not broad Australian by any means, and in fact some slightly American pronunciations do seem to slip in on occasion. Precinct13 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1) Look, there's nothing POV about saying "He said it" instead of "He explained it".
• 2)"possible homosexual, complete with what is possibly a "boy-toy". This is ridiculous. Herod being gay is a common stereotype/caricature of him; this is obviously what Gibson was going for.
• 3)"leading some to question labeling him as conservative. " to "leading many to question labeling him as conservative." Is this for real? Does anyone honestly think he isn't a conservative just because he's against the Iraqi war? "Some" is a better term than "many", as most people don't think he isn't a conservative.--DrBat 11:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

mel is so lame and is a good catholic but lame

If we are going to have quotes of (Mel) Gibson's opinions as in your last edit, Dr. Bat, there should be external sources linked to that. If you could please cite the sources for the two quotes you added just recently. I am reverting the article until you do. As Wikipedia does say at the bottom of each page "content [...] must be based on verifiable sources." Jbook 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do people seem to think this man is an antisemite? He's a good man, who follows his faith, and doesn't buy into mainstream hollywoods vices, bias, and revisionist history, why do you think the mainstream media gave him such a hard time?--64.12.117.9 15:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's because he cussed out a Jewish cop and told him that Jews were responsible for every war that has ever taken place. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... I guess that means it's a duck, doesn't it? Wandering Star 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That darn liberal media!

This isnt a message board, btw. --DrBat 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, the fact that he just got arrested, raving about Jews. That would be a good clue. 68.0.118.116 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he posted that BEFORE this happened. This was already a section in the discussion page. Now, he probably, and so do I, thinks he's a racist, just like his father.

Leopard Gecko 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

And the exact words... "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked deputy Mee, "Are you a Jew?" url=http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf

Except those things happened prior to the original post. Benbenbenben

If it wasn't a hate crime, this discussion might actually be funny (i.e. "is Gibson an anti-semite?"). I think his anti-semetic statements during his latest drunk driving incident clearly show his feelings about Jews. PS - perhaps someone can suggest for him a treatment to pursue for racial hatred and for being a jerk while he addresses his chronic drunk driving? Hu Gadarn 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand if someone is mass producing leaflets, or broadcasting on the air. Then that can be considered a hate crime. But to say this to a police officer? This is crazy. Do you really want to live in a society where everytime you say something to another person, you are comitting a crime? It is not like he made a physical threat.

Uncomfirmed alleged accusations. Lets keep this in perspective.--Koncorde 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is so much space devoted on Mel Gibson's page to saying bad things about him? At least half of the page is a detailed account of his recent drunk driving incident and alleged anti-semitic remarks. This looks to me more like tabloid journalism than responsible "encyclopedism".

What do people think about those two links? Personally I find them rather pointless, but they already have been removed and added a few times so.... Garion96 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mel Gibson's Blog, where he discusses his views about religion and politics (political satire)
• DraftMelGibson.com - Satirical site

They are not pointless. These sites are political sites, presenting a critical view of an actor-politician, Mel Gibson. Gibson is not just any actor, but one who has interjected himself into the political arena. What I have seen both of these sites have in common, beneath the veneer of humor, is a criticism based on real things that Mel Gibson has said and done. On the draftmelgibson site, several real quotes are featured about outlandish things mel has said and done (mel on the issues). Then, on melgibsonsblog.blogspot.com, a humorous note also appears to also be struck, beneath which lies a valid criticism of Mel Gibson's public stances on many issues.

