Talk:Mel Gibson/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of Mel Gibson talk up to 8-2-06

Early comments

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)

Uncle Ed wanders by

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

Gibson's father and the reason for moving to Australia

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)

Catholics not in communion with Rome

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.

Removal

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.

Quotes section is POV

===>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)

LGBT opposition

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)

Ethnicity

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)

Accent

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)

Politics and Opinions

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)

Antisemitic?

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".

Satirical external links

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)

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)

Movies

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)

Sedevacantism?

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

YES.

His praise of Michael Moore

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)

His Woman

"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!

Australian

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)

POV

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)

Jodie Foster

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)