Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 30 October 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philadelphia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: University of Massachusetts This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - University of Massachusetts.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Richard Gere. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Richard Gere at the Reference desk.

Archives

General Archive 1 General Archive 2

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 Gerbilzewski, 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 Gerbilzewkski, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

This is simply a dodgy claim, we have no reliable sources so we should just remove it without comment whenever it's placed into the article, until such time as reliable references ever do materialize. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this sounds like a thinly veiled joke about the gerbil rumour Mattbrown04 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

August 2007

Our IP editor friend is back adding this statement, and has provided the source "Biography Magazine, Summer 2004, p.14" as the reliable source. Now, there was indeed an article about Gere in the magazine; however, I've been unsuccessful in locating the magazine, and Jmh123 has not apparently received a response to his request for verification direct to the publisher. So far, nobody else has been able to locate the article so I am having a hard time considering this information "verifiable" at this point. I've also taken a quick look at a couple of Gere biographies, some of which mention his family; the name Henry Jauszewski did not appear in any of them. I will remove the claim again, pending an additional verifiable source that is actually accessible to people. Risker 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo included

I have included a photo per the previous message in article. The photo is from a united states government website.

URL: http://www.usaid.gov/in/images/richard_gere2.jpg

.WacoJacko 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great photo. -Jmh123 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks!WacoJacko 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could you add IPA on how you pronounce Gere? I heard several pronunciations. --Error 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only two fairly reliable sources I was able to find disagree: http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=richard%20gere http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d1118/Richard_Gere --Espoo (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vogue cover information.

Hi, I just came across the interesting piece of trivia in IMDB.com that Richard Gere was the first man to appear on the cover of Vogue magazine (with wife Cindy Crawford) and George Clooney was the second. Misplaced Pages carries the same information. I thought that this would be a very useful fact for quizzes and so on. I also reckoned that if Richard had appeared with with Cindy, then that might mean that George was the first man to appear solo on the cover; another equally useful bit of trivia, so I set about verifying this.

However, it turns out that in July 1970, Helmut Berger was the first man to appear on the cover (with Marisa Berenson.) See http://www.vogue.co.uk/CoverArchive/Inside.aspx?Year=&Model=Helmut+Berger&Photographer=&Issue=1970%20July for details. The Vogue Cover Archive, which doesn't actually have all the covers, allows you to search by Year, Photographer or Model but neither Richard or George are included in the drop-down list. It does list Bono with Christy Turlington (Dec 1992), Robbie Williams with Giselle (Oct 2000), P.Diddy with Naomi Campbell (Oct 2001) and Elton John with Elizabeth Hurley (Dec 2002).

When I noticed that Mario Testino had shot two of the covers, I clicked on his link to find that the last three were all shot by Mario Testino and also noticed among his 35 covers another one of "Razorlight frontman, Johnny Borrell, on the cover making history as the seventh man to have taken fashions's top spot (alongside Natalia Vodianov...)" (my italics) in May 2007. I can't find any details on the missing 'sixth' - or rather second - man to be featured (probably Richard Gere in 1982). It also seems that no man has ever been featured unaccompanied by a woman. George Clooney did feature on the first issue cover of Men's Vogue, but there have been many other men on that particular cover, so it's not such a big deal. SuperiorPics.com and Squidoo are also carying the incorrect info about the cover.

Hope you find this interesting and helpful. It started out simply enough then turned into something of a quest. VirKoto 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms/parodies

Rumors regarding his personal life and criticisms of his political activism belong in this article to render it neutral. The following quoation, for instance, is from a Gere critic:

Please do not remove my post; that borders on censorship.

Bancroft EIR (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can and will remove your content as per WP:BLP. I'll quote "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I left your "source" so people can check it out. I consider your source poor. It is simply an odd rant from Lyndon LaRouche....Asher196 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to the talk page. Do not censor. Keep my comments for the record so that other editors can judge for themselves. Your input is not the last word here. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OF course WP:BLP applies to the talk page. I just quoted from it above where it specifically says "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space"....Asher196 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typographical Error

The sentence

A prototypical leading man of romantic and dramatic films, he first became famous during the 1980s, and has since managed to retained his status.

should be changed. The word "retained" should be "retain."

Done. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kiss in India

"grabbed and pecked Bollywood superstar Shilpa Shetty three times on the cheek." I beg to differ. There's video online of the kiss, where he appears to grab her, dip her in a mock-passionate kiss pose. She looked somewhat embarrassed, but that's my view. In a later interview, he dismissed the whole thing, since they and the other celebrities went to a dinner together and parted amicably. He blamed a small right-wing party in India for agitating the issue. Is there a better way to describe this in the article? BrotherSulayman (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the video as reference and rewrote the account. He actually kissed her at least six times, not three.Asher196 ([[

User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gerbil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved – RfC closed on May 4th. Consensus noted at end that the gerbil content does not belong in the article as a BLP violation — Becksguy (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article continue to not have the gerbil story? It's obviously known as an urban legend. It’s arguably the most known urban legend. It’s been mentioned in movies and television shows. The sources are reliable and notable. Family Guy mentioned it on a segment, and that is one the more popular shows on American network television-millions of viewers a week and tons of syndication. The Wes Craven movie Scream mentioned it as well. That’s one of the highest grossing horror movies, and one of the highest grossing movies of 1996; not to mention 2 successful sequels and possibly a third in the works now. What more is needed, reliably sourced, acknowledged as an urban legend.Fodient (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is almost exclusively based on rumors of a living person. Jennifer Fitzgerald's article probably only exists based on slanderous rumors, and most of it is based off a notorious rumor creator Kitty Kelley. What is the difference between her article and the edits I feel should be put in Richard Gere’s article.Fodient (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is in another article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, at the end of the day, BLP trumps all. Unless you find a New York Times article detailing exactly how, when and where he inserted the gerbil up his butt, don't bother. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that one article can be soley based on a rumor and another can mention one, but one survives because people like that one and not the other. I'm sure the movie scream and family guy are both more popular than the NY Times. And NY Times has been wrong plenty of times, and I'm sure that NY Times is also aware of the this urban legend.Fodient (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And I never said that he had a gerbil inserted in his rectum, I'm meerly saying that there is a highly notable urban legend saying that he did.Fodient (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to reread everything I've typed. I don't care about the article you linked. I care about this one, and your little gerbil story is staying out. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Through some research I found this which clearly states that the gerbil story should be in the article. It not only states that this would be acceptable, it mentions the gerbil story as an example.Fodient (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That proves nothing. Keep trying, and always remember that BLP trumps all. But by all means, keep adding the rumor so we can get you banned. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice that the discussion was on BLP which trumps all.Fodient (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your linking to one person's (non-admin) opinion is laughable. And you may want to trot on over to WP:ANI. Probably your last chance to make an argument as to why you should still be allowed to edit here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant line from WP:BLP is: 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. Sancho 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not belong here. It has nothing to do with Richard Gere. Whoever started this story could easily have used any public figure's name. Maybe it could be on an Urban Legends page. But not here. Baseball Bugs carrots 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It qualifies under that BLP line perfectly. It's notable enough that Wes Craven would put it into one of his most popular and Seth McFarlane would do a segment on his extremely popular television show. Both of which were sourced by reliable sources.Fodient (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So between urbanlegends.about.com, a mention in "Scream", and a mention in "Family Guy", which exactly were you considering to be the reliable source? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wes Craven movies and Seth McFarlane cartoons are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Sancho 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a NY Times book review? --WebHamster 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About what? (that link requires registration, so I couldn't read it) If it's just a book review that mentions that this was a rumour, there's still the line in WP:BLP, "Avoid repeating gossip". Sancho 19:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