Mel Gibson is being seriously discussed as a candidate for California Governor right now, and it is not fair that these sites, which seek to inform the public (whether one disagrees with their slant or not), should not be made available to it via wikipedia.[gobacktotexas]

Oh, bull. Gibson is being seriously considered? Since when? He's never said any such thing and this "important link" is nothing more than a poor attempt at humor. --AWF

Oh, I think any gubernatorial dreams he may have once had are now pretty much shot. About the only thing that could ruin his political career any more than this would be if he got caught at a Klan rally wearing a bedsheet and burning a cross on somebody's lawn. Wandering Star 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's weird: this guy is an actor and all the stuff on his bio is about his politics. Gibson really hasn't set himself up as a public intellectual like some Hollywood types so maybe this should focus more on Gibson as Hollywood phenomenon. For instance, I would like to see something on ICON, and as Gibson as Producer. Also, I think one of his greatest roles has been as a supporting actor. I thought he deserved an Academy Award for 'The Singing Detective', and it brought him a lot of critical acclaim.Njsamizdat 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Gibson has been very vocal about his devout Catholicism and conservative positions in recent years, it is very relevant to this article. He was always a wooden actor, and now he is a right-wing Christian fanatic.

...and I suppose a 'right-wing' 'Christian' is always a fanatic in some people's estimation. How open minded.

Not always. Just Mel Gibson. And those who would leap to his defense, of course.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Gibson a sedevacantist? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

YES.

• This is Gibson's exact quote, "I feel a strange kinship with Michael. They're trying to pit us against each other in the press, but it's a hologram. They really have got nothing to do with one another. It's just some kind of device, some left-right. He makes some salient points. There was some very expert, elliptical editing going on. However, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? No one can explain to me in a reasonable manner that I can accept why we're there, why we went there, and why we're still there." -- Judson 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for *his woman* and his family"

I thought ya'll were smart on this here web-o-site!

I have added Australian reared from just simply 'American'. He spend his teenage years down in Australia and did not return to live in America permanently until the 90's. If Nicole Kidman is not simly allowed to be known as Australian, then Mel can not simply be known as American.

Well, he is an American by birth and a US citizen.

He did not learn to act in America so is not an 'American actor". I think Australian reared should stay. It does not say that he is or isn't an American. But he was reared there and it does have the right to stay there.

Gibson only moved to America in 1968 to avoid the draft, he spent most of his childhood in the US. He's American.

Excuse me, but he did not move back to America after the war ended. The rest of his family still live there. And he only returned there to further his career.

"Did not learn to act in America so is not an American actor"? By that logic, the many students from around the world that studied at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (including Donald Sutherland and Michael Moriarty) are now British actors simply because of where they "learned to act"? Therefore, the many students from around the world who come to America to study acting are now American actors, OK? He's both Australian and American, so he is an Australian actor as well as an American actor. Jeez, what a goddamn silly argument. It's for the best you guys didn't sign your names. MrBlondNYC 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Homophobia" section is far too long for the balance of the article. It needs to be cut down by about two thirds to stop this looking like the Mel Gibson profile from the "LGBT Cinema-goer's Handbook." Chicheley 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a stab at it. Justforasecond 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree.66.171.197.20 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to mention on the talk the last time I removed it. I removed the Jodie Foster reference. According to Jodie Foster, it's not 100 percent sure she's a lesbian. If so, it needs to be reliably sourced. Garion96 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even for allegedly you need a source. Isn't there another example which can be used or just leave it without an example? See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which, even though this article is about Mel Gibson not Jodie Foster, still counts. Garion96 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

how's this: [2] Justforasecond 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi JFAS, you'd need a reliable, mainstream source for that, a newspaper article preferably, or something from a high(ish)-quality magazine. See WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

His father is a Holocaust denier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would add his *NEW* apology specifically directed at the Jewish community he has made on august 1st, 2006, but the byline is future dated August 2nd, 2006. The current link is http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm but it will soon be stale.

I don't know if this matters. http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/exclusive-mel-gibson-busted-for-dui/ User:Zerath13

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

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

Ruh-roh. The rumour is that Gibson was ranting about "the Jews" when he was arrested. There is absolutely no 'mainstream' confirmation of this at the moment so there isn't a chance of it going in the article, but it's definitely around.[3] [4]. Apparently it stems from a leaked police report. JF Mephisto 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

There is this PDF file [5] which is supposed to be the handwritten police report (how did they get it though?) Evercat 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

ABSOLUTELY. THE ARTICLE READS LIKE A PIECE OF HATE PROPAGANDA.

