Talk:Hutton Gibson

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


 * Why does Hutton Gibson get an article? What has he done apart from father Mel Gibson? VfD, I suggest. -- Tarquin 18:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hutton Gibson deserves a line in this article but not his own article. Ark30inf 18:31, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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


 * Not a particularly major issue with me, if it stays it stays. I wouldn't think Walt's grandpa would deserve an article either just because he was Walt's grandpa though. I am guessing Hutton here is going to attract more trouble than any of the Disney's ever will though. :-) Ark30inf 06:47, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hutton Gibson is now of VfD. Breaking out the stuff on him to a separate article was a mistake. And nor does it belong here -- Tarquin 16:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Why is that article being deleted? Wikipedia is not only for biographies of "nice" people. RK


 * You're right. That's why we have an article on Hitler, for example. But we have bios of people who are memorable or significant in some way. Being the father of a film star is not enough in itself. Nor is being a holocaust denier -- sadly there are too many of these about -- Tarquin 19:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From VfD
This page was removed from VfD on October 3rd because the majority wanted it kept.
 * unencyclopedic -- his only claim to fame is being the father of Mel Gibson, and the article was only created in a misguided attempt to solve edit war on Mel. -- Tarquin 16:33, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, at least his only claim to fame is still a claim to fame. How many Wikipedia users can make the honest claim of being that immediately related to a celebrity? Simply allowing him will not open the door for thousands of completely non-famous people to be admitted in and everyone on Wikipedia to start a vanity page about themselves. Keep. Wiwaxia 16:53, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a genealogy! Being someone's father is not sufficient. -- Tarquin 17:00, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Hutton Gibson has wound up being discussed in the media, and his name gets 1,580 hits on Google. He also seems to have written a book. I'd say leave it. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know whether he would have been famous without the family connection, but he is famous nevertheless, in a way that many celebrity relatives aren't. -- Daran 18:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being related to someone doesn't make you encyclopedic.  Mentioning parents/children in a biographical article is fine, but that's it.  Daniel Quinlan 21:55, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have lots of articles about famous people's relatives.  What's wrong with keeping this one? RickK 00:04, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I say keep it. As Wiwaxia put it, "his only claim to fame is still a claim to fame". -- Cabalamat 00:37, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I was going to say delete until I read Infrogmation's comments. Keep it, he seems famous aside from his relation to Mel. --Dante Alighieri 01:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the only meaningful criterion for inclusion of a person (or any other subject) is the amount of verifiable information we can obtain on them. And I think this person has quite enough. (Over 1,000 Google hits, for a start.) And what we have is, in any case, interesting. :) So keep! -- Oliver P. 01:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the term "unencyclopedic" moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. -- Cyan 07:48, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Jake 23:44, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep because his only claim to fame is being Mel Gibson's father. The issue is whether The Passion should be evaluated based on Mel's views, his father's views, or both. Having separate articles for each person makes it easier to distinguish their views. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Google
google:"hutton gibson" -mel

Not enough fuel to burn bodies?
Hutton said that there was not enough fuel to burn the bodies of the millions of Jews killed. "It takes 20 liters to burn a body." It takes a lot of power to burn roast beef too, but once it sets on fire more beef would just add to the flames. Bodies do burn. I suppose that Hutton is one of the nuts that say the whole U.S. space program is a farce produced in Hollywood. (UTC)
 * No, just that the almanacs and encyclopedia's showing there were 17 million Jews worldwide before the war and 17 million after thr war prove there was no genocide. (UTC)
 * I suppose you can provide us with a quote from Hutton to that effect? I mean, it would be wrong to lump every nutty statement by every nutty revisionist together, each should be evaluated on its own merits. Gzuckier 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To the person that answered, go deny the holocaust somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.18.11 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

'Mainstream' historians
I removed the word 'mainstream' because it's one of those weasel adjectives that revisionists use to cast doubt on the veracity of proper historical research. Revisionists like to think of themselves on the cutting edge of history, away from the mainstream (excuse the mixed metaphor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.144.149 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-22T07:41:58

