Talk:Richard Gere/General Archive 1

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

The Tibet House

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

Print

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

Unencyclopedic content (gerbils)

Removed from the article:

Mr. Gere is the victim of a baseless rumor that he was admitted to the emergency room of a Los Angeles hospital with a gerbil lodged in his rectum. The AFU & Urban Legends Archive Top Ten Urban Legends ranks the Richard Gere "gerbilling" story as number one out of hundreds of legends and hoaxes on every possible topic. This story is also referenced in the movies Scream and Urban Legend.

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

I re-removed the rumor reference after it was added back recently. As Cortonin pointed out, an article on a person does not need a statement about a rumor unless it had a significant impact on their life or the way they were percieved by the world at large (neither can really be said to be the case in Gere's case). Even if the rumor were to be included, it does not need to be placed at the top of the article because it is not a significant enough fact to be placed in the summary of the person's life. 69.3.92.105 8 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
  • I've removed it again and warned the anon who posted it. --Scimitar parley 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with taking it out, but to say it hasn't had a significant impact on the way he is percieved is false. When someone says Richard Gere a gerbil joke follows as often as not. Hell, just google Richard Gere and the 11th listing is about the gerbil. Richard Gere Gerbil has 28000 hits. That's pretty significant. It's MUCH more than "somebody in highschool said it." Oreo man 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I think this should be in the article. Justforasecond 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I just saw a conversation on IMDb that referenced Richard Gere and a gerbil, and I came to this article for context. This info should be in the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. The "Richard Gere/Gerbil" rumor is SO prevalent that I would deign to call it common knowledge. I must vehemenantly express my opinion that it DOES belong in the article, and I am going to re-add it as such. Pacian 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It must absolutely be in the article, or the article simply isn't informative. Who is this minority gestapo that decides what's "Unencyclopaediac"?85.138.0.112 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. According to snopes.com, this is one of the most pervasive legends they've ever documented, and has been specifically attached to Gere rather than any other celebrity. It's been referenced in mainstream movies like Scream and Urban Legend and various TV shows - and referenced in a way that only works if the audience already knows the story, which speaks to how widespread this rumor is. After Pretty Woman came out fax machines in Hollywood were flooded with fake news releases decrying Gere's "animal abuse." This is an EXTREMELY pervasive legend which relates specifically to this actor, and which has become a permanant aspect of his particular fame. I'm sure Gere himself would probably prefer we didn't mention it, but we don't work for him. The information should be restored to the article. Darthmix 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This urban legend definitely definitely definitely deserves to be in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.58.173 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
The geerbiling rumor is the whole reason I came to Richard Gere's page! Someone joked about it on the Colbert Report (which has an excellent past with wikipedeia ^.^) and I wanted to look it up. Leaving out information like this is just stupid; it's so widespread that not including it would be like leaving the rumor that Hitler had only one testicle of his page, or that Elvis died of drug abuse of Elvis' page. 74.78.228.126 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be there. It was the sole reason I visited this page, to see if it was true or not. Maybe it can be said in just a sentence or two, to avoid over attention. Smooth0707 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed, see my comments below. I stand by them. Quadzilla99 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why is the rumor that he's gay included, with only a single cite to an EW article? If a single EW article is an authoritative reference to support a rumor, then why not the EW blurb about threats to Wes Craven's career if he left Gere-gerbil references in Scream? http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,289310,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.177.46 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The Tibet House

