Talk:Hutton Gibson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Hutton Gibson is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh)

"denier" oh really? He said "The holocaust did not happen?" Or was he more making a point as to who it's victims were and who controled it? (ie Shadow Gov't who controlled the nazis).

Contents

[edit] Slabs

DJ and I have moved massive slabs of text from Mel Gibson to The Passion and Hutton Gibson. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why does Hutton Gibson get an article? What has he done apart from father Mel Gibson? VfD, I suggest. -- Tarquin 18:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hutton Gibson deserves a line in this article but not his own article. Ark30inf 18:31, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Walt Disney's parents, grand parents and great grand parents are here. Do we really need to worry about it? RickK 06:36, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not a particularly major issue with me, if it stays it stays. I wouldn't think Walt's grandpa would deserve an article either just because he was Walt's grandpa though. I am guessing Hutton here is going to attract more trouble than any of the Disney's ever will though. :-) Ark30inf 06:47, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hutton Gibson is now of VfD. Breaking out the stuff on him to a separate article was a mistake. And nor does it belong here -- Tarquin 16:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why is that article being deleted? Wikipedia is not only for biographies of "nice" people. RK
You're right. That's why we have an article on Hitler, for example. But we have bios of people who are memorable or significant in some way. Being the father of a film star is not enough in itself. Nor is being a holocaust denier -- sadly there are too many of these about -- Tarquin 19:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

This page was removed from VfD on October 3rd because the majority wanted it kept.

  • unencyclopedic -- his only claim to fame is being the father of Mel Gibson, and the article was only created in a misguided attempt to solve edit war on Mel. -- Tarquin 16:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, at least his only claim to fame is still a claim to fame. How many Wikipedia users can make the honest claim of being that immediately related to a celebrity? Simply allowing him will not open the door for thousands of completely non-famous people to be admitted in and everyone on Wikipedia to start a vanity page about themselves. Keep. Wiwaxia 16:53, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a genealogy! Being someone's father is not sufficient. -- Tarquin 17:00, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Hutton Gibson has wound up being discussed in the media, and his name gets 1,580 hits on Google. He also seems to have written a book. I'd say leave it. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know whether he would have been famous without the family connection, but he is famous nevertheless, in a way that many celebrity relatives aren't. -- Daran 18:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being related to someone doesn't make you encyclopedic. Mentioning parents/children in a biographical article is fine, but that's it. Daniel Quinlan 21:55, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have lots of articles about famous people's relatives. What's wrong with keeping this one? RickK 00:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I say keep it. As Wiwaxia put it, "his only claim to fame is still a claim to fame". -- Cabalamat 00:37, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I was going to say delete until I read Infrogmation's comments. Keep it, he seems famous aside from his relation to Mel. --Dante Alighieri 01:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the only meaningful criterion for inclusion of a person (or any other subject) is the amount of verifiable information we can obtain on them. And I think this person has quite enough. (Over 1,000 Google hits, for a start.) And what we have is, in any case, interesting. :) So keep! -- Oliver P. 01:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep because his only claim to fame is being Mel Gibson's father. The issue is whether The Passion should be evaluated based on Mel's views, his father's views, or both. Having separate articles for each person makes it easier to distinguish their views. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Google

google:"hutton gibson" -mel

[edit] Not enough fuel to burn bodies?

Hutton said that there was not enough fuel to burn the bodies of the millions of Jews killed. "It takes 20 liters to burn a body." It takes a lot of power to burn roast beef too, but once it sets on fire more beef would just add to the flames. Bodies do burn. I suppose that Hutton is one of the nuts that say the whole U.S. space program is a farce produced in Hollywood. (UTC)

  • No, just that the almanacs and encyclopedia's showing there were 17 million Jews worldwide before the war and 17 million after thr war prove there was no genocide. (UTC)
I suppose you can provide us with a quote from Hutton to that effect? I mean, it would be wrong to lump every nutty statement by every nutty revisionist together, each should be evaluated on its own merits. Gzuckier 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Mainstream' historians

I removed the word 'mainstream' because it's one of those weasel adjectives that revisionists use to cast doubt on the veracity of proper historical research. Revisionists like to think of themselves on the cutting edge of history, away from the mainstream (excuse the mixed metaphor).