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

What the hell is a Jewish Catholic? If nobody finds a source for this sentence within a week, I'm deleting it. --GHcool 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alphonse Ratisbonne was Jewish Catholics. You ain't deleting anything here, pall.Smith2006 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Hutton Gibson, a man born in 1918, have a "friendship" with Ratisbonne, a man that died in 1884? You're going to have to do better than that, pal. --GHcool 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pal" is spelled with one L genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.18.11 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't forget WP:CIV. I believe that smith2006 is referring to those with ethnic Jewish heritage who profess the Roman Catholic religion as their faith. Perhaps the insertion of the word "ethnic" or some other word to refer to those with Jewish heritage who dont practise Judaism would help? Though often thought of as intertwined, 'Jewishness' and the religion of Judaism are not the same thing. Please consult 'Who is a Jew?' for details on some interpretations of who falls into the category of Jew and see also the main article on modern interpretations with regard to Israel. D Mac Con Uladh 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source(s) for the material in question or do not add it into the article. Thanks! --Tom 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understood quite clearly what smith2006 meant. I am familiar with the Who is a Jew debate.  However, to add to Tom's comment, just because there may be such a thing as a Jewish Catholic (ethnically Jewish, religiously Catholic), that does not necessarily mean that Hutton Gibson has any Jewish Catholic friends.  A source is required and since Jewish Catholics are a rarity, a "dubious" tag is appropriate.  --GHcool 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From your initial comment ie. "What the hell is a Jewish Catholic?" I got the impression that you didnt know what the term meant. A fair assumption? This is why I clarified what I felt smith2006 was referring to.
 * From your response, "I understood quite clearly what smith2006 meant" I now know that you did not need clarification on this point. This however makes your initial comment very puzzling.
 * When engaged in discussion please do not forget WP:CIV. While I assume good faith on everyones part, I feel that the introduction of an aggressive tone or comments which could be considered aggravating are to be avoided. Tom demonstrates how to request sources which improve the article in a respectful manner (respectful both to other editors and Jewish Catholics). I trust this will be considered constructive advice. D Mac Con Uladh 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction to the term. Unless the term "Jewish" is being used in a racial sense (which opens up a whole new can of worms), I'd say a better phrase would be 'Jewish converts to Catholicism'.Azathoth68 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Its gone.  --GHcool 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Local congregation support
I removed some material that I couldn't source to the mentioned citation. Anyways, --Tom 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Hutton Gibson has endorsed Ron Paul. -- noosph e re 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate links
We have links to a blog and a Myspace page. Is that at all appropriate? Wowest (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because they seem fake. The real Hutton Gibson wouldn't need to plagiarize wikipedia for his biography.Claisen (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "FeuersteinTranscript1" :
 * Partial Transcript Of The Steve Feuerstein Radio Interview With Hutton Gibson; Movie City News; March 3 2004
 * empty

Unsourced material will be removed very soon per WP:BLP
There is some questionable, controversial and even libelous material here that will be removed per WP:BLP by tonight or tomorrow am if it is not sourced. I have not put up the {BLP dispute} notice here like I did on Mel Gibson but the same rules apply- such info can and should be removed IMMEDIATELY. This is not a matter for discussion on whether unsourced material can stay, as someone mistakenly wrote on my talk page. Carol Moore 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * I hope you're not referring to my message on your talk page, which said no such thing. Many of the items you -tagged were already sourced elsewhere in the article (so I just cloned the footnotes) and for at least one that wasn't, I found a news source.  Of those that remain, they don't seem especially "controversial and even libelous".  What are you referring to here? Robert K S (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! :-) I did just find the less drastic version of the top of page tag, FYI:


 * Things that are lowest priority are things everyone knows is true because a person is very well known for being a politician who did such and such or a movie star who starred in such and such blockbuster. When they are not, we don't even know what might be a lie someone stuck in there to embarrass or hurt someone - or could trigger a lawsuit vs. wikipedia. Like someone says someone worked for a company but the truth is someone sued that company because its product killed their child. Seems non-controversial unless you know the truth.
 * In this case this means most of the stuff in the "Move to Australia section," because who knows what is true and what Aussie or other person might have put in a bunch of bunk for fun. I'll take it out for now but feel free to replace when get sources. Carol Moore 16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As to template tags: Top-of-page tags should be generally avoided in the mainspace. They are essentially talk content and if anyplace should go in the talk space.  In the mainspace (that is, at the tops of articles themselves) they distract and accrue and generally blight the encyclopedia.  If you have an issue with an article, your best bet is to edit the offending content, or comment on it in the talk space, not place a template banner at the top of the article. As to this article: You still haven't said which content you thought to be "questionable, controversial and even libelous material here".  If there is such material, we should discuss it and deal with it. Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I found that most of the material you deleted as unsourced in the "move to Australia" section was actually already sourced (but just didn't multiply superscripts all over the place). I couldn't source that Gibson held Tridentine mass in his Sydney home or that he collected discarded relics, but such information is hardly questionable, controversial, or libelous in the context of this article.  The Gibsons are outspoken Sedevacantists and Gibson said (see Dallas Observer profile) that he was unable to find a church offering Tridentine mass in Australia, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that he would practice his religion out of his own home for his family and whatever friends might join him, or seek to preserve items significant to his faith but being discarded.  Simply put, the material is not contentious and does not fall under the WP:BLP demand for immediate removal.  The information probably came from somewhere; the  tag should be permitted to remain for a little while longer. Robert K S (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for refs. In biographies it's always good to use Inline_citation and I'm so used to it assume there is no reference if not there. His military record, if not accurate, certainly would be a major point of contention and should be quickly sourced or removed. Something done in "rush of radical reform by Catholic parishes" might be taken as offensive by someone and should be ref'd. Going into articles and pointing out what needs ref's which can motivate people who are more familiar with actual reference is a whole job in in itself and asking for more from editors who happen to see problematic things in articles can be asking too much. Carol Moore 01:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * It's my impression that the "rush of radical reform" is a characterization of the sweeping changes made to the Church in the wake of Vatican II, but I suppose it could be re-worded to reflect a more neutral point of view. Robert K S (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Denier
Shouldn't there be some more information/focus on the fact that this man is a noted Holocaust denier??WacoJacko (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Denying the "existence" of the Holocaust?
The radio interview does not indicate that Gibson entirely denies the "existence" of the Holocaust. He calls the term "Holocaust" a misnomer and states an opinion that "most" of it is a "lie". That isn't denying the existence of it - it is questioning the extent of it and the name given to it. In no ways do I defend his views but to claim that "by his words" he has "denied the existence" of the Holocaust is simply not supported by the reference and is therefore an unreferenced BLP violation and original research. My rephrasing of the text was responsible and reflected the actual reference. Afterwriting (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Feuerstein interview, what part of the Holocaust isn't denied? He says the gas chambers didn't really exist, that there was no intention to kill Jews, that the Jews weren't killed, that they emigrated instead, etc. I'm not aware of anyone who denies more of it than he did in that interview.   Will Beback    talk    08:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he does completely deny it but this interview does NOT state this. You cannot state in the article that he argued both against the "extent" of it and also its actual "existence".  This makes no sense at all and is a contradiction.  Whatever your opinion of Gibson's views they are not clearly supported by this particular reference.  Therefore you will need to find another reference that clearly states that he has denied the existence of the Holocaust - not just the extent of it. The article must reflect what he has actually said - not an editor's interpretation. Afterwriting (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can argue that. He says there was no such thing as a "Holocaust", that the Jews emigrated instead of being killed, and that those who died in workcamps did so because they starved after American aerial bombing cut off their supply of food (if I understand that point correctly). What part of the Holocaust do you think he admitted to?   Will Beback    talk    09:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not just my view.
 * An 85-year-old man denying the Holocaust on a New York radio talk show wouldn't necessarily be news. Except that the man's son is Mel Gibson.
 * Gibson's dad stirs furor with anti-Jewish talk Jeffrey Weiss. Knight Ridder Tribune News Service. Washington: Feb 20, 2004. pg. 1
 * Hutton Gibson, who lives in Texas, claimed in a radio interview that Jewish people fabricated the Holocaust and were conspiring to take over the world.
 * Gibson's father: Nazi death camp numbers mostly fiction; [Daily Edition] MELISSA RADLER. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Feb 20, 2004. pg. 07
 * (Last week, according to press reports, Hutton Gibson told New York radio talk show host Steve Feuerstein that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had, in fact, fled to countries like Australia and the United States. The elder Gibson is quoted as saying "it's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is," adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people.)
 * Painful wounds; [All Edition] TIM RUTTEN. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Feb 22, 2004. pg. 1.J
 * I've argued in the past that there was something particularly loathsome about Holocaust denial in that, in effect, it seeks to murder Hitler's victims a second time, murders their memory. Just reading the new Hutton Gibson transcript is bad enough, but to hear the self-satisfied, self-congratulatory tone in which the words are uttered, as one did on This Week, is to realize that this isn't something that cannot be pitied or excused as the product of a senile lunatic. They're the words of someone in complete possession of his faculties, and all the more hateful for it.
 * Passion of Mel Is Mean, Gnarled, Next to the Sacred Ron Rosenbaum. The New York Observer. New York, N.Y.: Mar 8, 2004. pg. 1
 * A week before Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus Christ hits theaters, his father has gone on an explosive rant against Jews -- claiming they fabricated the Holocaust and are conspiring to take over the world.
 * Gibson's father describes Holocaust as 'fiction'; [Final Edition] Tracy Connor. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 20, 2004. pg. D.1.Fro
 * And so on.   Will Beback    talk    09:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing no other comments, I'll restore the line about denying the Holocaust, and add one of these sources.   Will Beback    talk    09:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