cypherpunks6/cypherpunks6. HTH!--CRConrad (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But in the context of the paragraph, they are reliable sources of how notable of an urban legend that is mentioned. Would you rather a mention of his "cameo" on family guy or him being mentioned in this major motion picture. Remember no one believes this urban legend happened, we are discussing the notability of the legend itself.Fodient (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be notable as an urban legend, but that doesn't make it notable about Gere. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And we don't even have a reliable source that discusses the urban legend, let alone its notability. We need the first before we can even consider the second. Besides, being an urban legend, we are instructed by WP:BLP to avoid repeating gossip. Sancho 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't doubt that it is just an urban legend but Gere's name and the gerbil are inextricably linked probably until the end of time. The two go together like great danes and vaseline, or the American population and irony. If one enters richard gere and gerbil into Google one gets 10s of thousands of results. I'm sure gere has learnt to live with it and I rather doubt his Misplaced Pages article will bring up anything but fond and furry memories. --WebHamster 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The incident in question here (the urban legend) is notable and well documented in pop culture, specifically in Scream and Family Guy. That is pretty notable.Fodient (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And those pop culture references are well documented. We dont turn to wes craven or family guy for news, but they chock full of notable pop culture references.Fodient (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And pop culture references are plentiful through out wikipedia.Fodient (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As Snopes points out the story was around before it was attached to someone's name. It has nothing to do with Gere. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google richard gere in quotes and with the word gerbil you get exactly 24,000 hits.Fodient (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Then surely at least one of those 24,000 hits meets Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Please post one such link here. Otherwise, all you're doing is dancing around the elephant in the room. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you replace "gerbil" with "alligator" you get 33,200 hits. Now that must have been painful. Seriously: never base an argument on Google Hits. Black Kite 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=richard+gere+gerbil&srchst=cse Fodient (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The NYTime link you couldn't get at (though I could direct from Google)...

"Celebrity: Richard Gere and the Gerbil

Politicians are obviously not the only people whose personal lives get dissected by total strangers. For every story like that of Hillary's lamp there are a dozen popular legends about movie stars or rock singers or athletes, from the 1960s rumor that Paul McCartney was dead to the more current one about Richard Gere and the gerbil. The gerbil story is a good example of the way gossip about entertainers has paralleled gossip about politicians. It also demonstrates the willingness of even family newspapers in the 1990s to print outrageous and unverified stories about famous people's personal lives. "Rumor: Richard Gere had a gerbil, the result of a bizarre sexual practice, removed from his rear end at a Los Angeles hospital in the mid-1980s" reported the Indianapolis Star in a sixteen-hundred-word rumor-roundup in 1997. "Fact: There has never been a verified medical case of a gerbil (or any other rodent) having been extracted from a patient's rectum."

The gerbil story's staying power was related to an anxiety as powerful as the one about overreaching women--fear of AIDS. It was basically a cautionary tale about unsafe sex, like the famous anti-hairspray legend from the 1960s about the girl with a lacquered beehive hairdo who died when poisonous spiders built a nest inside it. Playboy claimed the original gerbil story was a homophobic fable dating back to 1990 that was linked to Gere after "the actor had joked to a magazine writer about having performed some youthful indiscretion with a chicken." A Los Angeles Daily News columnist got it into print through the time-honored method of decrying the people who were spreading the gossip. A prankster then sent people in the Hollywood community a phony fax from the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, attacking Gere for abusing a gerbil. Like the Hillary lamp story, the gerbil rumor reached a status where it could be referred to in shorthand. In a 1995 Vanity Fair profile of actor Keanu Reeves, author Michael Shnayerson claimed a rumor that Reeves was having an affair with producer David Geffen "was everywhere. Like Richard Gere and gerbils." --WebHamster 19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This was taken from the book...

CHAPTER ONE

Scorpion Tongues

Gossip, Celebrity, and American Politics

By GAIL COLLINS

William Morrow and Company, Inc.

--WebHamster 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The urban legend is notable enough that it is mentioned in the high and mighty ny times.Fodient (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP still specifically instructs us to avoid repeating gossip. Sancho 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not if it's notable, plus the fact that it's been circulating for more than 10 years. It's inclusion is not going to harm Gere's reputation one iota. I have this image of someone somewhere with fingers in their ears... going la-la-la-la-la. I wonder why :) --WebHamster 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say "avoid repeating gossip, unless it's notable". It says "avoid repeating gossip". Sancho 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah so it says that exactly, with no other criteria does it? Or are you merely selectively using one very small part of the whole thing? Anyway, it's pretty safe to assume that this is no longer gossip. It's urban legend. And it's not as if the article will say that "oh look ducky I heard from Rita who told Stephanie that she heard that Richard Gere stuck a gerbil up his bum". Look it's pretty much proved that the urban legend is notable. There's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned even if it's just a few lines. If the star wars kid can get a full article then there can't be much wrong with Gere's article getting a mention of something most westerners have heard anyway. --WebHamster 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP states that if the incident is notable whether or not negative it should be. And if you google "Richard Gere Gerbil" all in quotes you get over 9000Fodient (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that some tabloid mentions some random rumor. This is a highly notable urban legend that has been mentioned multiple times in pop culture.Fodient (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you want argue that it's gossip, BLP states "avoid" gossip. It doesnt state "never mention gossip" at all costs.Fodient (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that no-one's attempting to state that it's true, another stipulation of BLP that is being met here. Can I hear that la-la mantra getting louder? --WebHamster 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion mentioned in the BLP noticeboard. I strongly disagree inclusion of the "gerbil story," per BLP and the dictum that Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. This is a quintessential tabloid rumor. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a tabloid rumor. It's a part of pop culture.Fodient (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So is pornography, which is also not in Misplaced Pages. Seriously, this is a very good example of the kind of thing that is not allowed in Misplaced Pages, and which gives Misplaced Pages a bad name when inserted. It has been removed as described below, and please do not reinsert. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---(Edit Conflict)--- Holy frig... this AGAIN?!?
Every now and then, somebody with zero familiar with the policies on BLP wants to try adding this bloody rumour, and we have to go through the entire thing over again. First, check the archive to see the numerous times this has been addressed in the past.
But, bulletpoints:

• BLP forbids it.
• Though it's easy to find evidence of people acknowledging the rumour, nobody can find a direct source of someone making the accusation (the closest anyone's come up with so far is a quick joke in Family Guy).
• Without anyone to attribute an actual serious accusation to, all we're left with is, "some guy, that nobody knows or can confirm exists, may have believed that Gere did something nasty."
• A source (or even many sources) saying that it's false is not the same as a source claiming that it's true. Unless there's a notable source saying it's true, I don't see how one can just disregard BLP.

In the meantime, why hasn't this been removed from the article, and the article entirely protected until this matter was resolved? In the case of BLP concerns, we must always err on the side of caution. Including an unsourced rumour is not erring on the side of caution! 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed, as described above. If this problem continues, the remedy is to apply for full or semi protection of the article. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the rumor being removed. Why is it that some people always want to try to use Wikepedia to perpetuate stuff like this? Can't they just put themselves in the shoes of the person they are doing this to? My opinion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's what I love about WP:BLP. You don't "fact tag" something. You delete on sight. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected. If any confirmed user reinserts this shite, the remedy is to have him blocked until hell freezes over.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you actually read BLP or this discussion? This section is clearly sourced, notable, neutral, and conforms with BLP.Fodient (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? It's sourced? Tell me, precisely who is or has made this accusation? Don't give me a source of someone saying it's false. Give me a source of someone (notable) explicitly suggesting that it's true.