I don't think the DUI arrest will become a small story in years time. It is pretty rare to have A list celebrities on record as vulgar anti-semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.62.183 (talk • contribs) .

I clarified his quoted comments and added a line to his official statement.--Neithan84 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times now says that it has confirmed the authenticity of the police report from TMZ.[6] --JGGardiner 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact he tried to urinate on his cell floor really merit its own section? I mean, honestly. It seems like that can just go under the DUI bit, if anything. This tastes biased--like someone wanted to put the embarassing information as the most visible. It makes it sound like a trend of urinating on cell floors rather than a one time thing. Grenye

Just changed it. Urination is now included under his alcoholism and DUI arrest. Grenye

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

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

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

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

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

But did the New York Times censor "fuck"? And, if so, what do we do about it? 68.32.48.42 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the NYT, wikipedia is not censored. Everyone knows f--- means "fuck". Stating what would be obvious to anyone is not original research. Therefore, this quote should just say fuck. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A Hollywood moviestar said "fuck" and this is notable? Or surprising? -- Moon321 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but the context is notable and surprising. Interestingstuffadder 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's a Catholic with seven children. Certainly *he* knows what "fuck" means. 67.171.150.161 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the early life section:

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

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

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

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

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

• Mel Gibson is Only Human

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

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

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

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

In which case, this little ditty from the article also seems to help...a prominent jewish leader calling him an anti-semite: In response, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who was one of The Passion's most vocal critics, released a statement saying that Gibson's apology was "unremorseful and insufficient" and that the group hoped that "Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite." [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, NYT and LA Times verfied the documents independently. And so did the Chicago Tribute. And AP has reported independently that Gibson's comments are in an offical police report.[8] Crumbsucker 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

People should remember that Gibson's blood alcohol level was %1.2, where the limit is %0.8. That isn't enough to make someone psychotically drunk. Most adult males would only be "tipsy" at that level. He ranted about Jews ("fucking Jews," "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world"), and it also has to be considered that his father is a Holocaust denier. One shouldn't condemn the son because of the father, but it's certainly good evidence that his anti-semitism is more than a single outburst, especially when considered in light of contentious accusations of anti-semitism regarding The Passion. He has now as much as admitted to making anti-semitic remarks, and is asking the Jewish community for help. If there has to be a list of anti-semites on Wikipedia - and I don't say there should - Gibson is a definite candidate. JF Mephisto 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mel Gibson
Mel Gibson on July 28, 2006
Born	January 3, 1956 Peekskill, New York, USA
Occupation(s)	Actor, director, producer

While I think it would be fine to have the mug shot in the section about his arrest, having it as his infobox picture is a bit much. This is an article on Mel Gibson, not Henry Earl—Wasabe3543 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from www.mensjournal.com/feature/0403/toughguys.html -

is quoted in several places on the net which may be the origin of these comments but doen't quite match the article text.

Johnmarkh 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia isn't a democracy and you are in no position to make demands. There was vandalism, they unlock it now, whatever you have to say will get muddled by immature kids. Wait until it's safe and the mods will unlock it themselves.

From Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206639,00.html

Of the Holocaust, Gibson told Noonan: "I mean when the war, was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game …"

Which Gibson said that Hutton or Mel?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.supportmelgibson.com/ Should this link be included into the article. I haven't seen it yet.

I looked at this link. The anti-semitism is pretty blatant, therefore, perhaps, illuminating. Fishhead64 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WHY should this link be included? What a steaming pile of self promotion! 67.171.150.161 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although much widespread talk of Mel Gibson being a Catholic, he has converted into Judaism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.113.112 (talk • contribs) 2 Aug 2006 @ 11:47a (EDT).