“The Gospel of [Hutton] Gibson” (Documentary)
Talk:David_Cole is releasing an interview with Hutton Gibson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.91.228 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hutton Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103004/http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=231187 to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=231187
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208223150/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_511022.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_511022.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005172237/http://www.wtae.com/r/9610978/detail.html to http://www.wtae.com/r/9610978/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128125512/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_416937.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_416937.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128151644/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/16%3A580/1/Mel_Gibson.htm to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/16%3A580/1/Mel_Gibson.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119144733/http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/showthread.php?t=35065 to http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/showthread.php?t=35065
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012180152/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/20/125718.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/20/125718.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130144408/http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/tpc/2010/january/ to http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/tpc/2010/january/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128125512/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_416937.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_416937.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723161201/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_511022.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_511022.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
I came to the article just now, wanting to read up on Mel Gibson's family. However had, the very first paragraph already casts a very negative light on him. And this is strange, because even if these statements are true, WHY are they in the very first part? Why not a separate subsection lateron? I reason that people who come to the page may be more interested in his whole life - not necessarily the one that wikipedia seeks to convey and portray initially. Who wrote that page? Anyway, my gripe is not with the content per se (I have no means to verify any of it), but with the STRUCTURE. I reason that it should not be the introduction, because as it is, it is a very negative and biased introduction and hardly seems to be objective enough - unless you do this for EVERYONE ELSE too. So my suggestion is to word the general introduction less biased, and if you still want to retain criticism, do so in separate subsections lateron. As it presently is, I am being presented with information that is only marginally interesting to me on the INITIAL first page, but whoever wrote it clearly had an agenda to WANT to convey and portray it that way, which I don't think is appropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia should be objective as much as possible; factual statements are great, but they should be presented in a factual manner too, rather than suddenly become the dominating factor on a given person's webpage per se, as the introduction. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please change the wording of your request? Write something like "change x to y" instead of a general rant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Antisemitic act of" Holocaust denial
was just removed. That was a weird way of putting it, so the wording itself is no big loss. But now, the word "antisemitism" is gone completely from the article. Do we have no sources on Gibson's antisemitism? Or is this anti-Judaism, its predecessor? Before the nineteenth century, repression and massacres of Jews were motivated by religion, and then antisemitism was invented - calling Jews a "race" - and replaced it as a murder motive. This whole biography seems like "antisemitism" is indeed the wrong word. He seems to have more in common with the crusaders who, on their way to Palestine, slaughtered all the Jewish "Christ killers" they found, than with the race fanatics Wagner, Chamberlain and Hitler. What do the sources say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)