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

Print

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

Gerbil be gone

Did nobody see the link at the top of this discussion page, referring to the official policy concerning biographies of living persons?
Suggesting that Gere might like cramming gerbils up his butt is certainly "negative". "widespread rumors" do not qualify as "verifiable" or "reliable". The absolute policy is to remove with prejudice. The fact that there's also mention of it being typically deemed false is irrelevant. My suggestion is that you actually read the official policy, and then modify the article.
But that section is gone. Bladestorm 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The section you deleted has already been discussed extensively above; it does not suggest that Gere actually engages in such behavior, but merely recognizes and provides sources to the effect that these rumors are extremely pervasive in popular culture and a permanent aspect of his fame, if only as a joke. The section even goes out of its way to note and reference urban folklore experts who dismiss the story as a legend. There's nothing wrong with discussing myths about well-known figures if those myths are strongly imbedded in the culture, as this one is, having been referenced repeatedly in mainstream films, music and literature. Isaac Newton's wikipedia entry mentions the apple story, and George Washington's mentions the cherry tree. This is no different in principle, and the fact that some people feel it's negative doesn't make it any less encyclopedic.
The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not the truth. The section doesn't claim the rumor is true or even refute it directly, since that is not what we're concerned with, but simply notes the verifiable fact that this rumor exists, is popular, and has been dismissed by experts. The added criteria for bios of living persons is that the we take even greater care that the info is well-sourcd, and this is. The gerbilling rumor is not just a flash-in-the-pan piece of celebrity gossip; it is a persistent urban legend that has been associated with Gere for twenty years, and is just as well-known today as it was in the eighties. I've restored it. Darthmix 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap... You don't see a difference between Richard Gere and Newton or Washington? One of the three is still alive. If you're going to put up a counter-example, then it really should be for a person who's still alive.
That said, how in the world can there be a verifiable or reliable "rumor"? That's what it is, a rumour! It is going. The criteria for verifiability includes being "reliable". Rumours are inherently unreliable. Incidentally, you might also note the bit instructing to avoid "libellous claims" in the verifiability page.
What's more, the notion of 'notability' really is debateable as well. When does gossip and innuendo become as notable as an actor's activism and filmography? (For that matter, why do you think that a bloody rumour should be listed before an actor's films?) The fact that the article speaks hypothetically, or merely forwards along what other childish people heard from their uncle's cousin's neighbour certainly doesn't excuse the fact that it's libellous, not directly verified, not of comparable notability in terms of his acting career or activism, and directly contrary to the policy for living persons.
You might be able to make an argument for including a mention of it in an article on gerbilling if one exists (I don't even want to check and see if it exists), but it certainly doesn't match the notability of the other parts of the article.
(Incidentally, the three "sources" currently provided are, respectively, a snopes article that questions whether or not the practice has ever occurred, but doesn't even attempt to say that a legitimate accusation has ever been made against Gere, an editorial (by definition, not verifiable, reliable, or neutral) which doesn't even claim that there's ever been a legitimate accusation made against Gere, and a link that's on the other side of a password screen. Even if you wanted to include the material, you'd have to cite someone who made a direct accusation, because just saying that, "some people believe that..." is known as "weasel words", and also not allowed.
I'll say it again. Any and all potentially libellous, and not directly sourced, material will now be removed. Don't put it back in without direct sources, a far better rationale for notability (to put it on the same level as activism and filmography for an actor), and a rationale for putting such negative material in a supposedly neutral article. Without all three, it'll just be removed anyways. (When living persons are concerned, we absolutely must err on the side of caution) Bladestorm 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Stating that a rumour is true is libelous. The fact that a rumor exists is not libelous, especially when that rumour has clearly entered the realm of popular culture. This is the case with the Gere/Gerbil rumour. Algabal 04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, you won't be putting it back in here; especially without an actual argument other than, "I think the gerbil information deserves to be on here." Bladestorm 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree the Gerbil nonsense needs to stop. This represents almost all the most negative aspects of Wikipedia to me, would you ever see this type of nonsense in Britannica or MSN Encarta? Quadzilla99 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

