Talk:Richard Gere/Archive 1

The Tibet House

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

Print

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

Unencyclopedic content

Removed from the article:

Mr. Gere is the victim of a baseless rumor <removed rumour>.

This is hardly encyclopedic, and it has nothing to do with Richard Gere. On an article of this size, surely this is not the most important thing that can be said about Richard Gere. This amounts to editing an article to say, "Somebody in highschool once joked that this guy is a pervert, but he's probably not." There's no encyclopedic value to that. — Cortonin | Talk 20:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I re-removed the rumor reference after it was added back recently. As Cortonin pointed out, an article on a person does not need a statement about a rumor unless it had a significant impact on their life or the way they were percieved by the world at large (neither can really be said to be the case in Gere's case). Even if the rumor were to be included, it does not need to be placed at the top of the article because it is not a significant enough fact to be placed in the summary of the person's life. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

• I've removed it again and warned the anon who posted it. --Scimitar ^parley 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

<removed more reiterations of the rumour>

This urban legend definitely definitely definitely deserves to be in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.58.173 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The <removed rumour> rumor is the whole reason I came to Richard Gere's page! Someone joked about it on the Colbert Report (which has an excellent past with wikipedeia ^.^) and I wanted to look it up. Leaving out information like this is just stupid; it's so widespread that not including it would be like leaving the rumor that Hitler had only one testicle of his page, or that Elvis died of drug abuse of Elvis' page. 74.78.228.126 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be there. It was the sole reason I visited this page, to see if it was true or not. Maybe it can be said in just a sentence or two, to avoid over attention. Smooth0707 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Unless someone can come up with multiple extremely reliable sources, there will be no references to this rumour in this article. This is in accordance with the policy involving biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Risker 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, see my comments below. I stand by them. Quadzilla99 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the rumor that he's gay included, with only a single cite to an EW article? If a single EW article is an authoritative reference to support a rumor, then why not the EW blurb about threats to Wes Craven's career if he left Gere-gerbil references in Scream? http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,289310,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.177.46 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The Tibet House

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

Print

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

<Rumour removed> be gone

Did nobody see the link at the top of this discussion page, referring to the official policy concerning biographies of living persons? <removed reiteration of rumour> But that section is gone. Bladestorm 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The section you deleted has already been discussed extensively above; it does not suggest that Gere actually engages in such behavior, but merely recognizes and provides sources to the effect that these rumors are extremely pervasive in popular culture and a permanent aspect of his fame, if only as a joke. The section even goes out of its way to note and reference urban folklore experts who dismiss the story as a legend. There's nothing wrong with discussing myths about well-known figures if those myths are strongly imbedded in the culture, as this one is, having been referenced repeatedly in mainstream films, music and literature. Isaac Newton's wikipedia entry mentions the apple story, and George Washington's mentions the cherry tree. This is no different in principle, and the fact that some people feel it's negative doesn't make it any less encyclopedic.

The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not the truth. The section doesn't claim the rumor is true or even refute it directly, since that is not what we're concerned with, but simply notes the verifiable fact that this rumor exists, is popular, and has been dismissed by experts. The added criteria for bios of living persons is that the we take even greater care that the info is well-sourcd, and this is. The <removed rumour> rumor is not just a flash-in-the-pan piece of celebrity gossip; it is a persistent urban legend that has been associated with Gere for twenty years, and is just as well-known today as it was in the eighties. I've restored it. Darthmix 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap... You don't see a difference between Richard Gere and Newton or Washington? One of the three is still alive. If you're going to put up a counter-example, then it really should be for a person who's still alive.

That said, how in the world can there be a verifiable or reliable "rumor"? That's what it is, a rumour! It is going. The criteria for verifiability includes being "reliable". Rumours are inherently unreliable. Incidentally, you might also note the bit instructing to avoid "libellous claims" in the verifiability page.

What's more, the notion of 'notability' really is debateable as well. When does gossip and innuendo become as notable as an actor's activism and filmography? (For that matter, why do you think that a bloody rumour should be listed before an actor's films?) The fact that the article speaks hypothetically, or merely forwards along what other childish people heard from their uncle's cousin's neighbour certainly doesn't excuse the fact that it's libellous, not directly verified, not of comparable notability in terms of his acting career or activism, and directly contrary to the policy for living persons.

You might be able to make an argument for including a mention of it in an article on <remove rumour> if one exists (I don't even want to check and see if it exists), but it certainly doesn't match the notability of the other parts of the article.

(Incidentally, the three "sources" currently provided are, respectively, a snopes article that questions whether or not the practice has ever occurred, but doesn't even attempt to say that a legitimate accusation has ever been made against Gere, an editorial (by definition, not verifiable, reliable, or neutral) which doesn't even claim that there's ever been a legitimate accusation made against Gere, and a link that's on the other side of a password screen. Even if you wanted to include the material, you'd have to cite someone who made a direct accusation, because just saying that, "some people believe that..." is known as "weasel words", and also not allowed.

I'll say it again. Any and all potentially libellous, and not directly sourced, material will now be removed. Don't put it back in without direct sources, a far better rationale for notability (to put it on the same level as activism and filmography for an actor), and a rationale for putting such negative material in a supposedly neutral article. Without all three, it'll just be removed anyways. (When living persons are concerned, we absolutely must err on the side of caution) Bladestorm 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating that a rumour is true is libelous. The fact that a rumor exists is not libelous, especially when that rumour has clearly entered the realm of popular culture. This is the case with the Gere <remove rumour> rumour. Algabal 04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the <remove rumour> information deserves to be on here. Or at least on an urban legends page. I'm going to put it back in later when I have more time.

Well, you won't be putting it back in here; especially without an actual argument other than, "I think the <rumour removed> information deserves to be on here." Bladestorm 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the <remove rumour> nonsense needs to stop. This represents almost all the most negative aspects of Wikipedia to me, would you ever see this type of nonsense in Britannica or MSN Encarta? Quadzilla99 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A compromise? I personally don't think it should be there, but I recognize that lots of people will be coming to this page for information on it. So why not just put in a link to the snopes.com in the external links section? --Aaronp808 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My God, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no tangible evidence whatsoever to back up this rumor and I can't think of a more perfect definition of libelous information. This article should make no reference to it at all, the last thing we want people thinking is "Where can I learn about completely unfound rumors relating to living people? Ah, Wikipedia." Let people surf NationalEnquirer.com or whatever for that information. Quadzilla99 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is primarily concerned with UNSOURCED controversial information. Controversial material is ok - as long as it's well-sourced! While I don't really care one way or the other about the silly <rumour removed> thing, removing well-sourced information is not justified by WP:BLP, even if the information is only an allegation. From WP:BLP:

“ Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. ”

IMO - if there's a high quality reference that discusses the <rumour removed> rumor - even to debunk it - (which considering the prevalence of the rumor there probably is), it's fair game under WP:BLP. Again - this is not to say I'm arguing for it to be included, I don't really care, I just think it's ok under WP:BLP. Cogswobble 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see it that way. In the case of your example, there'd typically be a specific person they were accused of having an affair with. What's more, there'd be specific accusers. (that is, you wouldn't include it in the politician's bio page that, "my brother's neighbour heard that somebody suggested that maybe he had an affair)

What's more, you have to be more careful, depending on the severity of the allegation. For example, adultery is significant, but not that damaging. On the other hand, if you're going to even imply that a person crams small rodents into their anus, then you should, at the very minimum cite a specific accusation; directly stating who made the accusation.

See the difference? (I can do a more in-depth argument if you should so desire) Bladestorm 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this specific rumor should be included. I don't really care. I'm just saying that WP:BLP is mostly concerned with ensuring that controversial material is SOURCED. If - for example - the New York Times ran an article about the <rumour removed> urban legend, then including a comment about the <rumour removed> urban legend here, and citing the New York Times article, would not violate WP:BLP. I'm not saying there may not other reasons it shouldn't be included, just that it doesn't violate WP:BLP - if it's well-sourced. Cogswobble 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The <rumour removed> should be in. It's a common rumor. Something to the effect of, "A strong but spurious rumor has attached itself to Gere concerning <rumour removed>. For a refutation of the rumor see link." would improve the article's usefulness to the curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.214.167 (talk • contribs)

Something to the effect of, "No". Quadzilla99 06:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a vicious, stupid, ugly, hurtful rumor. It annoys me every time someone puts it forth as fact, given that it has absolutely no evidence supporting it. But the fact remains that many people know of it or worse, believe it to be confirmed fact. This article should address the rumor, but in a respectful and sensitive way. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of it is hurtful. I agree that it should be dealt with in the article in a respectful way, perhaps a link to the Snopes article in the external links section would be appropriate. There are a few books which mention the rumor, and I could cite these if it would be found helpful. Algabal 11:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No links to Snopes. No references to books. Unless you can come up with multiple reliable sources that state definitively that a controversial statement is true, it cannot go into the article. In fact, because of the repetition of this rumour on this page, it is necessary to refactor it to remove the rumour, in accordance with the biography of living persons policy. Risker 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is such a bizarre place, the article on gerbiling includes a link to the Snopes article on Gere, but apparently we are unable to include it here. What is the official justification for such anomalies? Algabal 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any reference to Gere in that article? Only references to the hypothetical act of gerbiling, as far as I can tell. Risker 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you referring to the Wikipedia article on gerbiling or the Snopes article linked to on that page? The Wikipedia article on gerbiling does not mention Gere, but the Snopes article linked to on that page does. You are saying we are not allowed to include that same link on this page. This is what I don't understand. Algabal 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Sorry, I have been more or less off-wiki today. The Snopes article states that this is a rumour. Rumours, or articles discussing them, do not belong in articles. The applicable section of the Biography of living persons policy states:

• "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

--Risker 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting you here: "Rumours, or articles discussing them, do not belong in articles". Ok, then are you going to remove the link to the Snopes article from the gerbiling article here on Wikipedia? The Snopes article specifically discusses Gere. You should also remove the large quote from the Snopes article that is used in the gerbiling article. That Snopes article discusses a rumor, and according to you, articles which discuss rumors must not be linked to from Wikipedia (you said "No Links to Snopes" earlier, too). Algabal 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be taken to a higher level. How about a request for comment? Sparkzilla 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help, if you can, Sparkzilla. Algabal 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

HAVE REMOVED REFERENCE TO RUMOUR. RUMOUR HAS NO PLACE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Unknown IP, you reverted the wrong rumour. The one about Gere being gay remains because he commented publicly on that one - to the extent of taking an advertisement out in a publication. The other rumour is the one being debated. Risker 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan commercial

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

Selected filmography

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

"Kissing Incident" clarification?

Could someone explain precisely what the issue is/was? Which specific taboo was violated? Did it have something to do with Richard Gere being a foreigner/non-Hindu, or is it really such a horrible, sinful act for anyone to kiss an unmarried woman (and not even on the mouth) in public? I'm aware that India is not the most sexually liberated country on Earth, but I didn't think it was on par with Saudi Arabia, either. --Lode Runner 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Lode Runner. In India, public displays of a sexual nature (including kissing) are very much frowned upon. Even couples holding hands in public can result in nastiness. Risker 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One More reason to not go to India!!

Talk Page Editing

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

To quote from the policy on biographical editing:

“ We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

”

Hope that helps clarify things. Risker 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Request for Comment: Gerbil Rumor

Third-party comment is requested on the infamous Gerbil rumor. Some editors say that it should be removed because Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, however, others say that the rumor is well-sourced and should stay. Some example text follows:

{rumour mongering removed - talk pages must meet WP:BLP as well as article pages} Piperdown 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments are appreciated as to whether the rumor should be included. Thank you. 09:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• There still isn't a single source worthy of being included, considering the most basic standards.
  1. BLP does not forbid including negative/libellous information, but requires that all standards for sources be most strictly enforced.
  2. Sources need to be verifiable and reliable.
  3. In this case, you don't need to prove that he did do the act, but you need to confirm that people absolutely and definitely did try to declare that he did.
  4. The third provided reference requires logging in, so I'll ignore that one unless it's really really special. The other two have the same flaw: They're accounts of the author hearing that someone else heard that someone else heard that gere crammed a rodent up his butt. That is, the sources don't claim to believe the rumour. What's more, the sources don't even claim to directly know of sources that truly believe the rumour. For example, in the second source, David Emery says that he often has to debunk urban legends, and that a question he frequently gets is, "What about that thing with Richard Gere and the gerbil? Is that true?" So pay attention to this. David Emery says that someone asks if it's true, but doesn't make any statement proclaiming that they believe it. So this unknown third party must've heard it from someone else who may or may not have believed it. So, David Emery says that some unknown (unverifiable) person says that someone else may have said that Richard Gere crammed rodents up his butt. Does it pass the verifiability or reliability tests? No. Because you have no way of tracking down anyone who actually believed it.
  5. Conversely, there are a thousand different rumours that people do believe, and that you can prove believe it. Everything from widespread rumours of Bush's involvement in 9/11, to Sony trying to screw up Nintendo, to Sony intentionally mis-announcing an emmy, to Israelis... well, best to not go into the number of conspiracy theories and rumours that surround Israel... The point is, while although you can easily prove that numerous people believe and spread those rumours, it does not make the rumours themselves noteworthy.
  6. I'd argue that the 'gerbilling' rumour, even if you could find people who actually believed it, still wouldn't be considered "noteworthy", when compared to filmography, activism, etc. This rumour is really less about Gere, and more about the general proclivity people have for gossip. Bladestorm 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• So, the question is, in terms of sources: You've found sources of people who heard that someone heard that someone might've believed (or at least heard) the rumour. That currently puts it on a much lower level than the "Howard K. Stern murdered Anna Nicole Smith" rumour (which, incidentally, I should hope isn't included in any of the articles!). So, where are the first-party verifiable and reliable sources of people who believe the rumour? Again, you don't need to prove it's true, but you need to provide proof that several people (either noteworthy people, or enough people to be noteworthy) verifiably and reliably believe the rumour. Bladestorm 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(btw, I wanted to present a balanced counterargument for consideration before any official comments are made, but if this is in the wrong location, then feel free to just move it accordingly) Bladestorm 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say the analysis above presented by Bladestorm is fantastically expressed. My only disagreement in this case is that I don't believe that the issue to be proved is that the rumor was "believed" as true by anybody per se, but rather that the rumor itself *exists*, is prevalent in popular culture, and is notable enough for inclusion. That said, while I believe it has been proven that the rumor exists (see the sources listed in the "sample paragraph"), and is prevalent in popular culture (Family Guy), how "notable" (and appropriate) it might be for a short wikipedia entry detailing his life and achievements is where the debate should begin. ...It really is one of those things that makes you just sigh and shake your head, unfortunately, and I'll hate myself in the morning, but I'm going to say the sample paragraph doesn't hurt considering how popular the rumor actually has become. --S.Reemas, April 21, 2007