[edit] Jeopardy!

Until and unless it can be verified whether or not Hutton Gibson ever competed on Jeopardy!, the section about Gibson's purported appearance on the show should reflect the major discrepancy between the winnings claimed by Gibson ($20,000+) and the actual high score record for that era of the show ($11,110, set by Burns Cameron, who was the Grand Champion in 1965 and the show's record holder until the Alex Trebek era). User Getaway insists on reverting this portion of the article text to the following:

"Whether or not Hutton Gibson ever appeared on Jeopardy! will probably never be verifiable, as episodes from this era do not survive; winnings in the neighborhood of $20,000. However, the record of $11,110 set by Burns Cameron in 1964 was never broken during the Art Fleming era of the show."

This language is strange for two reasons. First, it leaves dangling the incomplete phrase "winnings in the neighborhood of $20,000." Second, it states Burns Cameron's record in non sequitor fashion, failing to link it logically to the issue of Hutton Gibson's claimed winnings. The language as I originally wrote it reads as follows:

Whether or not Hutton Gibson ever appeared on Jeopardy! will probably never be verifiable, as episodes from this era do not survive; winnings in the neighborhood of $20,000, however, are almost certainly an exaggeration, since the record of $11,110 set by Burns Cameron in 1964 was never broken during the Art Fleming era of the show.

Apparently the word user Getaway objects to is "exaggeration", since in his most recent revert he states:

"Those sources don't use that word. Gone."

My response to this is (1) The word "exaggeration" is neither an inaccurate nor a defamatory description of the process under examination here (i.e., Gibson's winnings as reported being impossibly large given what we know about the record from the era); and (2) if a replacement word for "exaggerate" would bring consensus, it would be preferable, but (3) I fail to see what synonym of "exaggerate" or rewording would have any different effect. The dictionary definition of "exaggerate" is "To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate." The other possibility is that user Getaway believes that the deductive process—putting 2 and 2 together, as it were—constitutes original research, and that even so much as pointing out that only one of the possibilities could be true—either Hutton Gibson is the actual all-time Fleming-era Jeopardy! record-holder, or he is not—somehow constitutes an attack on the character of a living person. Suffice it to say, I do not share this view: I do not believe that an unresolved factual discrepancy reflects, negatively or otherwise, on the character of Hutton Gibson. Robert K S 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your place to comment. The article has the facts based upon sources. Let the reader decide himself/herself. It is still your commentary, which is not acceptable. Also, it is original research. And finally, this is the bio of a Living Person. Now, someone somewhere stated that I am at my three revert limit. However, when it comes to the bio of a Living Person and the information is potentially defamatory, which is what you are doing when you state that he is "exaggerat[ing]". You add it back in and I will revert it.--Getaway 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded that section, which hopefully will be agreeable to both parties. Andy Saunders 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Getaway, I like your most recent version of that section. It looks and sounds much better than before. Andy Saunders 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, with some minor tweaking, Getaway's current version is satisfactory, especially insofar as it is grammatically coherent. Robert K S 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"Grammatically coherent"!!! From someone that wants to be known as an expert on the winners of Jeopardy! Hilarious!--Getaway 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Getaway, let's not get personal here. Regardless of what you may think of Robert's credentials, the fact of the matter is that he is the maintainer of the Internet's largest archive of Jeopardy! episodes. Therefore, I see "wants to be known as..." as a personal attack on your fellow Wikipedian. Andy Saunders 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Sorry, I am merely pointing what he stated. He wants to be known as an expert and have his opinion quoted on Wikipedia. He stated that and I repeated it. That is not a personal attacks. Good try though.--Getaway 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User Getaway disagrees with inclusion of the modifier "1965 Grand Champion" for Burns Cameron, and has reverted this addition on the basis of it being unnecessary information. If Burns Cameron had his own article--and I am not arguing that he warrants one--then it might not be important to include it in the discussion of Hutton Gibson. But the fact that Hutton Gibson was reputedly a Grand Champion makes the fact that Cameron's total includes Grand Champion winnings makes it relevant to this article. I hope this explanation is sufficient to elucidate my reason for the minor addition of this small bit of information. Robert K S 12:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To the editors involved in this disagreement- remember that content and POV disputes are not defamation, and the 3RR applies completely to this dispute. --64.132.163.178 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, Anon User. If anyone attempts to put in a potentially defamatory commentary in the bio of Living Person then the 3RR rule is out the window. If those attempts return then I will revert, even if I have to do it fourteen times in one day.--Getaway 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Mr. Getaway, it is you who are wrong! The comment is not defamatory, it is a content or POV dispute. --19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Notable beliefs" perleeeeeeeeeeese --88.110.174.101 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy or lawsuit?

