Talk:Richard Gere/General Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

"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 [1] 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? [2]
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 [3]) I have taken the discsussion of the Gere/Crawfod letter to the BLP noticeboard. [4]. 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" [5] 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." [6] On December 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision".[7]

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 [8], Entertainment Weekly[9], People[10], L'Humanite [11], at least a couple of published books, [12] [13], The New York Times [14] , The Biography Channel [15], BBC News [16], and of course, The Times itself [17] [18] [19].
  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.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] 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)

  • 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,[23] L'Humanite,[24] People,[25] and Entertainment Weekly[26] 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,[27] the New York Times,[28] and BBC News[29] 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)