I also agree that it should be left in. The question isn't whether anyone believes the rumor (the paragraph itself says it is "unanimously dismissed"), but that it exists and is widespread (which is well-cited). It's a noteworthy aspect of Richard Gere's celebrity. Perhaps the header should be changed to clarify ("Richard Gere gerbil story" urban legend, rather than Rumors of 'gerbilling', plus some cleanup / trimming?) Demong 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. It is a rumour. There is no factual basis to it. In fact, reading the Snopes article, you will see that there has never been a reported case of this actually being done by anyone. There is no evidence that this rumour has had any effect on his life or his career. It is just a rumour, and a particularly nasty one at that. It does not belong in this article anywhere. Stuff like this is why people write Wikipedia threatening legal action and demanding their biographies be removed. Risker 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia itself is not making the claim, so it cannot be sued. Whether you find it distasteful or not is also irrelevant to its inclusion. Whether the act actually happened or not is also irrelevant, because we are not debating whether it actually happened, but rather, we are including verifiable information to say an untrue urban legend exists. That the legend exists, even if it is untrue, is verifiable, through multiple sources so it should stay in.Sparkzilla 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already faced several legal threats and at least one lawsuit with relation to biographies of living people. What seems not to be getting into people's heads is that posting a 20-year-old rumour on the #11 (worldwide) website, even to say it has never been proven, is potentially harmful no matter how many sources you pull up to show that the rumour exists. Wikipedia is not The National Enquirer. Risker 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not making the claim, period. We do not remove things from fear. We remove them if they are not verifiable. That the urban legend exists is verifiable and it should not be removed because of your ideas of taste or legality. Sparkzilla 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary that people actually believe the rumor for it to be included. It's a smear that has an effect even if it is obviously untrue. If reliable sources say such a rumor exists then it should be included. Surely there must be a mention of the rumour in one of the many biographies about Mr Gere? Sparkzilla 11:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I searched Amazon and got the following results from searchable books[1]. Sparkzilla 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like there's a real disconnect in the discussion between those who want to avoid all mention of the rumor and those who don't. The folks who want it striken from the record say there's no evidence that Gere actually did this. That would only be a problem if that was the claim being made. But it's not; the deleted section only claimed that this rumor was widely circulated and had had a significant impact on Gere's public image, leading to a pop-cultural urban legend phenom. That claim was backed up by several sources when it was deleted. Darthmix 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the vandalism on this page: it's almost wholly gerbil-related. I conducted the completely anecdotal and unscientific experiment of asking my girlfriend (who is not particularly interested in pop culture) "what's the first name that comes to mind when I say 'stuck gerbil?', to which she immediately replied 'Richard Gere?'... it's an urban legend that is verifiably famous, and verifiably false [2]... it seems to me that the debate should be about whether it's notable, not whether it's true Demong 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. And then there's the wealth of references to the rumor on TV, in movies, in popular literature. Note that the Family Guy and Urban Legends jokes only make sense if the audience is already familiar with the rumor; that speaks to how pervasive this one is. And I can't get past the idea that the handful of people out there who aren't familiar with it might come to this page looking for context; in that case, there's clear enyclopedic value in addressing it and dispelling it. Darthmix 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The gerbil rumour has cultural significance in and of itself. Three out of five people I spoke to today had heard of the rumour (I was curious as to how wide-spread it was). It is only libel if it is stated as fact, or hinted that it is fact. I can find citations for the rumour, if needed. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on gerbilling links to an article which discusses Gere and the gerbilling rumour, so Wikipedia indirectly addresses the issue regardless. Please note, also, if you utilize Google search suggestions, the first result for searches with the term Richard Gere is "Richard Gere gerbil", the third is "Richard Gere hamster". This derails any question as to the rumour's notability. Algabal 06:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the discussion above it seems fair to say that the urban legend should be included, but not given undue weight. The legend verifiably exists (even if nobody belives it), and is sourced in many, many places (for even more sources see the snopes.com page). I reincluded a short version of the legend in the article. If people want to know more they can go to the sources. Sparkzilla 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that including this rumour is a violation of WP:BLP and have removed it. In fairness to those who do not agree with this position, I have posted this on the BLP Noticeboard here [3], and requested additional eyes and commentary on the subject. Risker 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are going against the consensus here. I have replaced the properly sourced item until you find something that says it should be removed. Sparkzilla 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority rule does not override policy. Until people with considerably more knowledge about WP:BLP comment, it must stay out. Risker 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If this urban rumor is to be removed, then we should surely remove any untrue accusations made about anyone on Wikipedia. Shall we remove all the pages about Michael Jackson's alleged interference with young boys because they were judged untrue, or any suggestion that OJ was suspected of murder, or hundreds of other examples of accusations that were found to be untrue? The fact is that the MJ and OJ allegations were fully sourced, as is the Gere urban legend. The legend, even though it is untrue, has appeared in many, many books about urban legends, as well as being debunked on snopes.com. It verifiably exists and should be included. Sparkzilla 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that you cannot see the difference between the reporting of a criminal trial and the addition of a rumour. The New York Times link requires subscription to access, so is not considered to be a suitable link. The book is a book about rumours, not about Gere. The same is true about the Snopes link. Both of them also talk about the fact that there are many variations of this rumour and that it has been attached to many different people; Gere just happens to be the most notable of them. There is already an article about gerbilling which addresses the urban legend. Risker 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that Gere is the "most notable" person associated with this urban legend? Seems like you just shot yoursdelf in the foot. Sparkzilla 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no grounds whatsoever for inclusion of this material. This material clearly violates BLP because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether anybody believes this material contains cultural significance (a very doubtful proposition) is beside the point: notability must be established in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, in relation to Gere himself. This material is non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, and may well be malicious. The material must be removed. No further debate is necessary or should be entered into. FNMF 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps the number one thing associated with Richard Gere. How exactly is it non-notable? Even his NNDB executive summary is "Gerbil rumors completely unfounded". [4]. If you're using Firefox and Google Search suggestions, try typing in Richard Gere into the top-right search box, and see what the first three suggestions are (#1 is gerbil, #3 is hamster). Algabal 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The debunking of a rumour is not evidence for notability in relation to the subject of an entry. It is on the contrary evidence for the non-notability of the rumour in relation to the subject of the entry. There are no grounds for inclusion of this rumour. Encyclopaedia entries about living persons are not the place to discuss rumours about the subjects of those entries. Furthermore, the statement that this is the number one thing "associated" with Gere means nothing. (1) What sources do you have stating this is the number one thing associated with Gere? (2) What does "associated with" mean in this context? It does not equate to notability in relation to the subject of the entry. (3) The number one thing associated with Gere is acting. (4) WP: BLP clearly states that editing of BLP entries should be sensitive, conservative, and avoid controversy. Adherence to this policy is mandatory. Conclusion: no further discussion of the inclusion of debunked rumours is necessary: this is a clear BLP violation. FNMF 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, try Firefox and Google Search suggestions for the association. The debunking of a rumour implies its existence. If you really, after all this time, still doubt the widespread existence and cultural influence of this rumour, please try a Google book search. It has made its way into cultural studies and even novels. I disagree with you that no further discussion is necessary, and clearly others do as well. Algabal 05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What editors must understand is that the purpose of WP:BLP is to ensure that only attributable and notable material appears in BLP entries. OK, what does "notable" mean in a BLP context? There are all sorts of notable facts. That the cheetah is the fastest land animal is a notable fact, but it does not belong in the entry on Richard Gere. Why not? Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. What has to be established is the notability of the information in relation to the subject of the entry. This has not been done. There are no sources indicating that this material is important to the life of Gere. This material is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry and therefore cannot be included in the entry. I note, furthermore, that there are grounds for removing all reference to this rumour, not only from the entry, but from the talk page as well. FNMF 05:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be in violation of BLP, in your opinion, if the information formerly on this page were included on the gerbilling article? The article already mentions male celebrities being accused of it, just no names. There is no question of notability regarding the Gere rumour in the context of the gerbilling article, you cannot possibly get more relevant, as the Gere rumour basically birthed the phenomenon. Please note: there is a link to an article on Snopes on that page which explicitly mentions Gere. Algabal 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that the item should not be included "Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry" is demonstrably false. This rumor, specifically mentioning Gere, is sourced in many places, including the New York Times article above (which can be viewed via Google's cache) amongst many other references in books about urban legends, plus the debunjking (with sources) in snopes.com. The legend is almost always associated with Gere, not any other actor or artist. Sparkzilla 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Algabal: My opinion is that debunked rumours are generally non-encyclopaedic and therefore should not be included anywhere, especially where the rumour concerns a living person (thus bringing BLP into play). The argument that something has assumed the status of "urban legend" does not, in my opinion, carry much weight. I think it is important to note that stating a rumour, even when you state that it is false, can be malicious. It may at least be possible to make the case for inclusion at that entry (whereas there is no case to be made at the Gere entry), but my judgment would be that this material should not be included anywhere. False material about living people does not belong in an encyclopaedia. FNMF 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if the accusation is untrue, only that the accusation exists and can be verified. Sparkzilla 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Would you remove all mentions that Michael Jackson was accused of molesting boys, however well-sourced because they were found to be false by the court? Even if theurban legend's contents are untrue, and even if it is debunked, as long as there are sources that say it existed, and that it related to Gere, then it should be on the page. Sparkzilla 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sparkzilla: You have failed to grasp the concept of notability in relation to the subject of the entry. Please read through the above comments more carefully. FNMF 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So hundreds of references to this urban legend in print and on the web (not to mention in real life) do not meet your standard of notability? Sparkzilla 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, the difference between a major courtcase and an anonymous and debunked rumour is too obvious to go into in detail. In brief, what could be included in the Michael Jackson entry is discussion of the courtcase itself, which in the Jackson case is clearly notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Regardless of the number of websites mentioning the rumour about Gere, notability depends on establishing the importance of this rumour in relation to Gere himself. There do not seem to be any references establishing the importance of this rumour in relation to Gere's life or work, and no claim for that importance has been made by editors, so far as I can tell (and such a claim would need to be sourced, if it was not to constitute original research). Furthermore, including this material is clearly insensitive (to the subject of the entry). FNMF 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to be your opinion, on whether the urban legend is notable. However, Wikipedia is all about verifiable sources. If an urban legend exists about Gere, and it was then debunked, and there are sources to show that, then it should be included.

BTW, how can it suddenly be "insensitive" to include it here when 1) the urban legend is already so widespread that it has hundreds of printed and web references and 2) it has been debunked? Sparkzilla 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"The urban legend/accusation that Michael Jackson bleached his face is included on his very, very highly scrutinized article, yet it is patently false and was never mentioned in a court case. So I'm going to have to disagree with your court-case argument, Sparkzilla. The bleach rumour has had a huge influence in terms of people's perspectives on Jackson, in the same way the gerbil rumour has influenced people's views of Gere. Algabal 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Algabal, I think we are actually in agreement :) Sparkzilla 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) That a false rumour has influenced people's view of Gere is precisely the reason not to include that rumour in an encyclopaedia. (2) It is certainly insensitive to include false sexual accusations about a living person. The fact that other people have done so in other forums (not bound by Wikipedia policies) is not an argument. Any editor who fails to see the insensitivity of this material should not be editing any BLP entries whatsoever. (3) It is not my "opinion" that this false accusation is non-notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Notability is what you must establish in order to even mount a case for inclusion. No case whatsoever has been made that this false and derogatory material is notable in relation to Gere's life or work. FNMF 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. If you admit that the urban legend exists and affects people's impression of Gere then it is a reason to include. 2. Your level of sensitivity is not important. Personally, I think it is more "sensitive" to incude the debunking, but that's not the point. It is simply not insensitive to include a link to something that is verifiably sourced in hundreds of sources. Is it insensitive to say that Michael Jackson bleached his face? Maybe, but it has sources, so it stays in the article. 3. The urban legend is clearly notable through hundreds of books and web references.