I've said this on the BLP noticeboard, and I'll say it here: The best we have so far is Misplaced Pages says that (for example) snopes says that someone asked them about a rumour that someone else may or may not have believed was true. Until you can identify that someone else, it isn't sourced. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that this urban legend does not exist?Fodient (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to applaud you. I've never seen anyone on Misplaced Pages dance around an argument like you do. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I have never seen anyone ignore the facts as much as I have today.Fodient (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that you have not contributed to this discussion at all.Fodient (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people are still waiting for you to provide some actual facts. So by all means, proceed. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well other than your occaisional condescending remark.Fodient (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I commented on the BLP board. Does anybody know how long this urban legend has been tied to Gere or when the legend was first reported? Maybe the wrong board for this, but I first heard this "story" tied to a Philly tv person back in 1980/1ish? They supposidly had a hospital report ect. Anyways, nuke this stuff on sight. Best to leave it to snopes or smoking gun or gerbilsrus,com ect. Cheers,--Tom (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I just read above where it says "mid 80s". I know that everybody likes to claim these urban legends as there own, but I swear this came across as "true" back in the early 80s. Any Philly folks out there that know who I am talking about? Don't use his name of course, but he does have an article here :) Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC: - Having reviewed the sources, the argument being made is that this is a notable urban myth related specifically to a named living person. Snopes states "It has stuck with one in particular" and also adds " has clung tenaciously to Mr Gere". Snopes is probably a reliable source for urban myths, in the sense that if the site says he has been named exceptionally in the context of this story, then indeed he has. The question then is, do we cover urban myths about X in an article on X? Obviously there is a high bar for it - everyone has gossip, and we don't repeat stuff because its salacious and widely repeated. But we do report matters, even if they did not happen, if they are highly notable. There is a point where it is notable enough we do. For example, hoaxes - the hoax may be untrue, but the fact the hoax exists is verifiable and factual and may be deemed notable. Same applies here. No gerbil incident happened. But a reliable source on urban myth confirms that this is an urban myth notably connected to the subject. The question is, is the myth itself notable, even if untrue, enough to merit a curt one sentence note? It might be. It would also not do harm to say that. (But even if so, it doesnt deserve a new section, or more than those few words, or any other form of attention.) FT2  21:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Snopes article points out that this rumor was around as a generic rumor first, not connected with anyone in particular, and apparently not true in any case. Then someone arbitrarily decided to stick it onto Gere - just as certain people on this page are also trying to do. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not quite my reading of the snopes article, though I take your point. True, its discussed in the page as a generic "a celebrity" story and could have been anyone, but then it goes on to state unambiguously that the story has attached itself very particularly to this one person, not just "a bunch of people" or "random celebrities" as it gets recycled. The fact of how it got there doesn't affect that an assessment of the myth at this point in time says it's been attached to the one person "in particular", and then says so again, using words like "clung tenaciously" to describe this. FT2  21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I just read the bio and Gere is a Philly boy? There you go. Like I said, this was originally tied to another Philly tv personality. I would be totally against the "brief" mention/disclaimer suggested above. This is not some 911 conspiracy theory ect., do not raise it to that level by giving one KB of inclusion, just mho. --Tom (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Well, this has all been addressed before, but since you're being very logical and methodical, I think you deserve having it gone over again. :)

As I mentioned earlier, Snopes is only saying that the hoax/legend exists. However, as it's just that-an urban legend-there naturally isn't an original source for it (as is often the case). The problem then becomes this: The best that wikipedia can say is that snopes says that someone asked them about something they read someone else saying, where that 'someone else' may not have even thought it was true. So, for example, some hoaxes propagate from a specific accusation. If those are notable, then the articles can say who said what, and then what the reply/truth is, as the case may be. But, here, there's still not a single source of someone actually saying, "yeah, I think that Gere really did that." And certainly not a notable source of it.

Additionally, while although if you were to create an article about that specific fictitious act, Gere's connection would be notable to it, the converse is not true. That is, if there were an article on applying-rodents-to-rectums, then the urban legend might just squeak its way in. However, Gere's had a long career and this tiny urban legend simply doesn't carry the same weight as everything else. Basically, even one sentence would still be undue weight, when compared to everything else.

And, even then, all of this assumes that BLP never even existed. Those arguments are basically just what would apply with the normal requirements for verifiable sources and 'undue weight' concerns. BLP explicitly sets a higher standard for these sorts of things. So, basically, there are multiple levels of 'no' when it comes to this legend. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And further, this is unlikely to be deemed pertinent even in an extended printed biography or Gere, so it must not go in a brief wikiarticle just because our online culture is fascinated with the facile and the ridiculous. Snopes be damned - I doubt any reputable biographer would use its material, not because of reliability but because of irrelevance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't even heard that rumor for years. I assumed it had died off. So some latecomers are trying to revive it. So in effect, even forgetting the BLP issue, it fails on notability. Maybe it had some currency a decade or two ago, but at this point it's nothing. It's a mere blip. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no reliable source that says the incident actually happened (or even could happen). However the existence of this urban legend (but just the existence of the legend) is reliably sourced (including in the NYT). However, WP:BLP trumps verifiability and notability. This urban legend clearly does not belong in the article and is a WP:BLP violation, regardless of how many RS it has and how notable it is, and even though it's reliably connected with Gere. And even though the sources clearly identify it as an untrue, but verifiability existing urban legend. Remember: "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity". — Becksguy (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the rumor isn't true, it doesn't appear to have much to do with the subject of Richard Gere. If the story belongs anywhere on Misplaced Pages, it belongs on the article about Urban legends. Not that this is not a specific endorsement of its inclusion there, just an opinion that it doesn't provide useful information about Richard Gere. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in flagrant opposition to all of the people reaffirming that it's a blatant BLP violation, it has been added back anyways. Even better, the edit summary is rather mocking in tone. I've yet to understand why people bothering editing wikipedia if they aren't interested in improving the articles. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What seems lost on people is that this isn't about the rumour per se as that is obviously false, what is true, notable and a part of pop culture is the legend itself. It's now a statement of fact that the story of the gerbil and Gere is real even if the story is false. It's inclusion in the article will do no harm dependent on the way it is worded. This has been the way it is for more than 10 years. The world and his wife knows about it... but when they want to read about it the over-zealous pedants of this world have attempted to bleach it from history by bleating about BLP (in general terms I'm not pointing a finger at any one person). Gere and gerbils, gerbils and Gere, they are now synonymous yet strangely there's no mention of it on the Misplaced Pages article. How cool is that. Doh! --WebHamster 00:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster's just being immature at this point. I was actually a bit surprised to see his past civility issues, and associated blocks. Anyways, there's a pretty clear consensus here. All we need now is admin muscle to help. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::My, my you must have run out of arguments if you have to resort to picking through someone's talk page history. The fact of the matter, though it's patently obvious that you don't like the fact that it doesn't actually breach BLP as has been stated numerous times. It's not harmful to Gere, he's heard it all before. It's notable, Google demonstrates that all on it's own. It's even been mentioned in a NYTimes reviewed book as also previously stated. Shake your prurient heads as much as you like does not detract from the fact that this is a notable urban legend. And it's the legend that needs including, not some rubbish about a gerbil going noseying around looking for the monkey's night-time nut supply. I'm sure his membership of Hubbard's lot and some of his career decisions have cause him far more harm than a 2 line section in WP. --WebHamster 00:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So the links to those reliable sources are where exactly? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need a gerbil to do some looking about in dark places for you. The NYTimes one is always good for a starter. The fact that it has appeared in a NY Times reviewed book (details above) establishes that the fact the legend is in the zeitgeist. So it's looking like you now have your hands over your eyes as well as your fingers in your ears. I'd recommend some Shure E2Cs as being far more comfortable. --WebHamster 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that two comments and half an hour would establish a clear consensus. There's no deadline, and no harm in allowing a conversation to happen for a few days, is there? I couldn't find any blocks for incivility in User:WebHamster's block log, though I did see a pair of year-old 3RR blocks. Maybe I misunderstood and you were talking about someone else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Between here, ANI, and BLP, probably a dozen people have chimed in, and 2 are in support of adding this alleged rumor, so there's a pretty clear consensus. Since the two people fighting the good fight have yet to cite a reliable source, I'd say they've got a ways to go to turn the tide. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just bet you would insist black was white too eh? So some reason you don't seem able to read what has been put in front of your face for the simple fact that you can then ignore it. We've given you a link to a reliable source, we've demonstrated that it isn't in fact against BLP. Yet hear you are not giving any evidence at all that it shouldn't be included. You are merely stating over and over again... interminably I may add, that it shouldn't go in the article but you aren't backing up your opinion with anything of substance. --WebHamster 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for you though, I do like to help the aged at every opportunity... The book's name is "Scorpion Tongues", it's by Gail Collins, it's ISBN is 978-0156006507. The relevant section of chapter one is reproduced just north of here. This book was reviewed in the NY Times, the link was mentioned several times but as your wrist may be a little week and not up to the mouse action required I'll repeat it again... simply put "http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/collins-scorpion.html" into Google (complete with the quotes), then click on the first link that says "Scorpion Tongues" (it'll bypass the NY Time login page) and voila you'll find a demonstrable write up in a reliable source of the fact that this is a pop culture legend. --WebHamster 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, your gross incivility doesn't help your case in the slightest. Between the lame (edit summary) joke in the article, your comments here, and your (edit summary) accusation that the people opposing you are just from the 'bible belt', you've made it quite clear that logic means nothing in this dispute.