My God, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no tangible evidence whatsoever to back up this rumor and I can't think of a more perfect definition of libelous information. This article should make no reference to it at all, the last thing we want people thinking is "Where can I learn about completely unfound rumors relating to living people? Ah, Wikipedia." Let people surf NationalEnquirer.com or whatever for that information. Quadzilla99 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP is primarily concerned with UNSOURCED controversial information. Controversial material is ok - as long as it's well-sourced! While I don't really care one way or the other about the silly gerbil thing, removing well-sourced information is not justified by WP:BLP, even if the information is only an allegation. From WP:BLP:
“ "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." ”
IMO - if there's a high quality reference that discusses the gerbil rumor - even to debunk it - (which considering the prevalence of the rumor there probably is), it's fair game under WP:BLP. Again - this is not to say I'm arguing for it to be included, I don't really care, I just think it's ok under WP:BLP. Cogswobble 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see it that way. In the case of your example, there'd typically be a specific person they were accused of having an affair with. What's more, there'd be specific accusers. (that is, you wouldn't include it in the politician's bio page that, "my brother's neighbour heard that somebody suggested that maybe he had an affair)
What's more, you have to be more careful, depending on the severity of the allegation. For example, adultery is significant, but not that damaging. On the other hand, if you're going to even imply that a person crams small rodents into their anus, then you should, at the very minimum cite a specific accusation; directly stating who made the accusation.
See the difference? (I can do a more in-depth argument if you should so desire) Bladestorm 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that this specific rumor should be included. I don't really care. I'm just saying that WP:BLP is mostly concerned with ensuring that controversial material is SOURCED. If - for example - the New York Times ran an article about the gerbil urban legend, then including a comment about the gerbil urban legend here, and citing the New York Times article, would not violate WP:BLP. I'm not saying there may not other reasons it shouldn't be included, just that it doesn't violate WP:BLP - if it's well-sourced. Cogswobble 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is such a bizarre place, the article on gerbiling includes a link to the Snopes article on Gere, but apparently we are unable to include it here. What is the official justification for such anomalies? Algabal 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you see any reference to Gere in that article? Only references to the hypothetical act of gerbiling, as far as I can tell. Risker 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Were you referring to the Wikipedia article on gerbiling or the Snopes article linked to on that page? The Wikipedia article on gerbiling does not mention Gere, but the Snopes article linked to on that page does. You are saying we are not allowed to include that same link on this page. This is what I don't understand. Algabal 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Quoting you here: "Rumours, or articles discussing them, do not belong in articles". Ok, then are you going to remove the link to the Snopes article from the gerbiling article here on Wikipedia? The Snopes article specifically discusses Gere. You should also remove the large quote from the Snopes article that is used in the gerbiling article. That Snopes article discusses a rumor, and according to you, articles which discuss rumors must not be linked to from Wikipedia (you said "No Links to Snopes" earlier, too). Algabal 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This should be taken to a higher level. How about a request for comment? Sparkzilla 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please help, if you can, Sparkzilla. Algabal 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Japan commercial

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

Selected filmography

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

"Kissing Incident" clarification?

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

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

One More reason to not go to India!!

Talk Page Editing

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

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

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

 ”