It does not matter on Wikipedia if the urban legend is false, simply that it exists, and is properly sourced. Sparkzilla 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, I recommend that you take the time to carefully read through every line of WP:BLP and the policies associated with it, then have a good, long think about what those policies say. Then re-read this discussion, with an equal amount of care. I cannot make you follow these recommendations, but it is clear that, as things stand, you have not understood the arguments about BLP and notability as they have been explained here. This failure to understand further reveals that you currently have an insufficient grasp of relevant policy. FNMF 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read and used WP:BLP many, many times and have worked on other pages where we have dealt with very similar issues (claims and accusations). So far I have heard you talk about "notability", "sensitivity" and a claim to follow WP:BLP, but no reasons why properly sourced material (even if it is negative or subsequently found to be untrue) should be not be included.

In fact, what I see on WP:BLP is:

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

and

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

Emphasis mine. Notability has been established, and there are plenty of reliable sources. Sparkzilla 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is selective. I suggest you find some neutral, third-party editors to support your argument, because I do not believe policy supports inclusion of this material. If you don't see the insensitivity of including these false accusations, nobody will be able to explain it to you. FNMF 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am following the policy of providing verifiable sources for contentious material. Would you also remove from Wikipedia the well-sourced rumors that Michael Jackson slept in an oxygen tent, or that he had bought the bones of the Elephant man, even though those rumors were also untrue? From the Michael Jackson article.

Following this controversial business deal, tabloid stories of Jackson sleeping in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to stall the aging-process, and an allegation claiming Jackson attempted to purchase the bones of the Elephant Man inspired the pejorative sobriquet "Wacko Jacko". The name "Wacko Jacko," which was first used by British media, would come to be detested by Jackson. Sparkzilla 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I suggest you find some neutral, third-party editors to support your argument, because I do not believe policy supports inclusion of this material." The majority of comments in the RFC were for the inclusion of the material. Sparkzilla 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that it's not enough to keep stating you "believe" that the section violated Wikipedia policy, since the folks clamouring for its removal have not shown that it does that. Remember, the section did not claim that Gere engaged in gerbilling; it claimed that an untrue urban legend has been popularly associated with Gere for over twenty years, having been referenced repeatedly in mainstream film, TV, and literature. There is a wealth of research by urban folklorists that demonstrates this, and the section referenced it. It meets the standard for BLP and should be included. Darthmix 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It appears to me that part of the problem is the selective reading of the sources of the rumour, as well as the lack of historical insight. Many of the sources also talk about other people who were the subject of this rumour. I personally can think of 10 other celebrities who have been the subject of this rumour or a minor variation of it; Gere was not the first, and was not the most recent, but is simply the most famous celebrity and has remained so for many years. Thus, the "story" is really about the urban legend, not about Gere, and there is already an article about this urban legend. There is absolutely no evidence that this rumour has in any way affected his career or his personal life. If it had, that would be reason to include it. There is no evidence he has ever commented publicly about the rumour; if he had, then an argument could be made to include it. (The reason Jackson's bleaching/vitiligo "rumour" can be included in his article is that Jackson has spoken about it publicly. He has also spoken about the "Wacko Jacko" comment, either directly or through his spokespeople.) The reason I posted this to the BLP Noticeboard was to get independent, neutral third parties who have experience with complex biographical articles to review this matter. Those editors have uniformly identified this as a BLP violation. Perhaps it could also be discussed on the wiki-en-l mailing list to bring more eyes and thoughts on this. Risker 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you saying that your personal research trumps hundreds of sources that speifically cite that the rumor is related to Gere? That's called original research WP:OR. Please refer to the sources below - they ALL say that the rumor is specific to Gere.
2. It does not matter whether he has commented on the rumor - it exists whether it is true or not, whether he comments or not. In the same way that many of the other legends on the list of 40 below exist without comment by the victim. In fact, i just checked the article for the second item on the list, J. Edgar Hoover, which has a whole section of rumors and allegations, none of which can be proved. In fact it says in that article, "Although never corroborated, the allegation of cross-dressing has been widely repeated..." Why is it ok to include sourced rumors about Hoover, but include those about Gere? Methinks you don't like gerbils :)
3. Please note also that there are no sources cited in the Jackson article that mention that he actually denied his rumors (in fact all the source says is that he didn't like the "wacko Jacko" label). Why should Gere be treated differently from Michael Jackson?
4. The disussion on the BLP noticeboard is not over yet. Majority rule does not override policy ;) Sparkzilla 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just quoting the Snopes article here to further inform this discussion: "Like similar legends such as The Promiscuous Rock Star, this tale has been applied to various public figures who are known or believed to be homosexual, and it has stuck with one in particular: Richard Gere. Although the legend homed in on various targets when it first appeared (including a Philadelphia newscaster), it has clung tenaciously to Mr. Gere's name since at least the mid-1980s." Darthmix 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I came in response to the Request for Comment. My opinion, for what it's worth: it isn't enough to cite that the rumor exists to put it in the biography. Citing that the rumor exists is a good reason to put it in an article on urban legends, but I think that, in order to put the story in this article, you should be able to cite its accuracy. Since it's pretty clearly not an accurate story, it doesn't seem to be necessary in the biography of Gere. My two cents' worth. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, urban legends are by definition innacurate. Sparkzilla 07:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

changed my mind... No accusations are being made; whether the rumor is true or false is irrelevant to debate on its inclusion. The rumor's existence and general notability is verifiable. However, notabiltiy is a condition for article topics, not article content. The essay on how to handle trivia recommends considering to whom the information is important. In the case of OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, criminal allegations of murder and child molestation (respectively) were definitely important to the accused. The gerbil rumor may be notable to urban legends or popular culture, but it is not verifiably important to Richard Gere personally. — Demong ^talk 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, the third-party consensus on the BLP noticeboard[5] seems to be that this is not a BLP-sensitive issue, and that the discussion doesn't belong there; they say it's a content discussion wherein the actual relevant policies are WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT. I have re-examined these at some length and will speak to each in turn.

1. WP:OR is the "no original research" policy - as it pertains to this discussion, Wikipedia can only include claims that have first been made by another reliable - usually secondary - source. The section in question cites as sources the published work of urban legends experts Barbara Mikkelson and Marianne Whatley. It reports only what they report and does not make inferences from their research that those experts do not make themselves. I see no reason to conclude that the section violates this policy.
2. WP:WEIGHT states that we cannot give undue weight to a minority viewpoint in a way that suggests it is more prevalent than it actually is. Two points here. First, the information included in the section - that the rumor exists, is false, and is prevalent - isn't just a majority view. It's the consensus view. Within the realm of urban folklore scholarship, or any other realm where this rumor is discussed, I can find no source that disputes what Whatley and Mikkelson have reported. Second, the section in question does not take up a significant part of the article. It's 37 words long, and the article with the section included is 1,234 words. The gerbilling rumor section, then, comprises about 2-3% of the total length of the article that includes it. Since, as Barbara Mikkelson says, the rumor "has clung tenaciously to Mr. Gere's name since at least the mid-1980s," I see no reasonable argument that we are giving this information undue weight.

Also on the BLP noticeboard, user AvB states that "Inclusion depends on the availability of reliable sources reporting that this urban legend has affected Gere's career/life/reputation/etc to a notable degree." With respect to his reputation, I point a third time to the Mikkelson article cited by deleted section, which states that the rumor has remained prevalent, clinging specifically to Gere, for over twenty years. AvB says further that this a decision to be settled here, on the talk page for the article, and is subject to WP:consensus and WP:DR. Since the discussion has been playing out here, we've widdled the section down into its current, spare form, eliminating extraneous details and pictures of media references. This bare minimum of a mention represents a more than reasonable compromise, and it seems to me the great majority of users here favor its inclusion. Nobody has been able to explain how the section conflicts with any point of Wikipedia policy, be it WP:BLP, WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT. And we've shown a broad precedent for including well-known rumors that relate to specific living celebrities on the articles for those celebrities, with examples being Tom Cruise and John Gilchrist. We've found no reasoned argument for deleting this section. Therefore, I've restored it. Darthmix 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? If you choose to set BLP aside, then I think you're still overlooking some very significant aspects.

1. First off, one of the other comments (which I want you to keep in the back of your head) is that the rumours are more about the urban legend than actually being about gere himself, and as such wouldn't really belong in his biography. (Point for removal)
2. Next, the two sources you cite are (presumably) reliable sources for urban legends, but not in any way verifiably qualified to comment on how the rumours have affected his career or personal life. If you want to make the argument that they've undeniably stuck to his career, then you need to provide reliable sources for that. An expert on urban legends is qualified for nothing else than commenting on urban legends. By your own current standard, you have failed your burden of proof.
3. In short, even if you set aside BLP, you still need to explain why gerbilling is relevant to gere (so far, you've only explained by gere is relevant to gerbilling), and then find sources (reliable and verifiable within the context of biographies, or gere in specific) asserting the importance to him biographically. I would also like you to address whether or not other people's articles should include false rumours (that imus personally said 'jigaboos', that howard k stern murdered anna nicole smith, etc) so long as you can prove that somebody has said them, possibly without even believing them. Bladestorm 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there credible sources for the rumors you mention? There are many, many credible sources that the Gere urban legend exists. Sparkzilla 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I point a third time to the Mikkelson article cited by deleted section, which states that the rumor has remained prevalent, clinging specifically to Gere, for over twenty years"... how does that prove the rumor affected his reputation at all, let alone to a "notable degree"? If it has, how? Says who? Doesn't the fact that Gere has never addressed the rumor make it verifiably unimportant to him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demong (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Hey, before we get any further into this discussion, can someone point me to the section of Wikipedia policy that states that the subject of an article must feel the effects of, or even know about, every single point discussed in his article? It seems to me that whether or not the rumor is relevant to Gere, whether it has affected him in any way that he has felt, it is relevant to us as people living in a society where he is famous. It has been persistently and widely associated with him for over twenty years. I think that's grounds for inclusion, regardless of whatever Gere's personal experience of it may be. Darthmix 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Official policy says "that something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The unofficial essay on trivia defines trivia as "information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to". — Demong ^talk 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think this information is relevant to the gerbilling article, since attribution to Gere is, in fact, the most famous version of the legend. (Note that the article points out that the practice itself is fictitious.) — Demong ^talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than going further here I suggest that this is taken further up the dispute resolution process. Can the parties involved agree to mediation? Sparkzilla 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally. I think there are good arguments both ways, and am curious about the precedent. — Demong ^talk 01:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the mediation process, but so long as a reasonable number of people even see it, I can absolutely guarantee that I'll accept any finding they come up with. (except, like I said, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the process. Do you know how to go about this?) Bladestorm 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's get some agreement from the major editors involved to proceed with dispute resolution according to WP:DR. We have already had an RFC, so perhaps the next step is Mediation? Sparkzilla 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang, that is mediation? Only one person? I was hoping to be able to expand it to a larger number of viewpoints. Well, I don't mind you choosing which way we go. I'm still fine with a request for mediation, or opening it up to the village pump (since I think this touches largely on policy). Assuming nobody else objects, I'm fine with letting you choose which way to go with it. Bladestorm 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been extended to a number of viewpoints already. What's needed is someone who can condense the arguments and help make a final decision, don't you think? Sparkzilla 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's clear we definitely need to take this to the next level and get some kind of mediation, so if this is the next step I'm fine with it. Darthmix 01:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try with a slightly different argument this time, and appreciate you comments. If the Gere urban legend is included in other biographies, why should it not be included here? Sparkzilla 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

? Whose biography includes it? I mean, in general, I don't particularly like arguments based on, "but some other article got away with it, so why can't this one?", but you've really piqued (sp?) my curiosity here. Bladestorm 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well certainly some of the online biographies mention it (although they may not be credible sources). Anyone actually ahve any print biographies that mention it? Sparkzilla 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my inattention, real life called. Sparkzilla, I think mediation is a good idea, and I would support a mediated decision. There were some interesting comments in the BLP noticeboard thread, but it seems to have muddified the issue even further; if I can quickly summarize the range of opinions here and there, I think they come down to:

• Notable enough for inclusion because it has followed him around for years, whether or not it is true
• A violation of BLP policy
• Not a BLP violation per se, but no evidence that it has affected him personally or in his career so not notable enough for inclusion
• Not really about Gere, it is about the urban legend
• No evidence anyone actually believes it, so not appropriate

I might have missed one or two positions here -if so, my apologies and please include them. I did note one comment on the BLP Noticeboard thread that made me smile - the one about how everyone felt comfortable talking about this issue on the talk pages, regardless of which side of the discussion they were on, so it couldn't be that big of a deal. I'll just point out that, if the mediation decision is that this rumour should not be included in the article for BLP reasons, I will ask for the talk page sections referring to it to be deleted too. Oh, and to the editor whose comments were deleted, I first came to this article during a RC patrol, and just left it on my watchlist. I am more a fan of upholding a strict interpretation of the BLP policy than a Richard Gere fan. Risker 03:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Risker, methinks your summary is more than a tad biased. Algabal 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed any stated positions? Please add them. I will agree that there has been a surprisingly wide array of reasons not to include, and it seemed to me only one reason to include, but I think I had them listed more or less in the frequency of which they occurred. Risker 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, I will assume good faith there that you were unaware it is considered poor form to edit another person's post to make it appear that they have said something they have not. I did ask for additions to my summary, not a re-write.