That said, you also never addressed what I was saying earlier.

• There's no source for the claim. The only sources provided are people like snopes (or others taking a similar role) saying that they were asked by other people who had heard from other people about the rumour; without even a suggestion that those other people even believed it was true.
• There's no source actually supporting that his identity and career hinge upon this rumour. That is, FisherQueen made a good argument for why it might be added to the 'urban legends' article, but that doesn't mean that the converse is true. Richard Gere may very well be essential to the legend, but the legend isn't essential to Gere. So it does nothing to suggest that it belongs in his biography.

You'd need to address those issues before you could even consider trying to overturn BLP. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I haven't been uncivil 144 times, but then who's counting? I'm certainly not. Perhaps levity means a different thing in your neck of the words. Again, not something that concerns me. But to the point in hand. Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. Whether Gere's career hinges on it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that if you were to walk into pretty much any bar in the western world and ask someone if they'd heard about a legend or a story concerning Richard Gere and a rodent you would probably get the reply "oh didn't he shove it up his ass or something?". That my dear Sir or Madam is what makes it notable. It's probably the most well known urban legend and it links Gere with it permanently regardless of whose name was link with it originally. That fact alone is what makes its inclusion necessary. And it has nothing at all to do with being "essential". They are already the twin suns of the urban legend world. Neither the gerbil nor gear are essential to the other, it's virtual perpetual motion. It's even referred to in the God Blog of the Jewish Journal website (May 2007 if you're interested). It was published in 1997 in the "Indianapolis Star" newspaper (the fact that it was a 'popular' legend that is, not that the act was true). This very facts all point to the notability of this event and leaving it out is giving the equivalent of a string vest to Mr Gere... ie it's supposed to do something but it still feels like there's something missing.--WebHamster 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue where you got the number '144' from. I should hope you would've been blocked long ago if you were that bad.

And, your analogy is entirely flawed. (this is, of course, ignoring the fact that not even I suggested that the accuracy of the legend was even an issue, or that I was very clear and specific with my reasoning)

If you were to ask about a 'legend' involving Gere, sure, there's a decent chance that someone would know what you were talking about. Similarly, if you were to ask about a 'legend' about water and wine, they'd answer about Jesus. Doesn't mean that the water or wine articles need to include that particular miracle, does it? Even the wine article, while mentioning religious uses, still doesn't include it. Why? Because it just doesn't have enough significance for the wine article (even though wine is absolutely essential to the Marriage at Cana article). Going back to the problem with your example, you'd essentially be asking the people in the bar if they'd heard of that legend. A better question is whether they'd still be talking about it if you'd simply asked, "hey, you ever heard of Richard Gere?" To which they'd probably reply with something about Pretty Woman, or some other mind-numbing movie.

Simply put, if someone talks about rodents in the butt, they'll probably think of gere. If someone talks about gere, they'll think of bad movies. (or maybe a cameo on the simpsons, depending on age, or the shilpa shetty incident, depending on geography)

In any event, the current consensus is to stick with BLP and omit it. However, since the article is currently protected (and will be for a while), there's plenty of time for other people to weigh in and let themselves be heard. I imagine this'll be on the BLP noticeboard for a while, so people will probably stop by. In any event, I think my positions are pretty well known, as are yours. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things to clear up before going up the stairs to Bedfordshire... 1) perhaps I should have Wikilinked the 144 (damn I hate explaining jokes) 2) I don't recall using any analogies, much less any that were flawed. Whereas I'm afraid your Water into Wine analogy (probably not the wisest -logy to use considering the subject at hand) blew chunks (no doubt down to mixing up the bottles when crafting your analogy). I've said my piece. I can only state objective things so many times before boredom sets in, and you really don't want that as that's when I really start to take the piss! --WebHamster 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)WebHamster, I think I hear your argument that since there has been so much hub bub about this urban legend and Gere it deserves mention, even if it says its just that. I would say that even with a NY Times mention, it is still trivial and not to the level of what this project is shooting for. Should we write, "though Gere has denyied having gerbils up his ass, there is this awesome urban legend that has made the rounds for years that its true and it just won't go away"? I haven't even looked at what is being added to the article, but I can only imagine. Also, just based on your ID, you would seem to have a bias towards small furry creatures :P (just kidding!) Cheers, Tom (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I just read the "material". Are you kidding me? NUKE & SALT!! And you wonder why Misplaced Pages is laughed at in academic circles. Tom (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this nonsense and WP:SALT it. Rd232 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this belongs to the Urban legends article, not here. Specially given that the history did not originally feature him. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: In case no one noticed, this article has been full-protected by an uninvolved admin for "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy"; protection to expire in two weeks. Any suggested edits to the article need to be done via a {{editprotected}} tag, preferably posted in a separate section, for example == Edit protected requests ==. — Becksguy (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• SupportThe fact that so many people, including this Crotchety Old Man, know about this urban legend shows that it doesn't even need to be sourced, and should be included. Im sure just as many people know this rumor that know that Obama is the president of the US. Does the article on Obama need references to that?71.255.67.212 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What? Obama also has a thing for gerbils? Eek. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He might, after seeing after seeing him buddy buddy with rats like Nicolas Sarkozy and Dmitry Medvedev. But thats a different discussion.71.255.67.212 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • If we treat our allies like enemies, then we end up like... well, like we were under Bush. I fail to see how the entire world telling us we're wrong, as they did under Bush, helps the U.S. But that subtlety might be lost on someone who thinks a bogus story about a gerbil has notability. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the RFC, and I have to say that I think the argument that reporting on the existence of the urban legend violates BLP is a tad silly. If the article reported on it as true, or in any way implied that some actual action of Richard Gere had precipitated the story, there would be a BLP issue. Reporting that the urban legend is widespread and that Snopes indicates that it evolved from an earlier story involving a different celebrity may or may not belong in the article, but it isn't a BLP issue. In terms of sheer notability, I can only offer anecdotal evidence: when I saw the RFC, I tried hard to remember anything about Richard Gere besides the gerbil story. It took 5 minutes for me to come up with the name of a movie he starred in, and I can still only come up with one. I would argue that Richard Gere is more famous for being the target of this story than for anything he actually did.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the summary archive of the old usenet discussions of the matter. This is the place snopes learned his trade. Precis: no good reference. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course there's no good reference actually connecting Gere to a gerbil. I'm not sure that the topic of the story is even possible. That doesn't say that the story isn't firmly connected to him. I have no problem with people arguing that it doesn't belong in the article for any number of reasons, but so long as the mention doesn't attempt to portray the story as true, and is carefully worded to be only asserting that the story exists but has never been tied to any actual incident, and is generally considered false, it's not a BLP issue.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally came up with an analogy: if reporting the existence of this story is a BLP violation, wouldn't Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories be a BLP violation against Neil Armstrong? After all, it basically paints him as a complete fraud. It's not a BLP violation for the same reason that reporting the existence of the gerbil story isn't one: it states that while the story exists, it is generally considered to be false.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was linked to his bio, maybe. Not sure if saying you never went to the moon is as bad as saying you stick small animals up your ass, but maybe. Anyways, Tom (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here think that when a random user looks this talk page's table of contents and sees "gerbil", that they think "what could that be?" Of course they know what it means, everyone knows. Thats how notable this is.71.255.67.212 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