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

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

Request for Comment: Gerbil Rumor

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

  • I have to say the analysis above presented by Bladestorm is fantastically expressed. My only disagreement in this case is that I don't believe that the issue to be proved is that the rumor was "believed" as true by anybody per se, but rather that the rumor itself *exists*, is prevalent in popular culture, and is notable enough for inclusion. That said, while I believe it has been proven that the rumor exists (see the sources listed in the "sample paragraph"), and is prevalent in popular culture (Family Guy), how "notable" (and appropriate) it might be for a short wikipedia entry detailing his life and achievements is where the debate should begin. ...It really is one of those things that makes you just sigh and shake your head, unfortunately, and I'll hate myself in the morning, but I'm going to say the sample paragraph doesn't hurt considering how popular the rumor actually has become. --S.Reemas, April 21, 2007
I also agree that it should be left in. The question isn't whether anyone believes the rumor (the paragraph itself says it is "unanimously dismissed"), but that it exists and is widespread (which is well-cited). It's a noteworthy aspect of Richard Gere's celebrity. Perhaps the header should be changed to clarify ("Richard Gere gerbil story" urban legend, rather than Rumors of 'gerbilling', plus some cleanup / trimming?) Demong 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no. It is a rumour. There is no factual basis to it. In fact, reading the Snopes article, you will see that there has never been a reported case of this actually being done by anyone. There is no evidence that this rumour has had any effect on his life or his career. It is just a rumour, and a particularly nasty one at that. It does not belong in this article anywhere. Stuff like this is why people write Wikipedia threatening legal action and demanding their biographies be removed. Risker 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia itself is not making the claim, so it cannot be sued. Whether you find it distasteful or not is also irrelevant to its inclusion. Whether the act actually happened or not is also irrelevant, because we are not debating whether it actually happened, but rather, we are including verifiable information to say an untrue urban legend exists. That the legend exists, even if it is untrue, is verifiable, through multiple sources so it should stay in.Sparkzilla 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has already faced several legal threats and at least one lawsuit with relation to biographies of living people. What seems not to be getting into people's heads is that posting a 20-year-old rumour on the #11 (worldwide) website, even to say it has never been proven, is potentially harmful no matter how many sources you pull up to show that the rumour exists. Wikipedia is not The National Enquirer. Risker 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not making the claim, period. We do not remove things from fear. We remove them if they are not verifiable. That the urban legend exists is verifiable and it should not be removed because of your ideas of taste or legality. Sparkzilla 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary that people actually believe the rumor for it to be included. It's a smear that has an effect even if it is obviously untrue. If reliable sources say such a rumor exists then it should be included. Surely there must be a mention of the rumour in one of the many biographies about Mr Gere? Sparkzilla 11:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: I searched Amazon and got the following results from searchable books[1]. Sparkzilla 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Look at the vandalism on this page: it's almost wholly gerbil-related. I conducted the completely anecdotal and unscientific experiment of asking my girlfriend (who is not particularly interested in pop culture) "what's the first name that comes to mind when I say 'stuck gerbil?', to which she immediately replied 'Richard Gere?'... it's an urban legend that is verifiably famous, and verifiably false [2]... it seems to me that the debate should be about whether it's notable, not whether it's true Demong 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. And then there's the wealth of references to the rumor on TV, in movies, in popular literature. Note that the Family Guy and Urban Legends jokes only make sense if the audience is already familiar with the rumor; that speaks to how pervasive this one is. And I can't get past the idea that the handful of people out there who aren't familiar with it might come to this page looking for context; in that case, there's clear enyclopedic value in addressing it and dispelling it. Darthmix 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Majority rule does not override policy. Until people with considerably more knowledge about WP:BLP comment, it must stay out. Risker 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If this urban rumor is to be removed, then we should surely remove any untrue accusations made about anyone on Wikipedia. Shall we remove all the pages about Michael Jackson's alleged interference with young boys because they were judged untrue, or any suggestion that OJ was suspected of murder, or hundreds of other examples of accusations that were found to be untrue? The fact is that the MJ and OJ allegations were fully sourced, as is the Gere urban legend. The legend, even though it is untrue, has appeared in many, many books about urban legends, as well as being debunked on snopes.com. It verifiably exists and should be included. Sparkzilla 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is sad that you cannot see the difference between the reporting of a criminal trial and the addition of a rumour. The New York Times link requires subscription to access, so is not considered to be a suitable link. The book is a book about rumours, not about Gere. The same is true about the Snopes link. Both of them also talk about the fact that there are many variations of this rumour and that it has been attached to many different people; Gere just happens to be the most notable of them. There is already an article about gerbilling which addresses the urban legend. Risker 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that Gere is the "most notable" person associated with this urban legend? Seems like you just shot yoursdelf in the foot. Sparkzilla 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no grounds whatsoever for inclusion of this material. This material clearly violates BLP because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether anybody believes this material contains cultural significance (a very