Talk:Richard Gere

This article is about a person who is alive, and so it must follow our rules for biographies of living persons. Controversial content about living persons that does not have any sources or is poorly sourced must be removed straight away from the article and its talk page, especially if it harms their reputation. If such content is repeatedly added to the page or if there are other concerns related to this rule, report it on the Administrators' noticeboard.

Gerbilling reference[change source]

Removed: Over the years, there have been persistent rumors that associate Richard Gere with the sexual practice known as [[Gerbilling]]. However, this has not been proven.<ref name="Gere2">{{cite web | last=Mikkelson | first=Barbara and David P| authorlink=| coauthors=| title="From Gere To Eternity"| publisher=[[Snopes/com]]| date =| url=http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/gerbil.asp| format =| accessdate =2007-05-31 }}</ref>

I know that this is referenced info, but it non-neutral pov considering that the article is one paragraph long and this makes this comment seem much more important than it is. It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to mention a rumor such as this in an encyclopedic article. Also, to show how much importance is given to this rumor in English Wikipedia, the article is much longer and it is not included--and it has been discussed extensively (see here). I suggest we follow their lead and leave unencyclopedic content out of our encyclopedia. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included71.74.70.152 01:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it removal for the given reasons. Also of note is the fact the creator of both the Gere article and the Gerbilling article is the same person and that person notes in the gerbilling article that it is likely all just an urban legend. If it is an urban legend, it does not exist and therefore has no use as a rumor in an excyclopedic article. Its only usage would be to be slanderous to the subject which is clearly not permitted. -- Creol(talk) 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]