Below is Sparkzilla's summary of the arguments for and against inclusion:

Case for inclusion

• Urban legend itself and its debunking have multiple credible sources
• Urban legend appears in other works (Family Guy, South Park, other pop-culture references)
• Double standard. urban legends are included in other pages such as Michael Jackson, John Gilchrist.
• Legend appears in some online biographies. Requires check to see if it appears in print biographies.

Case for non-inclusion

• Violates BLP (reason?)
• Not sensitive to subject's feelings
• No evidence that it has affected him personally or in his career so not notable enough for inclusion
• Legend has been appled to multiple celebrities
• No evidence anyone actually believes it
• No evidence it actually happened
• Undue weight
• Not "encyclopedic"
• Libelous

Other possibility

• Allow inclusion on urban legend page, but not on Gere page

I have simply copied and pasted what you inserted into my post above, making a minor spelling correction. I trust you will find this acceptable. Risker 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Once this list is settled I suggest that all previosu discussions are archived and this becomes a new main section on the page. Sparkzilla

Disproportionate weight being given to kissing incident

The kissing incident is being given disproportionate weight in this article; it is longer than the section on his career, which is of course what makes him (and the kissing incident) noteworthy. Several editors have contributed to this area, and I would urge them to determine how to prune it back to a paragraph or two. For example, quotes by Shetty more properly belong in the article about her. Risker 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is so much interest, perhaps it should get its own article? Algabal 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Richard Gere Gerbil rumor

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

• {move it to an urban legends article if wikipedia allows such things...almost all of your sources do not meet WP:RS, and the other ones are repeating material that is only being cited as a urban legend - one that the subject of this article could sue Wikipedia for propagating. Piperdown 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding sources here, so that other editros may make judgements upon them. In fact, that is one of the purposes of talk pages. Wikipedia cannot be sued for linking to such sources. Also, please stop censoring this talk page - you are acting against Wikipedia policy. See Demong comment below. Sparkzilla 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FALSE AND NON-NOTABLE SEXUAL ACCUSATIONS HAVE NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA

False and non-notable sexual rumours have no place on Wikipedia, and certainly not in a BLP entry. Notability is not established just because sources for the accusation can be found. Notability means notable in relation to the topic of the entry, that is, in relation to Gere. This has not been established. Gere has never mentioned this rumour, and the prurient interest of others does not establish notability, no matter how many others there are. If you do not understand that notability means notability in relation to the subject of the entry, you need to understand this. Furthermore, this material clearly contravenes BLP policy about editing conservatively, sensitively, and non-controversially. False sexual accusations are also clearly non-encyclopaedic. THERE IS CLEARLY NO CONSENSUS for including this material. Continuing to place this material in the entry is a serious policy violation. FNMF 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like someone takes themselves and the internet entirely too seriously: the gerbil rumor is half the reason Richard Gere comes up in anyones conversations. As you put it, "notability means notable in relation to the topic of the entry" i.e. Richard Gere. Fair enough. Then you say "the prurient interest of others does not establish notability, no matter how many others there are." How do you figure? How does the fact that it's with relation to an alleged, unsubstantiated sexual proclivity make it not "notable?" Making definitions up is fun, I agree, but it's disingenuous. It certainly qualifies under the concept of "notability". In addition, it's not an "accusation", as you so foolishly put it, if it's described as an apparently baseless rumor that has become popular through hearsay. Can it be included in such a manner without inciting an idiotic revert war?

I agree with the previous user (the above unsigned comment is not by me). Also, FNMF, please do not use all caps. It is considered shouting. Also, I wish you would stop implying that your interpretation of how Wiki policy applies to this issue is the final word and that all discussion must cease after it. This is simply not the case and is extremely arrogant. Algabal 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a page for any of the Duke Lacrosse players? That was a baseless accusation (worse than a rumor), but it will be pegged to them for the rest of their lives whether they like it or not. Why not put a harmless, UTTERLY notable rumor regarding a gerbil and Richard Gere on his wikipage? 69.216.108.143 00:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The shouting is unnnecessary, but we are here to write an encyclopedia article about Richard Gere, an actor with a long, distinguished career, not to write about some scurrilous thing that he didn't do in his private life. Until overruled from a very great height, I intend to be ruthless about removing any such material if it is included. If it gets one line in an article on Famous rumours about gerbils, that might be another thing. I'd give it separate consideration. Metamagician3000 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept it if the rumour had been included in credible Gere biography? Sparkzilla 08:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. Folks trying to put this sort of thing in Wikipedia are only trying to endanger Wikipedia. This isn't the National Enquirer. Celebrities being forced to dispel slander does not make these slanders repeatable here. Piperdown 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Folks trying to put this sort of thing in Wikipedia are only trying to endanger Wikipedia"... please assume other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia. There are several excellent defenses for inclusion, "confirmation of falsehood to curious searchers" not the least. If the rumor is false, then its falsehood is a fact. — Demong ^talk 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So you would not allow any mention of court cases celebrities have taken against those who have slandered or libeled them? Sparkzilla 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Gere slander had reached court and become duly noted as a court case by a RS, then include it. Piperdown 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having something come to court is not the only standard of notability. Sparkzilla 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal by user Piperdown of further unsubstantiated sexual accusations. Inclusion of Gere's denials does not justify inclusion of this material. BLP entries should be limited to well-sourced, notable, factual information. Controversy should be avoided. That one can source a rumour to a secondary source does not make it factual information. What are supposed to be the grounds for the inclusion of this material? It is utterly non-encyclopaedic. On another note, to Sparkzilla: if a few CAPITAL LETTERS offend your delicate sensitivities, I think you should take this as an education in sensitivity, such that you reflect on the necessity of editing BLP entries sensitively, as policy requires. Consider how fortunate you are that, even if you have been forced to read a few capital letters, at least nobody is insisting on the necessity of publishing false and unsubstantiated sexual accusations about you, whether in lower or upper case. However many websites and tabloid articles insist on printing unsubstantiated or plainly false accusations, Gere (and other involved parties) should not have to read such accusations in an encyclopaedia. Editors who fail to grasp this, and who feel compelled to include such material, should kindly decide to avoid editing those entries. FNMF 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The BLP Noticeboard consensus was this is "not a BLP issue" and it was removed from there... content issue... is it appropriate for Richard Gere's encyclopedic biography? Also, I was swayed by arguments for exclusion, and thus disagree with Sparky, but I also find the shouting inappropriate. — Demong ^talk 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Gbleem put it on the BLP/N (in reference to a different topic), "Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut."... please stop deleting references to the gerbil legend on this talk page, it's destructive to the discussion and not in the spirit of the guideline. Saying "a false rumor exists" is not libelous. It's also not an accusation ("a statement declaring another person guilty of crime or error")... quite the opposite. — Demong ^talk 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to unsubstantiated allegations about Gere's marriage

Regarding the removal of the section about persistant rumors that Gere's marriage to Cindy Crawford was a sham to cover his alleged homosexuality. These rumors were so persistant that Gere and Crawford had to take out a newspaper ad to defend themselves. This is a matter of fact and should not be removed from the article. While the inclusion of the gerbil story is up for debate, when someone takes out a newspaper ad to defend their marriage and sexualtiy it's a notable, verifiable fact. It seems some people want to simply remove ANY negative information about Gere, however well-sourced.

FNMF: Firstly, shouting is unecessary and rude (as other editors have pointed out), and secondly, it is not our job to protect Gere, but to refelect what actually happened through verifiable sources. Sparkzilla 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This material has nothing to do with "what actually happened," nor is the question whether or not to remove "negative information about Gere." The material in question is certainly negative, but it is not information about Gere. It is unsubstantiated rumour about Gere and others. However persistEnt (apologies for the capital letter!) such rumours may be, this does not mean they are encyclopaedic. Inclusion of this material is, as has been pointed out numerous times, insensitive, contentious, controversial, and non-conservative. I refer you to the section of WP:BLP that discusses the example of a messy divorce. According to WP:BLP the details of a messy divorce, even if they are verifiable, may well need to be left out of a BLP entry, if their inclusion would be insensitive, controversial, or non-conservative. Note: details are to be left out, even if they are verifiable and factual. The case we are dealing with, on the other hand, is completely unsubstantiated. Note as well: a messy divorce may not be notable, even if there are verifiable, factual details about that divorce. Notability means more than simply "a part of the life of the subject of the entry." It means non-trivial; it means it forms a significant part of the notability of the subject of the entry. False or unsubstantiated malicious allegations do not become notable, just because they have been denied by the subject of the entry. If editors cannot understand how inclusion of negative (indeed, malicious), unsubstantiated allegations violates WP:BLP, they should not be editing BLP entries. FNMF 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. You are trying to say that an ad placed in a major newspaper by Gere and Crawford to say that their marriage was fine, and that he was not a homosexual is not notable? Plus the reports about the letter in many, many newspapers and magazines around the world? [6]

That they placed the ad is not a false or unsubstantiated rumor, nor is it an allegation that they placed such an ad. It actually happened. It is clearly, notable to the subject, can be easily sourced, is relevant, non-trivial, and merits inclusion by any standard. Once again, our objective on this page here is not to protect Gere, but to tell what happened to him, and around him, according to verifiable sources. In fact I would say it actually helps Gere more to include the letter (and in the same way to include the debunking of the gerbil rumor here too).

Well, I think some other editors should comment on this... Sparkzilla 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The repeated insistence that "our job" is "not to protect Gere" is revealing. FNMF 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Kissing Incident" clarification?

Could someone explain precisely what the issue is/was? Which specific taboo was violated? Did it have something to do with Richard Gere being a foreigner/non-Hindu, or is it really such a horrible, sinful act for anyone to kiss an unmarried woman (and not even on the mouth) in public? I'm aware that India is not the most sexually liberated country on Earth, but I didn't think it was on par with Saudi Arabia, either. --Lode Runner 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Lode Runner. In India, public displays of a sexual nature (including kissing) are very much frowned upon. Even couples holding hands in public can result in nastiness. Risker 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One More reason to not go to India!!

Disproportionate weight being given to kissing incident

The kissing incident is being given disproportionate weight in this article; it is longer than the section on his career, which is of course what makes him (and the kissing incident) noteworthy. Several editors have contributed to this area, and I would urge them to determine how to prune it back to a paragraph or two. For example, quotes by Shetty more properly belong in the article about her. Risker 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is so much interest, perhaps it should get its own article? Algabal 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It does seem massively disproportionate, though it's just a recentism issue, not a BLP issue or anything similar. Metamagician3000 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seriously violates WP:NPOV in terms of undue weight. Quadzilla99 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia sometimes confuses itself with a newspaper and feels obligated to provide the latest news. I agree that the editors who wrote it should cut it back. -Jmh123 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Preparing arguments for inclusion/exclusion of gerbil rumor for mediation/arbitration

This is a follow on from the discussions now archived in Gerbil archive 1 notably the Request For Comment area. Below is a summary of the arguments for and against inclusion of the infamous gerbil rumor. These items are being brought forward as part of a process to build consensus WP:consensus, and to preapre the issue for mediation and/or possible arbitration.

Case for inclusion

• Urban legend itself and its debunking have multiple credible sources
• Urban legend appears in other works (Family Guy, South Park, other pop-culture references)
• Double standard. urban legends are included in other pages such as Michael Jackson, John Gilchrist.
• Legend appears in some online biographies. Requires check to see if it appears in print biographies.
• Confirmation of falsehood to curious searchers

Case for exclusion

• Violates BLP (reason?)
• Not sensitive to subject's feelings
• No evidence that it has affected him personally or in his career so not notable enough for inclusion
• Legend has been appled to multiple celebrities
• No evidence anyone actually believes it
• No evidence it actually happened
• Undue weight
• Not "encyclopedic"
• Libelous

Other possibility

• Allow inclusion on urban legend page, but not on Gere page

I propose that once this list of reasons is agreed on, then each one is given a short rebuttal. This will create a framework for any external editor to quickly get up to speed on the intricacies of this issue. So, as a first stage I would be very grateful if each party could note their agreement to the above list, or add items as necessary. Thank you.Sparkzilla 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree to list, willing to go forward to rebuttal stage Sparkzilla 07:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one think that "rumors of gerbilling" should be mentioned. Like or not he is the celebrity most associated with gerbilling. Try googling Gerbilling.69.223.129.195 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Crawford Gere marriage letter

Regarding the removal of the section about persistant rumors that Gere's marriage to Cindy Crawford was a sham to cover his alleged homosexuality. These rumors were so persistant that Gere and Crawford had to take out a newspaper ad to defend themselves. This is a matter of fact and should not be removed from the article. While the inclusion of the gerbil story is up for debate, when someone takes out a newspaper ad to defend their marriage and sexualtiy it's a notable, verifiable fact. It seems some people want to simply remove ANY negative information about Gere, however well-sourced.