doubtful proposition) is beside the point: notability must be established in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, in relation to Gere himself. This material is non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, and may well be malicious. The material must be removed. No further debate is necessary or should be entered into. FNMF 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is perhaps the number one thing associated with Richard Gere. How exactly is it non-notable? Even his NNDB executive summary is "Gerbil rumors completely unfounded". [4]. If you're using Firefox and Google Search suggestions, try typing in Richard Gere into the top-right search box, and see what the first three suggestions are (#1 is gerbil, #3 is hamster). Algabal 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The debunking of a rumour is not evidence for notability in relation to the subject of an entry. It is on the contrary evidence for the non-notability of the rumour in relation to the subject of the entry. There are no grounds for inclusion of this rumour. Encyclopaedia entries about living persons are not the place to discuss rumours about the subjects of those entries. Furthermore, the statement that this is the number one thing "associated" with Gere means nothing. (1) What sources do you have stating this is the number one thing associated with Gere? (2) What does "associated with" mean in this context? It does not equate to notability in relation to the subject of the entry. (3) The number one thing associated with Gere is acting. (4) WP: BLP clearly states that editing of BLP entries should be sensitive, conservative, and avoid controversy. Adherence to this policy is mandatory. Conclusion: no further discussion of the inclusion of debunked rumours is necessary: this is a clear BLP violation. FNMF 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, try Firefox and Google Search suggestions for the association. The debunking of a rumour implies its existence. If you really, after all this time, still doubt the widespread existence and cultural influence of this rumour, please try a Google book search. It has made its way into cultural studies and even novels. I disagree with you that no further discussion is necessary, and clearly others do as well. Algabal 05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Would it be in violation of BLP, in your opinion, if the information formerly on this page were included on the gerbilling article? The article already mentions male celebrities being accused of it, just no names. There is no question of notability regarding the Gere rumour in the context of the gerbilling article, you cannot possibly get more relevant, as the Gere rumour basically birthed the phenomenon. Please note: there is a link to an article on Snopes on that page which explicitly mentions Gere. Algabal 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comment that the item should not be included "Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry" is demonstrably false. This rumor, specifically mentioning Gere, is sourced in many places, including the New York Times article above (which can be viewed via Google's cache) amongst many other references in books about urban legends, plus the debunjking (with sources) in snopes.com. The legend is almost always associated with Gere, not any other actor or artist. Sparkzilla 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to Algabal: My opinion is that debunked rumours are generally non-encyclopaedic and therefore should not be included anywhere, especially where the rumour concerns a living person (thus bringing BLP into play). The argument that something has assumed the status of "urban legend" does not, in my opinion, carry much weight. I think it is important to note that stating a rumour, even when you state that it is false, can be malicious. It may at least be possible to make the case for inclusion at that entry (whereas there is no case to be made at the Gere entry), but my judgment would be that this material should not be included anywhere. False material about living people does not belong in an encyclopaedia. FNMF 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter if the accusation is untrue, only that the accusation exists and can be verified. Sparkzilla 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. Would you remove all mentions that Michael Jackson was accused of molesting boys, however well-sourced because they were found to be false by the court? Even if theurban legend's contents are untrue, and even if it is debunked, as long as there are sources that say it existed, and that it related to Gere, then it should be on the page. Sparkzilla 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to Sparkzilla: You have failed to grasp the concept of notability in relation to the subject of the entry. Please read through the above comments more carefully. FNMF 05:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So hundreds of references to this urban legend in print and on the web (not to mention in real life) do not meet your standard of notability? Sparkzilla 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sparkzilla, the difference between a major courtcase and an anonymous and debunked rumour is too obvious to go into in detail. In brief, what could be included in the Michael Jackson entry is discussion of the courtcase itself, which in the Jackson case is clearly notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Regardless of the number of websites mentioning the rumour about Gere, notability depends on establishing the importance of this rumour in relation to Gere himself. There do not seem to be any references establishing the importance of this rumour in relation to Gere's life or work, and no claim for that importance has been made by editors, so far as I can tell (and such a claim would need to be sourced, if it was not to constitute original research). Furthermore, including this material is clearly insensitive (to the subject of the entry). FNMF 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The above seems to be your opinion, on whether the urban legend is notable. However, Wikipedia is all about verifiable sources. If an urban legend exists about Gere, and it was then debunked, and there are sources to show that, then it should be included.
BTW, how can it suddenly be "insensitive" to include it here when 1) the urban legend is already so widespread that it has hundreds of printed and web references and 2) it has been debunked? Sparkzilla 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"The urban legend/accusation that Michael Jackson bleached his face is included on his very, very highly scrutinized article, yet it is patently false and was never mentioned in a court case. So I'm going to have to disagree with your court-case argument, Sparkzilla. The bleach rumour has had a huge influence in terms of people's perspectives on Jackson, in the same way the gerbil rumour has influenced people's views of Gere. Algabal 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Algabal, I think we are actually in agreement :) Sparkzilla 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) That a false rumour has influenced people's view of Gere is precisely the reason not to include that rumour in an encyclopaedia. (2) It is certainly insensitive to include false sexual accusations about a living person. The fact that other people have done so in other forums (not bound by Wikipedia policies) is not an argument. Any editor who fails to see the insensitivity of this material should not be editing any BLP entries whatsoever. (3) It is not my "opinion" that this false accusation is non-notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Notability is what you must establish in order to even mount a case for inclusion. No case whatsoever has been made that this false and derogatory material is notable in relation to Gere's life or work. FNMF 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Sparkzilla, I recommend that you take the time to carefully read through every line of WP:BLP and the policies associated with it, then have a good, long think about what those policies say. Then re-read this discussion, with an equal amount of care. I cannot make you follow these recommendations, but it is clear that, as things stand, you have not understood the arguments about BLP and notability as they have been explained here. This failure to understand further reveals that you currently have an insufficient grasp of relevant policy. FNMF 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read and used WP:BLP many, many times and have worked on other pages where we have dealt with very similar issues (claims and accusations). So far I have heard you talk about "notability", "sensitivity" and a claim to follow WP:BLP, but no reasons why properly sourced material (even if it is negative or subsequently found to be untrue) should be not be included.
In fact, what I see on WP:BLP is:
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
and
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.
Emphasis mine. Notability has been established, and there are plenty of reliable sources. Sparkzilla 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of policy is selective. I suggest you find some neutral, third-party editors to support your argument, because I do not believe policy supports inclusion of this material. If you don't see the insensitivity of including these false accusations, nobody will be able to explain it to you. FNMF 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I am following the policy of providing verifiable sources for contentious material. Would you also remove from Wikipedia the well-sourced rumors that Michael Jackson slept in an oxygen tent, or that he had bought the bones of the Elephant man, even though those rumors were also untrue? From the Michael Jackson article.
Following this controversial business deal, tabloid stories of Jackson sleeping in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to stall the aging-process, and an allegation claiming Jackson attempted to purchase the bones of the Elephant Man inspired the pejorative sobriquet "Wacko Jacko". The name "Wacko Jacko," which was first used by British media, would come to be detested by Jackson. Sparkzilla 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: "I suggest you find some neutral, third-party editors to support your argument, because I do not believe policy supports inclusion of this material." The majority of comments in the RFC were for the inclusion of the material. Sparkzilla 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is that it's not enough to keep stating you "believe" that the section violated Wikipedia policy, since the folks clamouring for its removal have not shown that it does that. Remember, the section did not claim that Gere engaged in gerbilling; it claimed that an untrue urban legend has been popularly associated with Gere for over twenty years, having been referenced repeatedly in mainstream film, TV, and literature. There is a wealth of research by urban folklorists that demonstrates this, and the section referenced it. It meets the standard for BLP and should be included. Darthmix 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. Are you saying that your personal research trumps hundreds of sources that speifically cite that the rumor is related to Gere? That's called original research WP:OR. Please refer to the sources below - they ALL say that the rumor is specific to Gere.
  2. It does not matter whether he has commented on the rumor - it exists whether it is true or not, whether he comments or not. In the same way that many of the other legends on the list of 40 below exist without comment by the victim. In fact, i just checked the article for the second item on the list, J. Edgar Hoover, which has a whole section of rumors and allegations, none of which can be proved. In fact it says in that article, "Although never corroborated, the allegation of cross-dressing has been widely repeated..." Why is it ok to include sourced rumors about Hoover, but include those about Gere? Methinks you don't like gerbils :)
  3. Please note also that there are no sources cited in the Jackson article that mention that he actually denied his rumors (in fact all the source says is that he didn't like the "wacko Jacko" label). Why should Gere be treated differently from Michael Jackson?
  4. The disussion on the BLP noticeboard is not over yet. Majority rule does not override policy ;) Sparkzilla 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just quoting the Snopes article here to further inform this discussion: "Like similar legends such as The Promiscuous Rock Star, this tale has been applied to various public figures who are known or believed to be homosexual, and it has stuck with one in particular: Richard Gere. Although the legend homed in on various targets when it first appeared (including a Philadelphia newscaster), it has clung tenaciously to Mr. Gere's name since at least the mid-1980s." Darthmix 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I came in response to the Request for Comment. My opinion, for what it's worth: it isn't enough to cite that the rumor exists to put it in the biography. Citing that the rumor exists is a good reason to put it in an article on urban legends, but I think that, in order to put the story in this article, you should be able to cite its accuracy. Since it's pretty clearly not an accurate story, it doesn't seem to be necessary in the biography of Gere. My two cents' worth. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, urban legends are by definition innacurate. Sparkzilla 07:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