  • ...Gibson's father relocated the family to Australia in 1968, after his father won a work related injury lawsuit against New York Central after a seven day trial on February 14, 1968 where the jury awarded him $145,000.[1] [1]
  • Following a victory on the Jeopardy! game show, he moved his family to Australia in 1968,... [2]

This article and the "Mel Gibson" article appear to have contradictory statements. The other artilce is clearly sourced, while this article doesn't have a have listed reference. Should we report both assertions? -Will Beback · † · 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will; if you check this talk page and the article's history, you will see there has been a good deal of discussion on this subject already. An edit by User:24.227.231.156 deleted the entire section of the article related to this subject on December 8, 2006. I have reverted back to the previous version of this article to restore the section this editor removed, and ask that others help to identify good changes that have been made since then and restore them individually. Robert K S 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for straightening that out. I hadn't seen any mention of hte lawsuit on this page. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Mel Gibson: Living Dangerously, Wensley Clarkson, Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 1993, page 30.

[edit] Jewish Catholics?

"Mel also firmly dismissed rumours which depict his father as being an "anti-Semite", pointing out friendship between Hutton and certain Jewish Catholics."

What the hell is a Jewish Catholic? If nobody finds a source for this sentence within a week, I'm deleting it. --GHcool 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alphonse Ratisbonne was Jewish Catholics. You ain't deleting anything here, pall.Smith2006 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Did Hutton Gibson, a man born in 1918, have a "friendship" with Ratisbonne, a man that died in 1884? You're going to have to do better than that, pal. --GHcool 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget WP:CIV. I believe that smith2006 is referring to those with ethnic Jewish heritage who profess the Roman Catholic religion as their faith. Perhaps the insertion of the word "ethnic" or some other word to refer to those with Jewish heritage who dont practise Judaism would help? Though often thought of as intertwined, 'Jewishness' and the religion of Judaism are not the same thing. Please consult 'Who is a Jew?' for details on some interpretations of who falls into the category of Jew and see also the main article on modern interpretations with regard to Israel. D Mac Con Uladh 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a source(s) for the material in question or do not add it into the article. Thanks! --Tom 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I understood quite clearly what smith2006 meant. I am familiar with the Who is a Jew debate. However, to add to Tom's comment, just because there may be such a thing as a Jewish Catholic (ethnically Jewish, religiously Catholic), that does not necessarily mean that Hutton Gibson has any Jewish Catholic friends. A source is required and since Jewish Catholics are a rarity, a "dubious" tag is appropriate. --GHcool 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
From your initial comment ie. "What the hell is a Jewish Catholic?" I got the impression that you didnt know what the term meant. A fair assumption? This is why I clarified what I felt smith2006 was referring to.
From your response, "I understood quite clearly what smith2006 meant" I now know that you did not need clarification on this point. This however makes your initial comment very puzzling.
When engaged in discussion please do not forget WP:CIV. While I assume good faith on everyones part, I feel that the introduction of an aggressive tone or comments which could be considered aggravating are to be avoided. Tom demonstrates how to request sources which improve the article in a respectful manner (respectful both to other editors and Jewish Catholics). I trust this will be considered constructive advice. D Mac Con Uladh 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had the same reaction to the term. Unless the term "Jewish" is being used in a racial sense (which opens up a whole new can of worms), I'd say a better phrase would be 'Jewish converts to Catholicism'.Azathoth68 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Its gone. --GHcool 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/t/Talk%7EHutton_Gibson_679a.html"