FNMF: Firstly, shouting is unecessary and rude (as other editors have pointed out), and secondly, it is not our job to protect Gere, but to refelect what actually happened through verifiable sources. Sparkzilla 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Er... suppose there is a notable and verifiable rumor that Richard Gere is gay... and suppose he and his wife verifiably took out an ad in a notable newspaper saying how happily married they are... isn't drawing a connection between the two sort of original research? Or is there a reliable source that already does? Even if there is... I think the gerbil urban legend is worth debating because it's legendary, but I think speculation (or even merely bandying rumors) about a male movie star's sexuality is very, very common... and somewhat beneath an encyclopedia. — Demong ^talk 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From [7] Richard had never been allowed to escape the rumours that sprang up after American Gigolo and, as Crawford had suffered similar accusations, as a couple they were constantly under fire. The marriage, it was endlessly alleged, was a cover-up for their homosexuality. Eventually, they actually took a full-page ad out in the Times, announcing that they were heterosexual, monogamous and in love. A few months later, sadly, they split.

I am pretty certain this this letter, as a public, and very personal statement, is mentioned in every biography about Gere. So why not here? Sparkzilla 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This material has nothing to do with "what actually happened," nor is the question whether or not to remove "negative information about Gere." The material in question is certainly negative, but it is not information about Gere. It is unsubstantiated rumour about Gere and others. However persistEnt (apologies for the capital letter!) such rumours may be, this does not mean they are encyclopaedic. Inclusion of this material is, as has been pointed out numerous times, insensitive, contentious, controversial, and non-conservative. I refer you to the section of WP:BLP that discusses the example of a messy divorce. According to WP:BLP the details of a messy divorce, even if they are verifiable, may well need to be left out of a BLP entry, if their inclusion would be insensitive, controversial, or non-conservative. Note: details are to be left out, even if they are verifiable and factual. The case we are dealing with, on the other hand, is completely unsubstantiated. Note as well: a messy divorce may not be notable, even if there are verifiable, factual details about that divorce. Notability means more than simply "a part of the life of the subject of the entry." It means non-trivial; it means it forms a significant part of the notability of the subject of the entry. False or unsubstantiated malicious allegations do not become notable, just because they have been denied by the subject of the entry. If editors cannot understand how inclusion of negative (indeed, malicious), unsubstantiated allegations violates WP:BLP, they should not be editing BLP entries. FNMF 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. You are trying to say that an ad placed in a major newspaper by Gere and Crawford to say that their marriage was fine, and that he was not a homosexual is not notable? Plus the reports about the letter in many, many newspapers and magazines around the world? [8]

That they placed the ad is not a false or unsubstantiated rumor, nor is it an allegation that they placed such an ad. It actually happened. It is clearly, notable to the subject, can be easily sourced, is relevant, non-trivial, and merits inclusion by any standard. Once again, our objective on this page here is not to protect Gere, but to tell what happened to him, and around him, according to verifiable sources. In fact I would say it actually helps Gere more to include the letter (and in the same way to include the debunking of the gerbil rumor here too).

Well, I think some other editors should comment on this... Sparkzilla 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The repeated insistence that "our job" is "not to protect Gere" is revealing. FNMF 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let other editors comment. Thank you. Sparkzilla 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the unwillingness of FNMF to find consensus on this issue (see [9]) I have taken the discsussion of the Gere/Crawfod letter to the BLP noticeboard. [10]. Sparkzilla 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

False and unsubstantiated allegations should not be included at this entry

Because of the archiving of the discussion, I feel compelled to point out for the benefit of editors new to this entry that a persistent problem has been the inclusion of false and unsubstantiated malicious rumours and allegations of a sexual nature. These false accusations were first removed over two years ago, and the legitimate WP:BLP grounds for doing so were already elaborated at that time. Since then, editors who wished to include these false and unsubstantiated malicious allegations have periodically done so, in violation of policy. They have given reasons such as: that there are sources provided for the allegations; or, that the allegations are not reported as true but simply as asserted; or, that denials of the allegations are included. Such reasons do not make it OK to include such allegations in Wikipedia. It is equally a violation to discuss these allegations on the talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is a strictly enforced policy, and one which makes clear the necessity of dealing with BLP entries in a sensitive, conservative, factual, encyclopaedic, and non-controversial way. Inclusion of denials or refutations is insufficient to establish NPOV. Furthermore, the notability of factual information must be notable in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, in relation to Gere's own notability, that is, in relation to his work or in relation to other non-trivial reasons for his notability. Notability cannot be established on any other grounds, such as general or cultural interest, nor on the grounds of notoriety. There is no consensus for inclusion of this material, and, given the lengthy history of this problem, such material should not be included at this entry. FNMF 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FNMF... this was posted on the special unique sensitive issue emergency response BLP Noticeboard (link to past ver) and deleted with the comment "I agree. This is a content dispute which does not belong on this noticeboard." — Demong ^talk 07:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To FNMF. Yup. that's what you think. Now would you mind to please stop ranting and let the people who actually want to discuss this issue move ahead with the mediation process? Sparkzilla 07:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, the opinion is not only mine, as the archive shows. I believe it is necessary to point out the context of the problem at this entry, give that those who wish to continue debating this issue, or who insist on re-posting policy-violating material, are ignoring two years of objection grounded in policy. Nothing I have said prevents anybody at all from making comment on this issue. Furthermore, your personal attacks are unfortunate and unhelpful. FNMF 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the consensus of higher authority on the BLP policy than the Richard Gere Talk Page was that the gerbil legend is not a BLP issue. At this point I think this is kind of a dumb argument, but I'm curious what you do when discussion is deadlocked like this. And it sounds like it's been going on for two years? — Demong ^talk 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Demong, good question: what you do is exclude the controversial material until such time as there is a consensus to include it. Consensus can be sought at various forums. There is no such consensus. Such material should not be included. FNMF 07:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant "what do you do" re: progress — Demong ^talk 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While you may not want the issue disscussed here, there are plenty of editors who do actually want to find some resolution to this issue. We are trying to make a framework to address the issues in a rational manner (see above). You can be part of consensus building or you can rant by yourself. Up to you. If you really, really think that no discussion of this urban legend should be allowed on this talk page then I suggest you state your reasons clearly, conduct a survey, or take it to WP:BLP. Sparkzilla 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, you can discuss the issue all you want. Indeed, I have explained to you at inordinate length, as have others, that there are clear policy grounds for the exclusion of this material. These explanations have not been adequately addressed by editors wishing to include violatory material. My point about discussing this on the talk page is that, if the material does indeed violate WP:BLP, then it violates this policy wherever on Wikipedia it occurs. Thus, for example, when, two years ago, the rumour was first removed, the editor removing the rumour did so in a way that meant they did not then repeat the rumour in their talk page comment explaining the removal. This level of care in relation to policy has not been demonstrated by those wishing to "discuss" the issue two years later. It should be. Furthermore, please cease changing the title of this section. There is nothing inappropriate about the title. The purpose of my initial comment in this section was not to begin a debate about whether discussion of the false accusations against Gere should occur at this talk page, but to make clear the policy situation at this entry. Your insistence on altering this section title, combined with your personal attacks, is beginning to appear to be disruptive. FNMF 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We have not determined whether it violates BLP or not. You think it does, others don't think so. That's why we are trying to create a framework for discussion, of which adherence to BLP is but one issue. The item will remain off the article page until that is determined by the dispute resolution process, but as part of the process to find out if it should be incluee or excluded discussion on this talk page is necessary and relevant. I hope you will particpate in a rational manner. Sparkzilla 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the incident should stay in. Anchoress 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please allow non-involved editors to make their comments, unencumbered from involved editors rebuttals and further argumentation. Involved editors should keep their comments in their alloted section.

Disputed text

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici wrote that the marriage was a sham and that Gere "preferred men" [11] In May 1994, Gere and Crawford took out a full-page ad in the London Times, announcing that "We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family." [12] On December 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision".[13]

Comments by involved editors

User:sparkzilla

is for inclusion and says that

1. Gere wrote the letter himself and placed it in a major newspaper.
2. The story has been picked up by are multiple independent secondary sources: The Independent [14], Entertainment Weekly[15], People[16], L'Humanite [17], at least a couple of published books, [18] [19], The New York Times [20] , The Biography Channel [21], BBC News [22], and of course, The Times itself [23] [24] [25].

1. Most of these sources explicitly say that Gere placed the letter to counter rumors that he was a homosexual.

Jossi, this RFC was supposed to have been created to specifically discuss issue of notability of the event. The BLP noticeboard RFC was to discuss BLP issues. The BLP policy page was to discuss policy issues that came up. Can we leave this one here so we can continue to get comments on the notability of the event. Thank you. Sparkzilla 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:FNMF

is against inclusion and says: "I believe the other example given in WP:BLP, about a messy divorce, remains relevant, and I re-iterate its message: "Is it notable, verifiable, and important to the article? If not, leave it out." I don't believe this material is notable, nor do I believe it is important to the article. This material is not encyclopaedic. And I continue to reiterate: no credible source asserts the allegation about Gere's marriage as true. There may be verifiable sources that the allegation exists. But there are no verifiable sources prepared to assert the allegation as true."

Why I will not be participating in this RfC (but ended up participating anyway!)

While I am certain that user Jossi opened this RfC with the best intentions, I believe it is a mistake to continually open one discussion after another about this issue (this talk page, the Jimbo Wales talk page, the BLP noticeboard, even the WP:BLP talk page!). Not including this RfC, there is a clear pattern by one editor to open a new discussion whenever he feels dissatisfied with the direction of an earlier discussion. This RfC unfortunately presents another opportunity to ignore previous (and current) discussions. The ongoing discussion at the BLP noticeboard is the central place where this discussion is presently occurring, and extensive discussion has occurred at that forum. Numerous editors (at least seven) have argued and concluded that the material in question here should not be included in the entry. Hence there is at present no consensus to include such material. I do not believe this RfC is necessary, and editors should not use this forum to avoid the reality that there is no consensus for including this material. I do not intend to participate in this RfC, but I will simply reiterate that this material violates policy because it is malicious, insensitive, non-conservative, controversial, non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, non-factual, and because no credible source has ever asserted the allegation as true. I refer interested parties to the discussion at the BLP noticeboard (now archived as Richard Gere (2)), where I have provided extensive argumentation supporting these conclusions. FNMF 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough to say this material is malicious, insensitive, non-conservative, controversial, non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, and non-factual... you have to explain why... there are plenty of reasons given why it is not (also, non-factual is not a good argument; no one is saying the allegations were true; only that they were made, which is true/verifiable). And, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis from policy) — Demong _talk 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF's approach is simply not how Wikipedia works. We dont make an arbitrary standard of what is malicious, insensitive, non-conservative, controversial, non-encyclopaedic, and non-factual first and then remove items that are notable and verifiable because they don't match our definition. As a very simple example, look at the input box where it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It doesn't say "Verifiable content must be encyclopedic". It's a very important distinction. We look at the sources first, and if they are verifiable, reliable and notable and match other content policies suich as WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE then the item goes in.

Regarding the issue, I think Jossi is on the right track, and look forward to the improvemment of the text. Sparkzilla 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly continue to believe that material on Wikipedia needs to be encyclopaedic. I continue to believe that BLP entries need to be edited responsibly, sensitively, conservatively, non-maliciously, and non-contentiously. I believe these things because that is what policy states, and because that is what common sense suggests. Editors in love with gossip, rumour and sensationalism no doubt do not believe these things. I don't know what kind of arguments might persuade this sort of editor that the material is non-encyclopaedic, malicious, irresponsible, and insensitive. If editors do not understand how these allegations are malicious, I cannot explain it to them. These are sensationalist tabloid rumours about living people that no credible source has ever asserted are true: if editors do not understand how including such allegations violates WP:BLP requirements, nobody will be able to explain it to them. Unsubstantiated and malicious allegations about the details of a marriage between an actor and a model are nobody's business, and have no place in an encyclopaedia. You can argue as often as you like that all this is "arbitrary," but I do not at all believe that to be the case. Editors who take pleasure in printing such malicious and unsubstantiated rumour would be well-advised to seek employment at a tabloid magazine (it will pay better), rather than insist on reproducing this material in an encyclopaedia. And, as mentioned, numerous editors agree that this material has no place in the entry. FNMF 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do your responses always have to be so long and so condescending? Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, built on your arbitrary rules. It is built by consensus from multiple editors. Your attempts to dictate policy based on your arbitrary idea of what is sensitive, sensationalist, encyclopedic, or mailicious are simply not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

There is no WP:Sensitivity, WP:Malicious, WP:Sensationalist or WP:Encyclopedic so stop refering to these items as though they were real policies that trump the actual policies that we do have. It is not constructive.

Whether you like it or not, numerous editors believe that this material has a place on this page in some form, so you would be better to work toward consensus, so that the material is added with the sensitivity that you desire, rather than making dramatic statements that you will not participate, which frankly make you appear petty and uncooperative.