It seems as though there are two issues here:

1. Does this violate BLP? To me, it sounds like it does, because the accusations still haven't been tied to any direct source, so, by definition, every source we have is a... not primary, not secondary, not tertiary... quaternary or maybe uh pentary? (is that a word?) source. Besides that, there's the more general concern that we're supposed to exercise caution when discussing living individuals, so even talking about such a bizarre act that nobody's saying he does, well... (at the very least, it's not hard to find firsthand sources accusing the moonlanding of having been faked; besides that fact that such nonsense doesn't have its own section on Armstrong's bio page!
2. Is it even relevant to Gere? So far, there's been lots of support that Gere is very much relevant to this urban legend, but not a single source to suggest that the urban legend is relevant to Gere. (I sorta like the "water into wine" not being in the wine article, but "wine integral into the cana article" analogy, though I'm not sure "analogy" is really the right word) There are a LOT of rumours about all sorts of public figures. We associate 9/11 hoaxes with Bush, but I really hope that isn't mentioned on his bio page (I'm afraid to check). People associate moon landing hoaxes with NASA, but I really hope that isn't mentioned on the NASA page (still afraid to check, even though that wouldn't be a BLP issue anyway). It's a directed graph, not bidirectional.

Anyways, if nothing else, SECTION BREAK! WOO! (does that spoil the tone of my arguments?) 72.88.36.199 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm impressed by the arguments from some of the editors without accounts here, in particular yours and 209.90.135.182's, and disappointed by the poor quality of the arguments (and indeed the outright immature behaviour) coming from some of the editors with accounts. Your second question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Sources that document the subject in question don't actually mention Gere at all. This is, indeed, a subject that is not about Gere. For detail on this, read Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Gere. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• No gerbils no malicious rumors "that i heard from my cousin and that were once addressed in a newspaper to dismiss them. Anyone arguing for this as encyclopedic and biographical should be ashamed.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• The main valid argument I see for excluding the rumor is the WP:UNDUE concern. Rejecting it based on WP:BLP alone is practically a non-starter as some semblance of sourcing has been provided and there is no attempt being made to assert the rumor as fact. The problem for the supporters of the rumor is they haven't proven how it's relevant to Gere overall. I'm not saying it isn't worth mentioning, just that it hasn't been proven worth mentioning. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proven is not even be an issue. To say "prove it" is to say whether or not this exists; this being the urban legend. And not one person here in this entire discussion believes that it does not exist. Obivously the urban legend exists and a reliable source is not necessary to prove its existance. The reliable sources are stating the urban legend, that we all know exists, is in fact notable. The only question is whether or not this is notable enough to be put into the article. So someone please make an agruement against its notability not whether or not it exists(because we all know it does) or where its got its origination.71.255.67.212 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "prove it". I said "prove its notability". Meaning, "prove its relevance". "Prove how it passes WP:UNDUE". —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you Mendaliv for being the first user to read one of the arguements supporting this, and challenging the supporting arguement instead of just burying your head in the sand when someone presents a valid point. I am 1000% serious when I say that.

I think it's relevance can be seen in the examples that were mentioned earlier, Scream and Family Guy both made mentions of it. And those are just a two. I think that if it gets mentioned in a movie as popular as scream is, and family guy does a bit on this, that shows significant level of notability. WP:UNDUE, to me, really deals with opinions more than notability of a fact but the line that really stuck out the most with me was If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. The prominent adherents are here, the ones arguing for this to be included backed by the pop culture that surrounds this urban legend that has stood the test of time.Fodient (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also to show how this does not slander to Gere, Wes Craven was threatened that if he left the Gerbil part in Scream he would never work again. Gere never sued Craven nor did he even threaten to sue him and they both went on to make plenty of movies following.Fodient (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

KeepIt makes sense to me to keep since everyone has heard of this story. And since the discussion is so extensive, doesn't that mean something regarding its notability? I like it big keep. You know, if we don't keep it maybe someone should create an article on the Gere/Gerbil story, I think the story is that famous.Racingstripes (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting on the Craven note. To me this is getting to sound kind of like the situation of including the homosexuality rumors in the Tom Cruise article. While I understand the Cruise homosexuality rumors are a lot more widespread than this one, it sounds like we actually may have the beginnings of something. But I don't know. WP:UNDUE says that we should not give minority views equal coverage that we give majority views. What this means is that we don't, for example, discuss Schlitz in the beer article. While Schlitz may be the beer that made Milwaukee famous, beer is an ancient invention, and Schlitz itself is a relatively insignificant development. Similarly, Gere's career and life- that is, things that have a measurable effect on his "story"- merit much more attention than minor rumors or gossip. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we cannot give undue weight to this rumor, and if that means excluding it until everything else is mentioned, so be it. What we need from the pro-gerbilists is significant proof that this rumor has affected Gere. This would include something like his publicly acknowledging it, joking about it, denying it... whatever. Some kind of controversy directly involving Gere would be perfect. Kind of like how Chuck Norris facts gets into Chuck Norris. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this to be an interesting twist regarding Sylvester Stallone saying that Gere thinks he started the rumor.. It's from MSNBC which is a reliable source. It has Gere acknowledging the rumor through Stallone's words.Racingstripes (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this should be added to the Stallone article as well.Racingstripes (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This really does satisfy all arguements:

• Notability - through mentions in pop culture(scream/family guy), not mention that this discussion clearly shows notability because everyone has heard of it.
• Reliable sources - NY times/MSNBC/Entertainment Weekly
• It doesn't damage Gere - he has been in plenty of movies since this legend existed.
• Coupled all this with the connection between the Wes Craven comment, and the Stallone comment along this legend lasting for the time it has.Fodient (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment: celebrities tend to be the center or rumors, many of them salacious, and Gere is no exception. This whole "urban legend" thing is an excellent example of precisely the kind of material that doesn't belong in BLPs. We should be arguing (if we are going to argue) about what made Gere notable, which is his acting, not nonsense like this. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when have articles about celebrities remained solely about what made them notable. The articles are about the person and their life, not just the "notable" sections of it. Is it notable that a celebrity lives in a certain place? Is it notable that they were born on a certain day to certain members of the public who are their parents? I think not. Non of those things are notable yet they appear in articles. This mantra of "notability" is getting a bit beyond the pale these days. Notability is the criteria for which the article exists, relevance is the prime reason elements of the article exist. --WebHamster 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on most of the above. I'm just returning to the overarching pricniple that there are certain things that Misplaced Pages avoids, among which are salacious material, gossip, and rumors. To be sure, if an actor's career has been harmed by incarceration and arrests (Lawrence Tierney is an obvious example; in the first paragraph of his obituaries it was said that he was noted for his barroom brawls), it is one thing. But here you have an actor with a long career who has been a subject of rumors. That's where you are going to get some really strong resistance, as all major performers are subjected to rumors. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always had the opinion that the "gerbil legend" should be mentioned, but only in the context that it is a pop culture urban legend that has never been proven. The legend/rumor has been covered numerous times by secondary sources.WackoJackO 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I don't know if I have a different IP address now, but I'm the same person as 209.90.135.182. Also, I may end up repeating what I, or others, have previously said)

I'll prepare a better defense a bit later, but just to address address four things now:

First, in reference to the suggestion that BLP issues are a non-starter, the BLP policy includes, "Avoid repeating gossip.". Obviously, this is repeating gossip. Keep in mind that normal standards for other issues in other articles are not good enough when it comes to biographies. Any argument that would barely make it for a normal article has to fail when it comes to biographies. This isn't up for debate. It's a core policy in wikipedia.