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

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

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

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

Excuse me? If you choose to set BLP aside, then I think you're still overlooking some very significant aspects.
  1. First off, one of the other comments (which I want you to keep in the back of your head) is that the rumours are more about the urban legend than actually being about gere himself, and as such wouldn't really belong in his biography. (Point for removal)
  2. Next, the two sources you cite are (presumably) reliable sources for urban legends, but not in any way verifiably qualified to comment on how the rumours have affected his career or personal life. If you want to make the argument that they've undeniably stuck to his career, then you need to provide reliable sources for that. An expert on urban legends is qualified for nothing else than commenting on urban legends. By your own current standard, you have failed your burden of proof.
  3. In short, even if you set aside BLP, you still need to explain why gerbilling is relevant to gere (so far, you've only explained by gere is relevant to gerbilling), and then find sources (reliable and verifiable within the context of biographies, or gere in specific) asserting the importance to him biographically. I would also like you to address whether or not other people's articles should include false rumours (that imus personally said 'jigaboos', that howard k stern murdered anna nicole smith, etc) so long as you can prove that somebody has said them, possibly without even believing them. Bladestorm 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there credible sources for the rumors you mention? There are many, many credible sources that the Gere urban legend exists. Sparkzilla 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"I point a third time to the Mikkelson article cited by deleted section, which states that the rumor has remained prevalent, clinging specifically to Gere, for over twenty years"... how does that prove the rumor affected his reputation at all, let alone to a "notable degree"? If it has, how? Says who? Doesn't the fact that Gere has never addressed the rumor make it verifiably unimportant to him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demong (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Hey, before we get any further into this discussion, can someone point me to the section of Wikipedia policy that states that the subject of an article must feel the effects of, or even know about, every single point discussed in his article? It seems to me that whether or not the rumor is relevant to Gere, whether it has affected him in any way that he has felt, it is relevant to us as people living in a society where he is famous. It has been persistently and widely associated with him for over twenty years. I think that's grounds for inclusion, regardless of whatever Gere's personal experience of it may be. Darthmix 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Official policy says "that something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The unofficial essay on trivia defines trivia as "information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to". — Demong talk 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I do think this information is relevant to the gerbilling article, since attribution to Gere is, in fact, the most famous version of the legend. (Note that the article points out that the practice itself is fictitious.) — Demong talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than going further here I suggest that this is taken further up the dispute resolution process. Can the parties involved agree to mediation? Sparkzilla 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally. I think there are good arguments both ways, and am curious about the precedent. — Demong talk 01:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Let's get some agreement from the major editors involved to proceed with dispute resolution according to WP:DR. We have already had an RFC, so perhaps the next step is Mediation? Sparkzilla 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dang, that is mediation? Only one person? I was hoping to be able to expand it to a larger number of viewpoints. Well, I don't mind you choosing which way we go. I'm still fine with a request for mediation, or opening it up to the village pump (since I think this touches largely on policy). Assuming nobody else objects, I'm fine with letting you choose which way to go with it. Bladestorm 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it has been extended to a number of viewpoints already. What's needed is someone who can condense the arguments and help make a final decision, don't you think? Sparkzilla 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
FWIW I think it's clear we definitely need to take this to the next level and get some kind of mediation, so if this is the next step I'm fine with it. Darthmix 01:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


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

? Whose biography includes it? I mean, in general, I don't particularly like arguments based on, "but some other article got away with it, so why can't this one?", but you've really piqued (sp?) my curiosity here. Bladestorm 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well certainly some of the online biographies mention it (although they may not be credible sources). Anyone actually ahve any print biographies that mention it? Sparkzilla 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Risker, methinks your summary is more than a tad biased. Algabal 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Have I missed any stated positions? Please add them. I will agree that there has been a surprisingly wide array of reasons not to include, and it seemed to me only one reason to include, but I think I had them listed more or less in the frequency of which they occurred. Risker 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Case for inclusion

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

Case for non-inclusion

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

Other possibility

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

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

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

Disproportionate weight being given to kissing incident

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

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

Sources for Richard Gere Gerbil rumor

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like someone takes themselves and the internet entirely too seriously: the gerbil rumor is half the reason Richard Gere comes up in anyones conversations. As you put it, "notability means notable in relation to the topic of the entry" i.e. Richard Gere. Fair enough. Then you say "the prurient interest of others does not establish notability, no matter how many others there are." How do you figure? How does the fact that it's with relation to an alleged, unsubstantiated sexual proclivity make it not "notable?" Making definitions up is fun, I agree, but it's disingenuous. It certainly qualifies under the concept of "notability". In addition, it's not an "accusation", as you so foolishly put it, if it's described as an apparently baseless rumor that has become popular through hearsay. Can it be included in such a manner without inciting an idiotic revert war?
I agree with the previous user (the above unsigned comment is not by me). Also, FNMF, please do not use all caps. It is considered shouting. Also, I wish you would stop implying that your interpretation of how Wiki policy applies to this issue is the final word and that all discussion must cease after it. This is simply not the case and is extremely arrogant. Algabal 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The shouting is unnnecessary, but we are here to write an encyclopedia article about Richard Gere, an actor with a long, distinguished career, not to write about some scurrilous thing that he didn't do in his private life. Until overruled from a very great height, I intend to be ruthless about removing any such material if it is included. If it gets one line in an article on Famous rumours about gerbils, that might be another thing. I'd give it separate consideration. Metamagician3000 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you accept it if the rumour had been included in credible Gere biography? Sparkzilla 08:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

"Folks trying to put this sort of thing in Wikipedia are only trying to endanger Wikipedia"... please assume other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia. There are several excellent defenses for inclusion, "confirmation of falsehood to curious searchers" not the least. If the rumor is false, then its falsehood is a fact. — Demong talk 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So you would not allow any mention of court cases celebrities have taken against those who have slandered or libeled them? Sparkzilla 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If the Gere slander had reached court and become duly noted as a court case by a RS, then include it. Piperdown 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Having something come to court is not the only standard of notability. Sparkzilla 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The BLP Noticeboard consensus was this is "not a BLP issue" and it was removed from there... content issue... is it appropriate for Richard Gere's encyclopedic biography? Also, I was swayed by arguments for exclusion, and thus disagree with Sparky, but I also find the shouting inappropriate. — Demong talk 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as Gbleem put it on the BLP/N (in reference to a different topic), "Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut."... please stop deleting references to the gerbil legend on this talk page, it's destructive to the discussion and not in the spirit of the guideline. Saying "a false rumor exists" is not libelous. It's also not an accusation ("a statement declaring another person guilty of crime or error")... quite the opposite. — Demong talk 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to unsubstantiated allegations about Gere's marriage

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

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

This material has nothing to do with "what actually happened," nor is the question whether or not to remove "negative information about Gere." The material in question is certainly negative, but it is not information about Gere. It is unsubstantiated rumour about Gere and others. However persistEnt (apologies for the capital letter!) such rumours may be, this does not mean they are encyclopaedic. Inclusion of this material is, as has been pointed out numerous times, insensitive, contentious, controversial, and non-conservative. I refer you to the section of WP:BLP that discusses the example of a messy divorce. According to WP:BLP the details of a messy divorce, even if they are verifiable, may well need to be left out of a BLP entry, if their inclusion would be insensitive, controversial, or non-conservative. Note: details are to be left out, even if they are verifiable and factual. The case we are dealing with, on the other hand, is completely unsubstantiated. Note as well: a messy divorce may not be notable, even if there are verifiable, factual details about that divorce. Notability means more than simply "a part of the life of the subject of the entry." It means non-trivial; it means it forms a significant part of the notability of the subject of the entry. False or unsubstantiated malicious allegations do not become notable, just because they have been denied by the subject of the entry. If editors cannot understand how inclusion of negative (indeed, malicious), unsubstantiated allegations violates WP:BLP, they should not be editing BLP entries. FNMF 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeez. You are trying to say that an ad placed in a major newspaper by Gere and Crawford to say that their marriage was fine, and that he was not a homosexual is not notable? Plus the reports about the letter in many, many newspapers and magazines around the world? [6]
That they placed the ad is not a false or unsubstantiated rumor, nor is it an allegation that they placed such an ad. It actually happened. It is clearly, notable to the subject, can be easily sourced, is relevant, non-trivial, and merits inclusion by any standard. Once again, our objective on this page here is not to protect Gere, but to tell what happened to him, and around him, according to verifiable sources. In fact I would say it actually helps Gere more to include the letter (and in the same way to include the debunking of the gerbil rumor here too).
Well, I think some other editors should comment on this... Sparkzilla 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The repeated insistence that "our job" is "not to protect Gere" is revealing. FNMF 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)