If you don't want to participate then don't make any more posts here. We know your position. We've heard it many, many times. Either be constructive by engaging in real debate about real Wikipedia policies, or let other editors who actually believe in the concept of consensus find a way to deal with this issue. Thank you. Sparkzilla 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, you continue to indicate your lack of interest in WP:BLP, or in the fact that Wikipedia is attempting to build an encyclopaedia. FNMF 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF EDITORS OPPOSING INCLUSION

Editors who have indicated they do not believe there is a consensus to include this material in the entry (indicating this either at this RfC or at the BLP noticeboard discussion): FNMF, Risker, Kittybrewster, Ken Arromdee, SlimVirgin, FCYTravis, Athaenara, Metamagician3000, Bladestorm, Steve Dufour, Ben, WAS_4.250, Jmh123, Ronnymexico. A total of fourteen (14) editors.

Editors who do not believe the material should be included in its current form: Jossi, Alex Jackl. An additional two (2) editors. Note that although these editors have suggested they may approve inclusion of this material in a different form, as yet no form of words has been proposed about which they feel able to offer consent.

If anybody disagrees with my inclusion of them on this list, they may of course alter accordingly. But it seems clear that at this point, and after extensive discussion, there is no consensus to include this material. I do not see the purpose of further discussion, given these numbers. FNMF 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a vote, or a counting of numbers; it is the arguments that count. Also, as BLP is an appendage to WP policies and guidelines then it is to those who are removing information under that aegis to prove that they are right to do so. If consensus is not reached that information should be removed (which is what you, FNMF, originally did) then it should be kept as "no consensus". LessHeard vanU 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was a vote, but it is certainly nonsense to suggest that if no consensus is reached, the material should be included. It is clear that there are numerous editors, including very experienced editors, who believe this material violates policy and should not be included. Of course it is the arguments that count. Extensive argument has been put by all sides, and it remains the case that many editors remain unpersuaded that this material belongs in an encyclopaedia. No consensus has been established that would permit inclusion of this material. The material should be excluded. FNMF 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is necessary to add: editors opposing me have acted as though I have refused to move toward agreement. But what matters is not whether you persuade me to agree with you, nor vice versa. What matters is what the community of interested opinion concludes about the opposing viewpoints. And it is very clear that the community of interested opinion has not achieved any kind of consensus that would legitimate including this material. Regardless of my own view, too many other editors, having heard the arguments and formed their own views, believe this material simply should not be included. FNMF 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't how Wikipedia works. WP works in the following manner; Anyone is free to add content. There are rules, guidelines and policy that determines what of that content can be retained. Therefore, unless there is a rule, guideline or policy that means the content should be removed then it stays. Only where there is consensus that a rule, guideline or policy is valid and workable can content be removed under the said rule, etc. There is currently no consensus of the primacy of BLP over other considerations such as WP:V, NPOV, etc., and especially over the context of sensitivity within BLP. Hence, no consensus means keep.

By your argument no content could be added unless it goes through checks for all of WP's various requirements. This does not happen in practice, and has been argued against elsewhere (I think it is covered in a FAQ page). LessHeard vanU 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an absurd and unhelpful distortion of my position to falsely claim that I am saying that "no content could be added unless it goes through checks." Content is added. Occasionally it is contested on policy grounds, in which case the opinion of the Wikipedia community is sought. Many editors clearly believe this material is not encyclopaedic. Furthermore, WP:BLP is clear: it must be adhered to strictly. Where numerous editors object to the material on BLP grounds, including several extremely experienced editors, the material must be excluded. There are numerous editors who clearly believe "there is a rule, guideline or policy" which means this material should be removed. The requirement is to edit sensitively, conservatively, non-controversially, and to include only notable material important to the article. It is quite clear that numerous editors disagree with the inclusion of this material, and to include this material against the opinion of these numerous editors is to unnecessarily introduce controversy, as well as being non-conservative and insensitive. The strong body of opinion opposing inclusion of this material ought to be respected. The interminable drawing out of this multi-forum discussion fails to respect this strong body of opinion. FNMF 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A strong body of opinion once concluded that the Earth was flat. It is not. A strong body of opinion believe that BLP infers that "any" allegation should be removed from an individuals article, but that is opposed by an equally strong body of opinion who believe that allegations can be noted in the context of notability, after rigorous scrutiny using BLP guidelines. Hence there is "no consensus" (you will recall that consensus is not a simple counting of numbers) in the application of BLP as regards allegations. As application of BLP involves the removal of material placed in articles then no consensus means the non-removal of such material. I would remind you that it was your original proposal to remove material owing to current lack of consensus.

Your protests that by "drawing out" the discussion the strong body of opinion for deletion of certain material is being not respected indicates a lack of appreciation of how consensus is arrived at. I have no problems with you continuing to promote your interpretation of BLP, since it is only by exhaustive discussion of the various viewpoints that it is likely that a lasting and solid consensus will be formed. While I respect opinion, I edit according to policy and guidelines. As far as I am aware, the proper interpretation of BLP has not yet been created. Until then... LessHeard vanU 15:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the notion that "no consensus means non-removal": I beg to differ, for the reasons given. I don't see that your position is defensible, and I don't see that you have addressed the reasons to remove. In relation to drawing out the discussion: you may of course proceed with this discussion as long as is reasonable. What I object to is the pattern whereby a discussion is commenced in one forum after another before earlier discussions are closed. But I have no objection in principle to ongoing or lengthy attempts to reach consensus. On the other hand, I see little evidence that consensus will be reached: it does not appear that a single editor has been persuaded by the arguments given to "change sides," nor does it seem that opposing "sides" have moved much closer together. In that context I am not sure how you imagine consensus will be reached. But by all means continue arguing your case. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. FNMF 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bladestorm

Okay, I have to say it. If nothing else, wouldn't it be more fair to simply let this matter rest for a while?
As much as I greatly prefer to stick solely to content, I really feel it necessary to point out that this started out as a debate on whether or not to include accusations that he's crammed rodents up his butt. And the moment it becomes apparent that that won't happen, it's immediately suggested that, if we can't include accusations of gerbilling, then we should include accusations about him being gay! It's just too soon. It's just too soon. If 13-year old accusations really are notable, then it won't hurt anything to wait for a while. Bladestorm 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Demong _talk 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to this RFC

Comment by AnonEMouse (talk · contribs)

• Let's quote WP:BLP specifically (it's in flux, but here's what it read at the time I was writing).

Public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Significant public figure? Check. Multitude of reliable, third-party published sources? Check. Negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it? Check. Messy divorce? Not really that messy. Important to the article? The Biography Channel seems to think so. Public scandal? Check. New York Times? Check. Seems clearly important enough to include. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose closing. This is a more appropriate venue, finally, after being discussed on half a dozen other places. Notice has been placed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Re: Jossi's comment) Very reasonable objections. We should use The Independent as the main source for the first sentence, that's not a tabloid (British Press Awards "National Newspaper of the Year" according to our article on it), and makes the connection explicitly.[26] The New York Times similarly makes the connection between the ad and the divorce explicitly, and should be used as the source for the second sentence.[27] The other high quality references should be sprinkled throughout for the pedantic. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Independent says "They said they had shelled out the £21,000 cost of the advertisment in May 1995 to "alleviate the concerns of our friends and fans" in the wake of an article in the French magazine Voici that the relationship was a sham." That's not a speculative connection, that's an outright statement, even quoting Gere and Crawford themselves. The BBC also explicitly makes the connection, stating the ad was in response to rumours about the couple's sexual orientation.[28] The NYT, as I wrote, does not mention the first sentence, but explicitly connects the second and third. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs)

Looks like tabloid stuff rather than encyclopedic stuff to me as what I get when I read it and the New Yok Times source is "Famous couple is having marriage problems." WAS 4.250 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times is not a tabloid. Gere & Crawford chose this bastion of British newspaper publishing to place an advert. IMO this is the notable event, both in the content and the unusualness of the venue. Once noted then other sources (perhaps not as austere) can be used to supply the context. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Jossi (talk · contribs)

• I created this RfC to simply move a misplaced RfC at Wikipedia:Notability. There has been recent RfC-type of discussions in that BLP/Noticeboard, and I do not think that this RfC is really needed, given the abundant comments already placed there. See BLP Noticeboard section on this article. Propose to close this RfC on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I would argue that you are pushing this a bit too hard. I will be surprised if editors that have abundantly discussed this in other fora, will come back again to comment here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment regarding the disputed text

1. The text violates WP:V by using a tabloid as a source
2. The text violates WP:NOR by making a connection between sources that describe an allegation of homosexuality, with another source, and then following with another source that describe their separation as if these three events were connected
3. In summary, the text in its current form is not compliant with Wikipedia content policies.
4. I have checked all other sources provided. The NYT does not support the connection made in the disputed text, and the Independent material is a speculative opinion.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People are making the assumption that I am arguing against the inclusion of that information. I am not. The disputed text in its current form it is non-compliant. Editors can describe (a) the letter by Gere; (b) the fact that they have separated; (c) Maybe, jut maybe, the fact that there is speculation in the press about the reasons for their separation. That will be compliant. The current text is most definitively not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, do you think you could propose a form that may be acceptable (or at least getting closer to something that may be acceptable? I think it woud be very helpful. Sparkzilla 07:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note, that op-eds such as some of the sources provided, are not considered reliable sources for facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My responses;

1. WP:V does not disallow using tabloids as a source, providing they are backed up by other reputable sources establishing the context. No less an authority than Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford establishes that the rumour is notable. BTW I presume the tabloid referred to is the French newspaper, since The Independant is considered as quality press amongst the British newspaper fraternity.
2. There are three separate issues here; the publishing of allegations, the placing of an advert which addresses the allegations and dismisses them in the context of the commitment toward each other in marriage, and the announcement of the ending of the marriage. Remove any one of these individual issues and the context then becomes POV.
3. I (obviously) disagree.
4. I cannot speak regarding the NYT. Regarding The Independant; it is not speculative opinion, it is reporting speculative opinion (this is crucial). It may or may not comment on how it views the matter, but it is a primary source (and a reputable one) confirming the rumours and speculation exists.

LessHeard vanU 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

LHVU, do you think you could propose a form that may be acceptable (or at least getting closer to something that may be acceptable? We can then compare it to Jossi's version. I think it woud be very helpful. Sparkzilla 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to have a look at WP:SYN, as mentioned below. If I think that my understanding of WP:V (or whatever it is called this week) and context is still valid I will have a go at working up some text. Don't hold your breath! LessHeard vanU 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific proposal

I'll make a specific proposal attempting to meet Jossi's concerns. (Assume refs tags are better formatted inline citations.) Let's call this Alternative 1.

In May 1994, Gere and Crawford took out a full-page ad in the London Times, announcing "We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.", commonly assumed to be in response to an April article by the French weekly tabloid Voici.^{Independent, EW, People} On December 1, 1994, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision".^{New York Times}

I hope it meets the requirements: describes the ad, describes the separation, describes the mainstream response, not the original tabloid allegation. In doing so, it: doesn't write the substance of the Voici allegation; does give a substantial number of citations showing the speculation was common and widespread; provides highly reliable sources; only makes those connections between events that the highly reliable sources did themselves. By not giving the homosexuality allegation it should also meet Ben's concerns, just stated. That in doing so it doesn't provide much of a stepping stone to gerbil issues is ... an extra benefit. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Using someone's attempt to stop a rumor as a reason to report the rumor violates common sense, even if in some technical sense it proves the whole thing is notable.

2) Juxtaposing his statement that he is heterosexual and intends to stay married with a statement that the couple separated is obviously intended to imply that he is not heterosexual. You cannot imply something that you're not allowed to state directly, and it's clear that directly stating "they separated, so he's homosexual" is prohibited under BLP and other policies. Ken Arromdee 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1) We don't report on goals, just results.

2) Is exactly what the Independent wrote, even emphasizing the very heterosexuality assertion that you are drawing attention to, and very similar to what the New York Times wrote, also tying the statement to the separation. We can't be the first ones to make the implication, but we can certainly follow the line what award winning newspapers on two continents do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The following seems a bit ridiculous, but at least makes who is saying what explicit. Would you prefer this?

In May 1994, Gere and Crawford took out a full-page ad in the London Times, announcing "We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family." Media around the world, including The Independent,^[29] L'Humanite,^[30] People,^[31] and Entertainment Weekly^[32] wrote that this was in response to an April article by the French weekly tabloid Voici. On December 1, 1994, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". Media around the world including the above sources, the London Times,^[33] the New York Times,^[34] and BBC News^[35] connected the separation with the ad. Most sources, including The Independent, The Times, and BBC News connected the separation with the public assertion of the couple's heterosexuality and monogamy in response to rumours about the couple's sexual orientation.

Let's call that Alternative 2. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that the source "connected" the announcement to the rumors? The way you phrased it implies that the source said "maybe he's gay". It didn't. The source pointed out that other people connect the two events and think he's gay, but the source didn't try to connect them itself.

You'd have to say something like "Many of these sources reported that rumors about the couple's sexual orientation connected the separation with the public assertion of the couple's heterosexuality and monogamy."

And even then, it doesn't fix the basic problem: you're trying to introduce the claim that he's gay, and then when people like me complain, you change the claim to be slightly more indirect and hope we'll accept it. And then when we complain again, you make it a bit more indirect and try again. If it's inappropriate, it's inappropriate; stating the inappropriate material in a roundabout way won't make it appropriate. Ken Arromdee 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you mean "you" in the plural, but I personally am not trying to introduce the claim that he is gay. I wasn't in this argument at the beginning, and haven't edited this article or any related one before just a few days ago. I personally am an admin; I saw an issue under dispute that I believed I could help find common ground on. I am trying to get common ground. That's what I see as my role, comes with the mop, the editorial experience, the trust by the community, that sort of thing. I certainly am trying to meet your, and other people's, reasonable, actionable complaints, that's the whole idea. It's called reaching Wikipedia:consensus. That's the way we try to do things around here.

Anyway, back to the substance. Connected means exactly what you said above, juxtaposed, they wrote about the events one after another, in a way that implied strongly the two events were linked. We can't write "reported that rumors connected", because that's putting words in the papers that they didn't state. Would you accept "juxtaposed"? How about "reported on the separation in conjunction with the ad"? If it will make the difference in your accepting or not, we can drop the last sentence of Alternative 2 entirely.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)

What drives the notability of this matter is the advert placed by Gere & Crawford in The Times, commenting on the status of their marriage. The placing of this kind of advert, in such a publication, is possibly unique and is noteworthy for that fact alone. WP is duty bound to note this important event.

The advert declares that the couple are both heterosexual and committed to each other within the marriage. WP then needs to place this statement in its appropriate context. As the statement specifically refers to the couples sexuality, individually, then sources need be found where there are questions regarding the sexuality of the individuals. This provides the context of the rebuttal. WP also should find if the statement about the endurance of the marriage is established, and the subsequent announcement of the couples separation again places this in context.

The opponents of the placing of this subject in the article may have a case where there only the allegations and the later separation of the couple. With the placing of the advert in a major British notability newspaper is provided.LessHeard vanU 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is original research, and not providing "context". Sure, we can most definitively describe the letter they published. Sure, we can describe that they have separated. Sure, we can report that some media outlets are speculating about the letter, and about the separation. What is in dispute, as per the RFC header is the current wording of that text that is in violation of WP:SYN and asserting opinions as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Example statement; "Joe Blo said that his ability was the result of his unusual physique." End of statement. We know JB is talented, but at what and how is his physique important. Context is required (if it isn't already in the text). This is not OR, it is making sense of a piece of text. Naturally the context needs to be from cited sources, but it all stems from the one comment. JB's statement may not have been notable in the first instance, but Gere and Crawford's is. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Gere and Crawford's letter is not notable. I am not arguing that the letter should not be used in this article as a source. What I am disputing is the obvious violation of WP:SYN as in the disputed text's current version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside that this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine or a disreputable tabloid newspaper, the whole thing certainly looks like original research by synthesis to me, and that is all the more inappropriate when dealing with the lives of living persons. Once you start having to move from one argument to another to justify edits, building justification on justification, you can be pretty sure that you've embarked on an original research project, even if you end up finding some kind of citation for every individual sentence. We are not here to carry out that sort of project on the private life or sexuality of Richard Gere, or any other living person. Metamagician3000 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've read throught the text of WP:SYN and believe a working version of words can be formulated. The closing sentence of WP:SYN states, "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." The Independant article specifically does make the link between the allegations and the advert, although the context of the subsequent announcement of the ending of the relationship needs to be looked at (although the ending of a marriage is a notable event and would be mentioned in the article anyway, but I am looking at the context regarding the advert here). Bear with me. LessHeard vanU 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can improve much upon AnonEMouse's suggested text, other to attribute the Independant cite as the major source which specifically notes that Gere and Crawford comments that the advert was in response to the allegations. This directly addresses WP:SYN's requirement "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic..." as mentioned above. LessHeard vanU 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Is the text of the advert available anywhere? It is extensively referenced. Perhaps it is copyright to Messrs. Gere and Crawford?

Comment by Ajackl (talk · contribs)

Agree with Jossi- facts may be relevant and worthy of inclusion, current form violates too many policies. Alex Jackl 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ben (talk · contribs)

Oppose inclusion: original source for the claim of homosexuality, a tabloid, had neither reliability in itself (that is, its own record for factual accuracy) nor evidence either to verify the claim or credit its ability to know the truth of the claim. In short, there is no basis to present that claim as true; it is unverified and (so far) unverifiable. None of the subsequent events -- the rumor being spread, its being reported in other media, or the rebuttal by Gere and Crawford -- have done anything to remedy that lack. The claim being both negative and contentious, the lack of a reliable source to verify it is fatal: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. That other media have not followed such a policy does not mean that Wikipedia's editors should not follow Wikipedia's policy. To report such rumors without regard for their verifiability, merely because other media have done so, would fundamentally violate WP:BLP. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttal by Gere and Crawford does not remedy the lack of of verifiability of the rumours regarding his and their sexuality? That is the verification; they themselves acknowledge the existence of the rumour. The truth of the rumours has not, and likely cannot, be verified, but the fact that there are allegations are. Only the fact of the allegations existing needs be verified, not the original source(s) of them. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kindly don't make a strawman argument and attribute it to me. "The existence of the rumour" is not the issue. It is, as I said, the claim of homosexuality that is unverified and (so far) unverifiable, and therefore should be "removed immediately and without discussion" from material about Gere, or (better still) not inserted in the first place. Arguing that the documented existence of this unverified and (so far) unverifiable claim justifies its inclusion is misguided. Even flatly disproved lies "exist" and can be shown to "exist", but that does not justify including them in biographies. If that were the criterion, WP:BLP could be torn up and thrown away, because any lie no matter how malicious could be told about any biographical subject, and as long as the telling of the lie was documented, it could be included in the article, despite the utter absence of any documentation for what the lie claims. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you comment on whether either of the 2 #Specific proposals above meet your objections, and if not specifically how they can? That is my goal at least, to meet actionable objections. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ken Arromdee's objections. Other media may offer the flimsy excuse for reporting unverified and unverifiable claims, that they're only reporting the fact that the claims were made, in the hope of evading or defending a libel suit while still using the purported scandal to sell newspapers. Wikipedia doesn't have that incentive, but does have a strict BLP policy, so the same flimsy excuse won't fly here. Likewise for the juxtaposition gambit. Just don't go there. Just don't. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See Paul is dead; there is no requirement regarding the substance of the claims being proven to make the a matter notable. All WP requires is verifiability and, per BLP policy, due sensitivity in the editing. The notable event is the advert in The Times, in which Gere and Crawford state they are heterosexual, happily married, etc., which they comment, per The Independant source, is in response to allegations about their sexuality as published in a French newspaper.

That there were allegations (or rumours, if you will) is verified by Gere and Crawford, and the substance of them are addressed by the text of the advert which Gere and Crawford comment was in reponse to same. Therefore the fact and nature of the rumours, which need not be spelled out by WP, are established by no less an authority than the targets of the allegations. Since Gere and Crawford have commented on them then they are both in the public domain (not that they weren't when they were originally published) and they are established as notable. By deleting reference to the rumours you are removing comment by the article subject(s). I believe that verges on censorship.

Also, kindly do not use the strawman argument to avoid discussion points. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In response to your misrepresenting my argument, I wrote: "Kindly don't make a strawman argument and attribute it to me." Which you echo in your reply: "kindly do not use the strawman argument to avoid discussion points." But you don't point out where I ever used a strawman (attributed to you a position you actually don't hold, then argued against that position).

I also love the topsy-turvy logic that claims it would verge on censoring Gere and Crawford not to include in their biographies the allegations they refuted. So I could ask you some utterly offensive question, like "Are you a ______________?", and if you answer "No!" (the more vehemently the better), then I can include the assertion that you are one in an article about you, because not to do so would verge on censoring you.

Considering how often highly offensive and utterly baseless accusations are made on the Net (so-and-so is gay, a pedophile, etc.), all I'd have to document is that such an accusation was made against you -- even by a vandal, anonymous IP or otherwise, someone with no credibility at all -- or that you had denied it, and I could tag you with that accusation forever, because by your rule even an unsourced and unverifiable negative claim about you (and everyone else) can be included as long as the claim's existence (not its factual accuracy) is documented. By that rule, WP:BLP would become irrelevant. Conversely, if WP:BLP means anything at all, your rule doesn't apply here. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I don't find the term or label gay (as in homosexual) at all offensive. Also, I always issue my denials of any accusation in a level tone. Finally, I wasn't accusing you of promoting strawman arguments, but of using your assertion that mine were as a means of not answering them. I note that you now have, so I will try to answer them.

What you say regarding any accusation regarding me is correct, that had I denied an incorrect claim about my private or professional life that it would behove an encyclopedia to not note both the claim and the denial on the grounds of censorship. It would equally apply to Richard Gere, as well. However, Gere did not simply issue a denial. He and Crawford paid for an advert to appear in The Times specifically refuting that he (they) were anything other than heterosexual and that their marriage was sincere and monogamous, contrary to the allegations then recently published. People say "no", or "no comment", or maintain a (dignified) silence over all sorts of claims, rumours and allegations and it would be totally wrong for an Encyclopedia to note either the denials or the claims being denied. My point is, as has consistently been, that the extremely unusual act of placing an advert in a National newspaper, commenting on sexual orientation and the validity of a marriage, is a notable event no matter what gave rise to it. Once it is agreed that this is a notable event, then it does need context. The Independant cite provides everything that is required; what they did and why they said they did it. Two, three, sentences at most in a section regarding Gere's marriage to Crawford. Outside of the wedding and the seperation it is the only notable event in said union, AFAIAW. The next section, or the one following that, is his/their current marriage(s), notable for birth of children. Even if it could be argued that noting the subsequent failure of the Gere/Crawford marriage gives credence to the rumours, then the noting of the later marriages which have produced children refutes the accusations. LessHeard vanU 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Although not being notable is a reason to take something out, that doesn't mean being notable is a reason to automatically put it in. BLP has special considerations; allegations must not only be notable and well-documented, they must also be relevant. Gere's private life is not relevant to the reason why Gere is notable (his acting career)--the accusation isn't *important*, regardless of whether it's notable, so it doesn't belong, for the same reason that the gerbil rumor doesn't belong. If he was, say, a politician and the accusation affected his political career, you could use it.

In the particular case of Gere buying an ad, there's another reason not to include it: Ignore All Rules. It's *common sense* not to use someone's attempt to stop an accusation to justify spreading it. If our rules let us do that, then those rules should be ignored. Ken Arromdee 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I believe that's the first time I've seen someone invoke WP:IAR in precisely the intended spirit. — Demong _talk 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gere is not simply an actor, he is a celebrity. Moreover, his most famous films are not known for his acting ability but for his status as leading man (his matinee idol good looks diverting attention from his undoubted technical abilities). His later films, while containing performances as good as and often better than his earlier more famous work, have not always been as succesful.. Notwithstanding the varied responses to later work, Gere has maintained a high visibility in the media. This has centred much around his private life, including his Buddhist beliefs and his subsequent championing of the Tibetian cause and his friendship with the Dali Lama, and also his marriages and fatherhood, his AID's charitable work, as to the fact that he remains a Hollywood player. Much of the above is also mentioned within the article, and it is all to the good of a notable person whose original claim to fame was and is as an actor. It just seems to smack of bias to apply an interpretation of BLP to the one aspect of his life that, despite being as well sourced as any other matter in his private life, may not reflect as well upon him.

Given that there are the many examples that indicate that Gere uses his fame to promote worthy causes (well, China might disagree but this is the en-WP) it cannot be argued that providing a well sourced notable event that does not reflect so well is insensitive. It helps provide a balanced view of a person for whom fame has been both a positive and a negative. In the end it serves the article to include it, and removing an aspect which is already in the public knowledge (and often imperfectly) is to the detriment of WP.

While I applaud your invocation of WP:IAR I would doubt that WP would spread the allegations to any greater extent than it would have anyway. The rumours are in the public domain, and WP provides the opportunity to place them in context with the denial. By focusing on the notability of the denial (an original, if not unique, venue) it has the result of putting the allegations in a less important context, which is surely the appropriate relationship. LessHeard vanU 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing what rumor about any actor or actress's private life could *not* be included in their article, by your reasoning. Most actors use their fame for other purposes. Most are visible in the media, or at least try to be. He's famous for being an actor, not for being a person visible in the media; if you asked a random person who Gere is, do you think they'd say "Oh, I heard of him, he's one of those people visible in the media"?

And how do you get from being a "leading man" to the relevance of rumors about his personal life? Are you suggesting that because he's a leading man, he wants men to find him attractive, so rumors of his homosexuality are relevant? Ken Arromdee 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"...any rumor verified by a reliable source..."(my italics). Per BLP I expect the highest application of citation and source guidelines. If rumours, allegations or stories do not have good third party references then they will not be included.

How actors use their fame is a matter for them, but how WP decides to report on it is what we are debating. WP should not pick and choose which aspects of a subjects extracurricular notability to report from the list of verifiable items. Include all or none, since leaving any out gives rise to questions of balance and bias. We do not have to include one "bad" for one "good", because there will most often be an excess of one or another, in the name of balance, but include everything that satisfies our guidelines.