This (among other reasons) is why the Bush article (hopefully) doesn't include the accusation that he orchestrated 9/11, and the Armstrong article doesn't include the accusation that he had a part in faking the moon landing. Articles about a moon landing 'hoax', or 9/11 conspiracies, can acknowledge these people, so long as the utmost caution is used. But the highest level of discretion is mandatory. And including a rumour that nobody can find a single source suggesting is true (or even a single source suggesting referring directly to third parties who even believed it) is the very opposite of discretion.

Second, as for the bullet points above:

• That doesn't prove notability. If it did, then the John Travolta article would include references to him being gay (both South Park and Family Guy made that joke). If you want to include any mention of the subject of a biography cramming a rodent into his anus (sorry to be so vulgar), then you need something better than quick jokes (particularly in shows that specialize solely in quick, random jokes). Of course, the fact that we've heard of it is immaterial. (See my points on Bush and 9/11 above) And, again, there's a difference between saying that Gere is important to the legend, and saying that the legend is important to Gere.
• But, reliable sources of what? Can you find a single reliable source of someone believing it to be true? Or even of someone directly refuting a claim made by someone to them? So far, it's either people reassuring others who might've heard it (but not believed it) from other people who may or may not have believed it, or people just talking about it in general because they were already on the subject of urban legends. Even if you can't find a reliable source fulfilling what I'm asking for, you'd at least have to find one that wasn't discussing it primarily within the context of urban legends as a whole (because, then, it'd belong in an urban legends article, not Gere's biography). Can you find one that discusses it within the context of being significant to Gere? eh?
• You can actually make this argument. Arguably, including it hurts wikipedia a lot more than it hurts Gere. Of course, calling Christina Aguilera a monkey in a human-suit wouldn't really hurt her, either. We can't arbitrarily choose whether or not to follow the words based on whether or not it would certainly harm someone (particularly their career). But there is no burden to show that BLP violations will actually damage the subject of the biography, nor is there any burden to show that Undue Weight will somehow damage said subject. They are very broad, sweeping policies, that help to establish a certain level of quality that the entire project is supposed to be aspiring to.

All of this, coupled with the fact that any inclusion would necessarily violate the restrictions on undue weight... no. just no. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as sources are concerned, here are some that mention the gerbil legend: MSNBC - story half way down page, , , WackoJackO 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I asked for reliable sources showing that anyone has ever actually believed it (not asserting that it's true, just that it's even been notably believed). Granted, failing that, I also asked for asked for a reliable source that wasn't bringing up up in the context of urban legends in general.

However... a source suggesting that Stallone thinks Gere might think that Stallone made it up is also gossip. (I mean, frig, it's a tiny blurb under a bit about paris hilton about someone guessing that someone might attiribute a rumour to him. yeesh!)

The second reference is precisely what you weren't supposed to provide: an article that was talking about several urban legends in general (again, that only shows that gere is important for the legend, not vice versa).

The third reference suffers from precisely the same problem (seriously, did you even read what I asked for before posting? It's disheartening to say the least. Read and reply, or ignore me, but don't insult me by removing all doubt that you replied without knowing what you were replying to). Better yet, the closest it comes to actually addressing it is to say that even the national enquirer didn't propage the legend. Nice to see that what you consider to be a good source says that the national enquirer has higher standards than you want wikipedia to have.

The last reference doesn't even deserve consideration. It's a quick joke extending a hugh grant joke. Please be serious. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, try to shorten your long rants, you might want to try being a little more clear and concise. The whole point of my sources were to show that this is a valid pop culture urban legend, and it should be mentioned in that context.WackoJackO 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, try to curb your incivility (also official policy, incidentally). They are not 'rants'. You posted four references. I posted four replies. I will not apologize for actually acknowledging the references you were trying to present. Additionally, you posted those as a reply to what I'd said, so excuse me for thinking that it actually had any connection to what I'd said. I don't generally assume that people are intentionally being random in their replies. That said, I'll take this as a confirmation that you have no references that satisfy my request. Good to know, as it helps bring this matter to a close. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the discussion here ended when you said so, if you are finished taking part in the discussion, that is fine by me, but others are obviously free to continue debating the matter.WackoJackO 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I never said discussions end when I say so. Please don't put words in my mouth. However, if you choose to not provide a single requested source that would actually address legitimate concerns for being included in the article (I won't repeat them, for fear of being accused of 'ranting', but just look at the bulleted points immediately above), then I'm forced to assume that you've elected to give up. I mean, if sources are necessary, and you choose to not give them (again, you've only sourced irrelevant facts; not provided necessary sources requested above), then how else could I interpret that? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again the point is lost on someone. What the urban legend alleges is unimportant, inconsequential and patently false. It's the fact that there is such a well known urban legend that is now inextricably linked to Gere's name that's notable. It's very easy to make mention of it without actually accusing Gere of an inverted rodent fart. The fact that it must be one of the most well-known celebrity legends out there has to count for something surely? --WebHamster 10:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's very humourous or well-known gossip does not negate the fact that it's gossip. It doesn't matter if you present it as being true or not; it's still gossip. (And BLP's reasonably clear about spreading gossip) And you still haven't shown that the legend is significant to Gere, as opposed to Gere being significant to the legend. Look at how long this discussion's gotten, and yet still a single absence of one such source. You'd arguably need more than one considering both the BLP and Undue Weight concerns, but you can't even get one for a start! It's absurd that it's gone on this long! 209.90.133.75 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very illuminating to see that your whole argument depends on the semantic that it's "gossip". It hasn't been "gossip" for a very long time, if it ever was. You seem to be grimly determinied to hang on to this summation as it's the bedrock of your whole argument. This based on a single, tiny bit of BLP. It's now so much more than "gossip", that why it's called an urban legend. And it's the FACT that it's a legend (urban or otherwise) that makes it both notable and doesn't fit into the "gossip" category. Gossip is which lipstick lesbian Paris Hilton's fucking in front of her camera phone or who Cameron Bale is reaming out next, it isn't a 20+ year 'rumour' that is better known than the owner's film career. And that is precisely why it's notable to Gere, because most people know him for that than his listing on Imdb. --WebHamster 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the whole argument. It's defamatory, it doesn't rely on the level of caution required for BLP, it lacks relevant sources (a thousand sources that make the wrong point aren't any better than one), and it's gossip. That's just for WP:BLP. It would also carry grossly undue weight, as nobody has yet to show that it's important for his biography (and even a single sentence is too much if it isn't relevant to the biography). Now then, if you were correct, and the legend really was how more people knew him than as an actor, then you'd have one amazingly good argument!

But, uh, is that assertion actually based on anything, or is it just a random claim? You're saying that most people know him primarily with respect to that legend, not as being a creepy actor, or someone who was in a lot of bad movies (or, ugh, good movies, depending on one's taste in movies). You don't think it'd be Pretty Woman, or any of the other snoozefests? Really? In that case, all you need to do is prove that statement. Should be easy, eh? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly let's blow your melodramatic assertion aside. It isn't defamatory as no-one is asserting that it's true, only that the allegation is known to millions of people which is of course true. Truth is an adequate defence to defamation in most countries and in most circumstances. I'll bet you're glad you didn't go for a career in law now aren't you? Also it doesn't suddenly become "gossip" just because you say it is. The only reason you are asserting it's "gossip" is because BLP says gossip isn't allowed, it doesn't say urban legends aren't. As for him being notable as a has been actor, well that's probably why it's debatable that he's known best for the Gerbil as opposed to, say, Pretty Woman. You seem to forget that not everyone is up on 80s popular cinema. It's been established from various sources given in this discussion that the element of urban legend is extremely well-known and the fact that it's his name that is linked to it. None of the sources (or editors) insist that it's true, only that it's a well-known legend so that's WP covered from a legal standpoint. It's also covered for your "notability" argument as in it's reasonably accepted that it's just as likely that Joe Blow in the street would know him for rodent infamy as they would for his movies (over and above PW and Officer and then only dependending on the age of the person being asked). It's pretty obvious that you have nothing new to say and as a result I have nothing new to answer. You have got "gossip" stuck in your head like a bad tune and I rather doubt anyone here will shift that so this sub-argument will just go round in circles. Oh and by the way, you bringing out the "incivility" gambit on Waco so early is just plain tacky. Incidentally "rant" isn't uncivil anywhere else than in the mind of a very thin-skinned wikipedian trying to gain ground in an argument discussion. Just thought I'd mention it. --WebHamster 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, again) First off, characterizing someone's good-faith attempts to improve an article as a 'rant' is uncivil. Also, I don't see what's 'early' about it. This argument has been going on for, what, a week now? If you think that a week is a short time for civility to start being an issue, uh... moving on...
Next, I'd like to make a quick request now: Stop saying that nobody's claiming it's true. I bloody well know that you're not claiming it's true. He isn't claiming it's true. Nobody's claiming it's true (at least, nobody who'll be taken seriously).
Next, as to whether or not it's gossip... please refrain from absurd and insulting accusations. The reason I call it gossip is because it fits an acceptable definition of gossip, not because gossip isn't allowed. A few definitions of gossip: "Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature", "Trivial, chatty talk or writing", "idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others". Sound familiar? Yeah, thought it might. If that doesn't describe this legend, then I don't know what does! Unless, of course, you're suggesting that it isn't 'trivial', 'sensational', 'intimate', 'personal', or 'idle talk or rumour'? If you don't believe any of those apply, then we can proceed along that line of discussion. If you think it does, then we can move on.
And, no, it is not "reasonably accepted" that an average person knows him just as much for that legend as for his movies. You haven't even attempted to prove that's true, so how the heck can you declare it "reasonably accepted"? Again, if that is your argument, then prove it. Don't worry about what's 'stuck' in my head. Your argument hinges entirely upon that assertion, so prove it. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat that no-one's saying it's true because of little bits of BS like "defamatory", Duh! Also if something is perceived as a rant, regardless of how it was intended then it's not uncivil to describe it as such. To bring out the WP:CIVIL gun for something so trite in an effort to reduce an opponent's argument is gaming the system. This makes it tacky in my view.

"Gossip" tends to be accepted as something based on current events and is labelled as something that's true. This is not current, it's over 20 years old and it's not being touted as true. Those are the real world definitions of "gossip". I'm not in a position to know whether you inhabit the real world or not so I can't tell if you are being obtuse, pedantic or naively innocent, as such I will assume good faith and presume the latter.

Oh I forgot, it seems I can't use the term "reasonably" as that presumes that I'm talking to someone who knows reason. There is little point in me spending hours tracking down source after source when the "gossip" brigade are going to block every attempt by bringing up the BLP bollocks time and time again. This I also consider to be a "reasonable" response to the wiki-lawyers and wiki-pedants. So far in this discussion I have already come up with reliable sources only for them to be ignored by blinkered editors who stick their fingers in their 'eyes' (?) and go la-la-la because they don't like it when their argument is quashed, they then just rearrange the words of their argument, use semantics and off we go again wasting yet more of my time. But for the time being this little titbit and the fact that there's even a MySpace page for the alleged rodent explorer with 482 friends should go some way to demonstrate that "reasonable" isn't an inaccurate summation. --WebHamster 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue that it's possible to be defamatory, even without pretending that something is true. If I were to keep saying, "I'm not saying that Bush did orchestrate 9/11, I'm just saying what I heard is all" or "nah, I'm not the one saying that Travolta is gay! I'm just saying that some people have said it. And Family Guy. And South Park. But it's probably not true. But people say it", obviously those would be inappropriate, and arguably they'd be defamatory. Furthermore, characterizing my attempts to maintain rational discussion as "gaming the system", or an indirect way to hurt someone's argument is both an assumption of bad faith, but also an inappropriate accusation.
• "Gossip" tends to be accepted as... the definition of gossip. Owning a dictionary does not mean I don't "inhabit the real world", nor does it mean that I'm being "obtuse", "pedantic", or "naive". And you're growingly increasingly insulting. Stop it. Now.
• First off, seriously, cut the crap. Insulting people is both counterproductive and uncivil. I do have reason. The point of contention was that you declared it "accepted" that he's better known for the rumour than as an actor. It's a laughable claim, and deflecting its absurdity with more insults isn't the same as a cogent argument. Cut the 'wiki-lawyer' and similar accusations. If you don't like how wikipedia operates, leave. Failing that, try to change the rules. But don't keep stamping your feet and flinging insults. Oh, and I'm sure you're tired of me repeating the same thing over and over again, but there's an easy to stop it: actually address the concerns brought to you. Your 'sources' only assert that Gere is relevant to the legend, not that the legend is relevant to Gere. I don't know how many times I've said this, as have others, and yet you still choose to ignore that fact. Currently, you've presented zero sources that address whether gerbils are relevant to Gere.
• And, seriously, stop insulting. Stop with the ad hominems. Stop with the false accusations. Stop with questioning motives. Stop flinging insults based on my preference to use actual definitions of words, rather than your own personal arbitrary definitions. Stop it. I still don't know whether these numerous insults and flagrant hostility warrant referral to admins. (Normally, I hate doing that sort of thing, but read your own words there, and tell me how the heck it couldn't be considered outright insulting!) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the only person you are in any position to demand anything of is yourself, so quit with the "Stop" demands. They'll only make you feel powerless when they go unheeded.

Secondly my opinions of your responses are just that opinions, if you don't like them, well tough, there's not an awful lot that can be done about that. You say something in a certain way I generate an opinion. It's not looking like either of us is going to change anytime soon. The adult response would be to shrug it off, not the 'run to teacher' response that has become so endemic on WP in recent times. Also I get so sick of seeing that over-used expression "ad hominems", especially when they are used incorrectly. If I were to make an ad hominem attack on you, you would be well aware that one had occurred. The current threshold, both yours and Misplaced Pages's thin-skinned editors, is set so low as to destroy the ability of grown-up editors to express themselves fully.

Thirdly you repeating yourself, me repeating myself is going to continue because you will stick to your guns regardless of any time I spend backing up my assertions, you already have done. You strike me as that sort of person. Yes, an opinion, but there ya go, we all have them. So I don't feel that the time spent would be worthwhile. Not because I don't think I'll find what I need, but because the result will be ignored by the "gossip" and "BLP" brigade.

I suppose you've been looking up "uncivil" in the dictionary too? Unfortunately, for you, it's a subjective adjective. I don't believe I've been uncivil, merely truthful based on observations gleaned from this discussion. My opinions have been based on what you've said, how you've said it and how you've tried to present yourself as the hard done-by editor under storms of attack by the uncivil brigade. In my view that's gaming the system. That's not uncivil, that's an honest opinion, both on your behaviour and the current ethos prevalent in the WP backwaters. "Mum! He described me and I didn't like it". Now you may want to ignore the fact that this gerbil/Gere thing is in the top 10 of urban legends, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to. I have to admit I'm even tempted to waste some more of my time and create a new article on the legend. Whaddya think? It wouldn't make you too apoplectic would it? Oh by the way... just say No to Political Correctness, you know it makes sense. --WebHamster 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah and hurrah, I think this is a time I can be brief for a change!

You want to make accusations? Fine. You want to bicker? Fine. The problem is when you're wasting space on the talk page of an article for your own personal uses, and when you interfere with legitimate attempts to resolve issues concerning the article. Simply put, if you don't want to contribute, what are you doing here? Thick skin, thin skin, if you don't want to contribute, there's no reason to be here.