It is because he remains visible in the media, which also carries stories about him unrelated to his acting career, that people are familiar with 'Richard Gere, Actor'. Take the example of Al Gore; I suggest that most people still recall him as the guy that lost the race to the Presidency despite getting more votes, than the guy that is a reborn eco-warrior. However, it is the later eco-messenger that keeps his name in the publics mind. The original label is usually the one that sticks, no matter what keeps that name current.

With that in mind, my point that Gere's days as a leading man (in the current action hero mode popular with Hollywood) are long gone but his profile remains very high. In part this is due to the notion of celebrity, where lifestyle is as important a factor as the job of work. When lifestyle is scrutinised as much as the day job then anything that reflects on the perception of that is important. Thus Buddhism and allegations of homosexuality, amongst other things, are both important. One allows him to advocate the independence of Tibet and act as a focal point for that debate, the other motivates him to issue a denial (in the form of a paid for advert) to stop the spread of rumours regarding his sexuality.

I think I will withdraw from this debate (unless there is anything anyone wants clarifying with regard to what I've previously said). I think it biased to not include the only verifiable matter that might reflect less well on the individual, given the instances of "good" factors which are equally well sourced. It is likely that editors will continue to add in this matter, in good faith and appropriately cited, in any event and will be reverted. This debate will possibly start up again at that time. I think it unfortunate that those editors concerned with Gere's reputation, enacted through WP and BLP guidelines and policy, are not able to take this opportunity to provide a context to rumours already in the public domain.

Notwithstanding my very last comment above, I would like to thank and commend the various editors I have debated with for the conduct and manner in which they conducted themselves. LessHeard vanU 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent removed) "In part this is due to the notion of celebrity, where lifestyle is as important a factor as the job of work. When lifestyle is scrutinised as much as the day job then anything that reflects on the perception of that is important."

In other words, all allegations about someone's personal life really are automatically relevant if they are a celebrity.

Sorry, I don't buy that one bit. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by jmh123 (talk · contribs)

The disputed material should not be included. Above and beyond all the volumnious arguments here offered, which in this outsider's opinion reflect an obsession with the man's sexual orientation, I think the editors may have lost sight of the larger picture. This is a really poor Wikipedia entry. A disproportionate amount of space (one-third) is already allocated to a "current events" style section on the 'kissing in India' controversy. The rest of the bio is spare and "listy". Wikipedia is not a tabloid; it is not even a newspaper. It is by no means Wikipedia's job to determine the sexual orientation of celebrities. The bio will certainly not be improved by adding another sizeable section concerning old news about an old marriage and old tabloid gossip. -Jmh123 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Metamagician3000 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

agree completely, well said Ronnymexico 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument largely misses the point. The point is not that his sexuality was questioned (hell, that happens all the time), but that he and his wife felt compelled to take out a newspaper add confirming their hetrosexuality. Noting that he took out the add is not unencyclopedic, but in fact a noreworthy part of his earlier career. I think the incident should be briefly mentioned, but the focus moved to the questioning of sexual orientation to the FACT that he took out a newspaper add to confront it. You could say something to the effect of "Amidst stories in the tabloid press regarding his sexual orientation, Gere chose take out an add in The Times declaring himself hetrosexual" (that is clumsy as hell, but it is still early here). This moves the focus away from his sexuality (which, I agree, shouldn't be the focus) and towards the newspaper add, which is noteworthy and unsual 167.128.156.31 Sorry about not signing, my work network won't get me to the sign-in page today. This is TheBrimeCow (I'm kinda new here, sorry)

The "Henry" issue

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about whether or not Gere actually has a half-brother named Henry Januszewksi, born in Germany. I have not been able to locate the hypothetical article being used as a reference by some editors; however, I went at it from a different angle, researching Gere's mother - she is well documented as a Mayflower descendant. The available records show her to have had only one marriage, to Homer Gere. There is no mention of her having a son Henry. In fairness, there are discrepancies in these records, as they have different dates/locations of birth for her, and many do not list all of Richard Gere's siblings. Nonetheless, the one thing they are consistent about is that she has had only one marriage.

Like many, I suspect that Henry's name had been in the article when we first read it, and we did not think to question it at the time. Having done a bit more research, I would suggest that there are valid questions as to any relationship between Richard Gere and Henry Januszewksi, and until there are multiple sources tying the two together, we should omit the line about Henry.

Does anyone else have other suggestions? Risker 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Biography channel to ask them if the reference to their magazine is correct, but so far I have received no response. There is a Biography magazine, but it isn't in any of my local libraries. If anyone could find that issue, that would be one way to check. I agree that the line should be omitted until confirmed. -Jmh123 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleting references to the gerbil legend

As Gbleem put it on the BLP/N (in reference to a different topic), "Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut."... please stop deleting references to the gerbil legend on this talk page, it's destructive to the discussion and not in the spirit of the guideline. Saying "a false rumor exists" is not libelous. It's also not an accusation ("a statement declaring another person guilty of crime or error").

I don't particularly care about the legend's inclusion in the article anymore, but I find the censorship and wikilawyering abuse of policy extremely frustrating. It's ridiculous. — Demong _talk 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that gerbilling should be mentioned here, like or not Richard Gere is associated with it.71.74.70.152 14:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for it? Just because we all know the rumour exists isn't good enough, something like that would need to be tightly sourced. WilyD 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think gerbilling should be mentioned as well. Go and google "gerbilling", you'll find many "Richard Gere" references. However, I believe it should be mentioned in the context that it is an pop culture legend. If you google "Richard Gere" at the bottom under "searches related to Richard Gere" it lists "Richard Gere Hamster" as one.WacoJacko 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd never heard this until I started editing Wikipedia. As for the limitations of googling, see Search engine test: "urban legend bias." -Jmh123 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Urban legends are still part of pop culture and are still notable. I think Gerbilling should be included in the Richard Gere article.69.223.155.147 08:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Demong's comment above. -- Sparkzilla talk! 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I also think Gerbilling should be mentioned in the article.71.74.70.152 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mates, I say we add it, no worries, just add it , it belongs.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-^Glorfindel^-1 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder ... Metamagician3000 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Demong's comment, in that Wikipedia is too much of a playground for people with a single-minded agenda. Like it or not, and I don't, Wikipedia is a frequently consulted resource, and as such, it becomes an instrument for creating and spreading misinformation. Look at the example of the fictitious German half-brother of Gere. Google that and you'll find it everywhere, but we've yet to find a single verified source for it other than Wikipedia and its spawn. In that case, it's harmless enough--nonetheless it's a case of Wikipedia spreading potentially false information far and wide. The gerbilling legend is a different type of case. Wikipedia didn't create the rumor, but it has been responsible for spreading it, at least to one person--me. The popularity of Wikipedia requires, in my opinion, that it not become a vehicle for spreading crap about people. The internet does a good enough job of that without Wikipedia's help. Now if these same persistent arguments were coming from less single-minded people, I might react differently, but to me, this seems to be just a slightly more sophisticated version of the kind of vandalism that certain articles, including this one, receive daily. -Jmh123 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the gerbil thing can ever be reliably sourced, although I'll admit I find it astounding you've never heard it before. I would've figured the only people who hadn't heard the rumour would be people who spoke only Farsi and lived in Tuktoyaktuk. The gay rumour is sourcable, and Gere would almost certainly want it dispelled, given that he felt it necessary to take out an ad in the Times to say it isn't true. Something like Rumours have been spread that Gere is gay but tabloid X. Nobody takes it seriously seems to be what Gere would want, given his action.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That ad was a long time ago and I expect he learned something from it. Wikipedia can say it, he can say it a thousand times, but people will believe exactly what they want to believe regardless. -Jmh123 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by single minded people, if you are refering to me, I contribute to MANY different types of articles. I'm sure everyone else does here as well. I just happen to think that this current issue is censorship. Also, I find it hard to believe you have never heard of the Gerbilling legend. I also do agree with the comment that was made before you.71.74.70.152 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not talking about you, obviously. Nope, never heard of it til Wikipedia. -Jmh123 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this claim is I think is the biggest misconception around the issue. As it stands ~50% of people reading this article will already believe Gere is gay before they read word one. If the article addresses the issue properly, maybe ~5% of people will leave the article thinking Gere is gay. But that's still an order of magnitude reduction - it seems clear to me that given Gere took out that Times ad, he wants people to think he's not gay. It's easily to reliably source that he isn't. It's a very "standard biography of Richard Gere" thing to do - The Biography Channel does it (and assumes you already know the rumour), tv.com also talks about the persistant rumours, casting them in a "they're not true" light, the BBC was still talking about it in a profile of Gere in 2002 and so on - it's actually hard to find semi-decent sources the one way or the other. But "We here at Wikipedia shouldn't stoop to the level of tabloid journalism found at the BBC" is a hard philosophy to sell. WilyD 13:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your second source says he refuses to confirm or deny that he's gay. It mentions the ad, but never mentions the denial. The second source is more clear, and while I don't think anyone supports the statement you made about the BBC, the tabloid culture of today has definitely affected the quality of many respected media outlets. Neither mentions gerbilling, which I thought was the topic here. -Jmh123 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My position on gerbilling is that we can discuss it when reliable sources are found. Until then, there's no need to consider it.

Do you have a reliable source for it? Just because we all know the rumour exists isn't good enough, something like that would need to be tightly sourced. WilyD 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Google and Amazon both have plenty of results. The rumor is undeniably legendary. — Demong _talk 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be surprised to hear this, but there are unreliable sources on the internet. WilyD 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the second link is to a list of books. — Demong _talk 06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Demong, the rumor is undeniably legendary. I also agree with Wily that the "gay" rumour and add(the one taken out by Gere) should be adressed.WacoJacko 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said earlier, and I'll stick with it. There's no point in discussing the gerbil stuff unless some very reliable source discusses it (and as far as I know, none do). While I'm flabbergasted some editors hadn't heard it, every boy I knew when I was 10 is not a reliable source. I do think this article should take a sentence or two to dispel the (sourcably widespread) rumour that he's gay, and I think that's very reasonable , especially given we have every reason to believe that's what Gere himself would want. Some editors have also been striking out anything about the gay rumours, and campaigning to keep the general point of You know how you've heard Gere is gay? He isn't out of the article, which seems like a bad plan. WilyD 15:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you take the question of addressing gay rumors to a new section, or another section above that's already discussing that within a specific context? I will flabbergast you further by telling you that I never heard a rumor that Gere was gay before reading it in Wikipedia. Guess I didn't have my nose properly to the rumor mill grindstone until I got involved here. At any rate, the topic here is gerbils. -Jmh123 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's see now. You want to add that Gere is the subject of a rumour. There is no evidence that the rumour is true. In fact, even our own article (fairly well sourced) on the topic of this rumour says that there has not been a single recorded case of this rumour being true, whether about Gere or anyone else. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid - in fact, not even the tabloids have circulated this rumour. The biography of living persons policy is pretty clear that only demonstratably factual information should be in a biographical article. And no, it does not mean that one has to demonstrate the existence of the rumour. It means you leave the rumours out. Risker 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd never heard of this ridiculous rumour, either, before I encountered it on Wikipedia some time ago. We are here to create an encyclopedia with reliable information, not to repeat stupid, scurrilous rumours that sensible people dismiss on sight with a degree of contempt ... and that applies especially to the biographies of living persons. Metamagician3000 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Demong, the rumor is undeniably legendary. I also agree with Wily that the "gay" rumour and add(the one taken out by Gere) should be adressed.WacoJacko 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Snopes Article, Urban Legends Reference, Etc.

I am a Richard Gere fan, and I understand the desire some people have to whitewash what can be politely referred to as the "gerbil" rumors. However, they are persisitent enough that I feel they deserve their own section in the Gere article, if only to deride them as demonstrably false. I would like to know what other people think. Here are a couple of quick links I found that point out how silly these unfortunately persistent rumors are. They are nonetheless real, and worthy of mention in the article.

http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk)

• Can you find reliable sources on the issue? The above links are really not reliable enough for something like this. WilyD 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can say that I agree with you that the Gerbil rumors SHOULD be mentioned. I believe they are extremely noteworthy. There are multiple sources, and like or not it is part of pop culture.WacoJacko 07:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Better references then Snopes/Urban Legends regarding false "gerbil" story

Here is an msnbc article that mentions the gerbil rumor and the possibility that Stallone started it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042702/

a story on the same by People :

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1232786.php/Stallones_confession_about_Richard_Gere_feud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks. The MSN source you cite is a gossip column on their website. Notice the banner, "TABLOID TIDBITS Rumors, scandals and foibles, oh my!" The second is not from People magazine, it is from a gossip website called monstersand critics.com, which in turn cites another gossip site. There are not reliable sources or better references. -Jmh123 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can say that I agree with him that the Gerbil rumors SHOULD be mentioned. I believe they are extremely noteworthy. There are multiple sources, and like or not it is part of pop culture. However, it should be mentioned in the context that it IS a rumor, albeit a popular one. We cannot change history, this rumor DOES exist!WacoJacko 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the gerbil thing

I think yes, it deserves mention, as a rumor, it is known to the vast majority of americans, and it is inevitable that some foreigner would come across this and not have any idea what it is. Wiki is an information resource. Also, if you look at the trivia section of the following wiki page, the Gere-Gerbil thing is already mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Legend_%28film%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)