Actually, if you were to make a legitimate argument, I'd acknowledge it in a heartbeat. Doesn't mean I'd agree, but I'm always quick to acknowledge valid arguments on either side of just about any issue (and I mean just about any, including even the major political/race/choice issues that need not be named). Thing is, I was very clear, and you were very vague. The only things you've been specific about are your insults and your fabricated redefinitions of words.

No, I didn't look up 'uncivil'. That is one of the things that I know there's room to disagree on (for example, if you'd stuck to just one or two insults, I'd see room for interpretation). As for your 'urban legends' reference... uh... you just made my point. Again. You just proved that the gerbil incident might belong on an urban legends article. Furthermore, you've proved that, if we had a 'gerbilling' article, a very strong case could be made for mentioning Gere. Unfortunately, that isn't what we're debating. Too bad, eh? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and an extra note: Looks like there was an article on it before. Well, more specifically, on the practice, rather than the legend. It was CSD'd by MZMcBride. You can ask them why if you like. If such an article were to exist, then I'd still argue that it may not be appropriate to mention him in it, due to BLP concerns, but I certainly wouldn't even attempt to make any notability or Undue Weight arguments around including him. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think it might be helpful to see Uncle G's comments here. I think he summed it up quite nicely in that block (just scroll past the indentation fixes) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Here is a thread from a WP:ANI archive on this issue: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive527#User:Fodient. — Becksguy (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to clarify

I may be wasting my time, but if there's one thing that the pages upon pages of discussion above proves, it's that it doesn't matter if you understand your argument, or think anyone should be able to understand it; others may disagree.

As such, I'm making one last attempt to explain this...

We have an article on Steven Hatfill. If the name doesn't sound familiar, he's the guy that the government and news media publicly massacred (figuratively, not literally) because of that anthrax scare way back.

Basically, he was only ever a 'person of interest', but there was clearly a lot of public condemnation. Turns out, he was innocent.

Now then, here's where things get fun. See, seeing as how he never poisoned/terrorized anyone, you'd think that BLP would prevent talking about the incident in his article. However, turns out, the reason we have an article on him is because of that incident. Sure, his life has been about more than that incident, but that's how everyone else knows him. BLP means we have to be careful about how the incident is phrased, but it doesn't preclude mentioning it. Basically, it's essential to his biography.

Similarly, though David Howard (well, the one I'm talking about) doesn't have his own biography page, he is mentioned in an article. Turns out, he used a word that, through sheer ignorance, some people misinterpreted as being racist.

He never made a racist comment, this much is for certain (well, that comment wasn't racist, anyways. As far as I know, nobody's followed him around with a tape recorder, checking for racist comments throughout his life). If (that) David Howard had also happened to be, say, a "world famous billionaire bikini model supermodel astrophysicist" (look it up), and that was the reason he had a bio page (I know, lots of 'if's here), then it'd be harder to include the incident. It'd probably still get in, since it ended up with him losing his job, but it'd be harder. On the other hand, it'd pretty much have to be included in the article I just linked, because it was just that significant to the coverage of the topic. BLP would be a concern on his bio page, but far outweighed for that article page.

Conversely, there are certain names that tend to pop up in fringe topics. This concept isn't even confined solely to matters of gossip or rumours, but others as well.

The example that's already been used, and I hope you don't mind me repeating it, is the moon landing. (or, specifically, conspiracy theories concerning the moon landing "hoax") Here's an interesting fact: Armstrong ought to be a more prominent figure than Aldrin in that "hoax"; and yet, the "hoax" is mentioned in the Buzz Aldrin article, but not the Neil Armstrong article. How could that be? Easy. Because, ideally, the theoriest of conspiracy nuts wouldn't ever be relevant to either Armstrong or Aldrin. (Keep in mind, however, that it's at least easy to find actual evidence of people believing those conspiracy theories to be true.) The catch is that there is a specific incident that makes hoax accusations relevant to Aldrin: Aldrin actually punched someone over it. Armstrong never did that. Google searches don't mean much, but just for ha-has, do a search with: moon landing faked armstrong (you'll get about 341,000 hits) Do a search with: moon landing faked aldrin (you'll get about 112,000 hits) Obviously, that doesn't directly prove anything, but it certainly doesn't do much to suggest that Aldrin is more important to the hoax theory than Armstrong.

It's easy to say that, in an article about gerbiling, BLP would be the only possible concern, because nobody could possibly argue Undue Weight or Notability. Yes, it's been attached to other people, but there's still a clear frontrunner.

However, it's hard to say that, in an article about Richard Gere, a silly urban legend that apparently nobody believes is really on the same level as his notability as a (bad, so bad) actor, humanitarian/activist, or even buddhist. If he'd been caught punching someone out over it, then (like the Buzz Aldrin article shows), it'd end up getting stuck in there. But there simply lacks an argument to show that it goes both ways.

Anyways, I hope this at least explains part of my position a bit better. (The BLP aspects, you either agree or disagree. I don't think I can do much to convince anyone who isn't already convinced) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not!!! I never heard of the "gerbil" story, but it is not notable and the content of the story does in fact violate WP:BLP and is exempt from the 3RR rule if reverted. JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I only made a brief (though very firm...) remark far above, so I'll add that prior to coming to this discussion (a) I was fairly familiar with Gere from films (b) had heard of gerbiling (c) never heard the two connected. Obviously this colours the strength of my feeling that idle gossip and discounted urban legend should not be needlessly repeated. None of the sources given suggests the rumour has had any effect on Gere, so per WP:UNDUE (or possibly WP:FRINGE...), it shouldn't be here. It might be mentioned in another article on urban legends, if there is sourcing showing that it is significant in the context of urban legends. What it is not is significant in the context of Gere. Rd232 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan and never heard that story. Not notable or encyclopedic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Urban Legends" are a type of Gossip

First let me say that I do think that the "gerbil" story is notable to at least get a mention -- except that it fails the gossip exception under WP:BLP.

Some people have been saying that it is an Urban Legend and not gossip. But what about it makes it not gossip? Here's the definition of gossip given at dictionary.com:

"idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others: the endless gossip about Hollywood stars."

And here in a definition of Urban Legend from the American Heritage Dictionary:

"n. An apocryphal story involving incidents of the recent past, often including elements of humor and horror, that spreads quickly and is popularly believed to be true."

This "gerbil" story is a rumor that won't die -- just because it is so shocking (or titillating) to some people. And it qualifies as an Urban Legend because it contains elements of humor and horror. Urban Legends are just a type of gossip that is especially interesting -- usually because they are outrageous in some way.

Here is the relevant section of WP:BLP:

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"

Notice is says: "If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" And no one has submitted a reliable source that is claiming that the "gerbil" story is true.

The counter argument to this is that it is true that there are multiple reliable sources that believe there exists an urban legend about Gere. Yes, I agree. But if that were the test then we'd have to let lots of gossip into biographies. Because you'd just need to find an article from a reliable source that says that the rumor exists. So if an article from a reliable source printed: "There's a rumor going around that Mr. X beats his wife and molests his children." Then you could say that it is true that the rumor exists so it should be included in a WP biography of Mr. X.

I understand the desire to include notable Urban Legends. And I can see wanting to argue that they are different that gossip. But even if you could show that an Urban Legend is a completely different animal than gossip ... and so not against the "letter" of the policy. I'd still say it's against the spirit of the policy b/c including Urban Legends has all the same dangers as including gossip -- and so should be avoided using the same criteria. For example, the desire to include Urban Legends would need to be weighed against this WP:BLP policy:

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Philadelphia articles
• Low-importance Philadelphia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Buddhism articles
• Low-importance Buddhism articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed University of Massachusetts articles
• Unknown-importance University of Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject University of Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics