Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This article comes under the oversight of Wikiproject Biography.

Contents

Picture

How come the main picture has changed? I think it would be better if the main picture was an updated one such as the one that was used before changed. I didn't see the point in the picture change.

There should be some standard if shots from movies or publicity shots should be used on actors pages.

Sexuality

It strikes me that people will continue to put up Toothy Tile and gay rumors about Jake until TT is revealed as someone else, or Jake comes out. I have readded the TT stuff, though stripped it a bit, since someone took it off without explanation. (bizarre given they added stuff about him dating Austen Nichols). But I think what might be the easiest thing to do is produce a special article putting for and against the case for Jake's sexuality, as that is really the contention on this page. Personally, I would like an objective view of both sides, as it takes hours going through all the gossip sites...
Dev920 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to compromise on this. Only the barest information is now up though TT has been almost totally confirmed as Jake, could the reverters please at least give their reasoning as to why they keep removing it?Dev920 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, 89.48.8.103? Why did you remove it? Again? Dev920 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I say the stuff that got taken out was hard to understand. Even after I went to Ted's website, it was difficult for me to figure out what the articles on Toothy were even supposed to be. I am not the one that took this stuff away, but keep in mind- wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's one of the rules. So some other news institution can say "Jake is the guy Ted Casablanca won't stop talking about" and then wikipedia can talk about that news institution's crystalball-ness, but it's against the rules to synthesize these sorts of predictions ourselves. 66.41.66.213 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

...even if the public (and I use that term loosely) believe it to be true? Like saying "it is generally accepted that..." as a reason for its inclusion in the article? The other thing to think about is verifiability. We can certainly verify that people think Toothy Tile is him but nobody can prove it is him. Is that reason enough to include it? TehQ 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please look up wikipedia guidelines for verifiability. I could "verify" that some people think snakes with bowties are cool in blogs or otherwise, but it would take a certain kind of reliable source, like say a newspaper, to verify that fact to wikipedia standards. Of course there are obvious things similar to snakes with bowties being cool that would be annoying to verify by outside sources, but who thinks who is TT certainly is something that requires verifiability. You probably could find a magazine that speculated as to Jake being whateverwhatever, but then again maybe you couldn't. But the other issue is that for that whole thing to be included here would either be confusing for people who have never heard of ted casablanca or would include almost more information on the articles of ted than there is actual info on Jacob Gyllenhaal. Also "it is generally accepted that" and similar terms are discouraged on the guideline page titled "Weasel words". If only I could spell weasel. 66.41.66.213 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should be placed unless its confirmed. Even though a HUGE part of Jake Gyllenhaal is his sexual ambiguouity, nothing should be edited in unless its confirmed, rumors should not be used because they could tarnish his personal reputation.

Misc.

Bold textMy Favorite actor, can't wait for Brokback Mountain. Me either! It looks like it could be really good. Bremen 18:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that Jake did not break up with Dunst, but that they staged a break up because they wanted to escape the ppublic eye. They have since publicly reunited as they couldn't keep their hands off eachother in public so weren't fooling anyone.

any reason there is no picture of him up? Misterniceguy7 05:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same... Maybe the previous one posted violated something? Or something??

Quote sourcing

When asked of his thoughts on playing a character who falls in love with another man, Gyllenhaal admitted his own same sex attractions by openly stating every man goes through a period of questioning attractions for other men.

That's a rather strong statement. What is the source for this? What was the actual quote? -- Beland 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree - sounds more like someone wishing same-sex attractions upon him. --172.142.42.241 06:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. It's verified here. As well as numerous other sites. Shall I source it in the article or...?

It sounds like the kind of thing Gyllenhaal would say. Most of the time in interviews he comes out with things you don't expect so....

Eric Foner his uncle or mother's first wife??

We need to sort this out! This article says "mother's brother" but the Eric Foner article says "mother's first husband." Somebody fix! I don't have time to Google right now. Moncrief 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Update: Google shows many more hits for his relationship being that of uncle, so I fixed the Foner article. If people have other information, use the talk page there. Moncrief 00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


"First wife??"??? No, but try first husband.

Eric Foner is the ex-husband of Jake's mom, Naomi Foner, not her brother. He is not related to Jake at all, even though the fact that Jake attended Columbia, where Foner teaches, might suggest otherwise. The web pages that say they are uncle and nephew are mistaken, no matter how numerous they may be. As of today (2/24/06), the article on Eric Foner explains these facts correctly.


Maybe he is their mother's first husband but they refer to him as uncle? TehQ 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He is her ex-husband, not her brother. I edited the article using a letter that Eric Foner wrote the Columbia Daily Spectator, in which he corrected them after they made the same error, as a source. Calindigo

meaning?

"He asked many questions, about which he expressed embarrassment during an interview on Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Amo 11:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Atticus

I've only ever heard of his dog being called "atticus", does it really share it's full name with Atticus Finch? Source? What about the other one? Amo 11:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The alsatian he rescued is called Atticus. His other dog is a Puggle called Boo radley. Naturally, it's named after the other main character. Dev920 01:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
He stated the dogs' full names (Atticus Finch and Boo Radley) when asked by Ellen Degeneres in his interview with her in November 2005 though he tends to simply call them Atticus and Boo. TehQ 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've semi-protected article, due to an email about the barrage of editing about Gyllenhaal and Austin Nichols. Discuss it out here, before any content goes into the article. Remember, we are not the Enquirer. -- Zanimum 21:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think an unreferenced tag on the private life section would do us all some good. When people edit articles that aren't historical or about microbes, people tend to think that the same standards don't apply. Due to disputes like this, the standards should apply all the more. We should reference where we get things. Even non-controvertial stuff is often hear-say or made up but plausible. Lets all learn from this. Neutral point of view doesn't mean we exclude points of view, it means that we mention them and cite them appropriatley, which keeps the article itself NPOV. We are not the enquirer in that we must cite what notable sources our demonstrably notable rumors come from. Most of what people put up here has something to it that is arguably notable, unless there's some wiki guideline on the notability of tabloid rumors that I'm missing. In any case, yes, the way that these have been put up doesn't quite hash with policy. See the links in this tag:
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

66.41.66.213 03:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User constantly editing this page

I sent an abuse mail to Wikipedia, complaining about two specific users. Both users should be blocked from Wikipedia since they are constantly editing actual facts from different articles including Austin Nichols, Sophia Bush and Jake Gyllenhaal. I'm a bit fed up with these childish fan war games since this is an encyclopedia and not your private Jake Gyllenhaal fan site message board. Please, take your relationship rumors and fanatic link removal there and leave those people alone who want to add CONFIRMED facts. Don't forget this is not a playground. People are using these sites for their research.


To those who keep adding unfounded speculation to this and Austin Nichol's page: STOP. IF you want to guard a celebrity's homosexuality, guard one who is openly gay, not one you wish to be gay. 24.137.111.194 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


You're completely right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip shop. It was born to be looked up as a sound means of knowledge and information; it should not turn into a blog that gathers any news up without verifying it. Such an irresponsible attitude not only contravenes the most elementary rules of Wikipedia, but it's also unrespectful to people who works seriously and passionately every day - I mean both Jake Gyllenhaal and Austin Nichols as actors, and us as Wiki contributors. Ok, I've had my say... Have a nice day! --§Ariel 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay seriously

The people adding rumors have generally been not conforming to wikipedia standards BUT! I think the talk page should address this question: Is stuff from the Inquirer notable? Arguably so. Now, it's somewhat unkind and untasteful to reproduce some of the garbage that they print. But would someone be out of place in saying "Celebrity gossip rags like the inquirer rumor actor X secretly wants to kill pop star Y" with a link or a citation to the article? Perhaps not. While it isn't a reliable or trustworthy source, it is arguably a notable primary document. Wikipedia encourages the use of primary documents. But of course, we could avoid the question entirely by collectively not being sleazy and not talking about what the inquirer talks about. But people who feel the exclusion of sleaze violates neutral point of view? I say, if that's how you feel, post and cite something and we'll have a talk about it. 66.41.66.213 03:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Information

Jamie Lee Curtis is NOT his godmother,in the news article you can link to it also states that Paul Newman gave Jake his first driving lesson Jake has since said this is not true so the article linked to below is not factual.


YES, she is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4587788.stm

I've also added stuff about Kirsten Dunst. They did breakup in 2004 and were on-off again for a while, but he broke up with her for good in 2005. (Jake's response to a question about her in the Ellen interview would seem to confirm this). Whether Jake is now either single or with Austen Nichols is questionable, but he is definitely NOT with Dunst. Dev920 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree that the link provided is not entirely credible... however I looked into it a little and actually found that imdb.com also states that she is his godmother... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000130/bio Misterniceguy7 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You think the BBC is not a credible news source? Dev920 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you see that taxi driver they pulled in to interview about the Apple law suit? Of course they can make mistakes... heh... Misterniceguy7 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The BBC makes mistakes like everyone else, I suppose people who write the articles at BBC online used the internet to find out information and if wrong information gets quoted as truth long enough it becomes truth. The article that is linked to for the godmother information has factual errors in it.Stevenscollege

I agree the godmother information should stay since its referenced in a lot a articles on-line but I should add I cant find any where Jake saying Jamie lee Curtis is his godmother. Can anyone else find Jake or Maggie talking about their godparents on-line. Stevenscollege

I have been looking but talking about your godmother is admittedly an odd thing to do in an interview, so it is unlikely he would say it. However, I have commented on a blog I know Jake reads asking him to mention it in his next interview, so maybe he will :)Dev920 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Friends?

The paragraph about being friends with his co-stars after filming ends is speculation so I changed it. How do we know who any of his friends are I dont see the point of this section.


Pointless Information

All this talk about the roles he was up for and the reason why he didnt get them I dont think is relevent for an encyclodepia entry, too gossipy.

agreed

i agree i think that talking about how incredibly sexy he is and how he should be naked like all of the time would be so much better!

Keep the websites down

While there obviously needs to be some website links, there is no need to deluge an encyclopedic entry with every page. I think the current list suffices. And I also think that the speculation as to if the blogs are read is pointless and driven by gossip. Deleting. 24.137.111.194 03:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be why I added so many links - it is not gossip to link to a site that shows the publisher of Stephen Gyllenhaal admitting that both he and his son read iheartjake and Jake Watch. It was precisely because I wanted to show this fact that I added so many links in the first space, to verify everything in the paragraph.

It is also not pointless if Jake DOES read fansites and blogs. I think people would be unlikely to put up the lurid and explicit stuff that they do if they genuinely thought Jake was reading. Indeed, what IS gossip is the suggestion that Jake shaved off his beard because so many of his fans posted that they hated it. I did not add this because this IS unconfirmed speculation, even though I think it is likely.

For the reasons above, I'm going to revert the paragraph. If you would like to take me up on what I have written, please go ahead. I would love to have a reasonable discussion with you. Too many people on this page just revert each other's stuff without ever explaining why.Dev920 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Gossipy Informatiom

I have taken out the paragraph which focused on Jakes dads house, I dont want to start an argument and I feel that information IS interesting but I`ll go to one of the fansites or blogs for that information not this encyclopedia. I have added the information that Jake may read blogs at the bottom of the external links and I feel this works. Stevenscollege 15 March 2006

The rumor of his "relationship" with Natalie Portman is quite baseless. They've been seen together as friends a couple times publically in the last few years, hardly basis for even a rumored romance. Portman, however, has been seen publically a number of times recently with Gael Bernal and, as they're former lovers, it's much more likely they've rekindled their relationship. I've removed the rumored relationship between Portman and Gyllenhaal.

mathgrenades 03 June 2006


Relationships

Natalie has moved on apparently see here, since theres no proof Jake is seeing her or if she is back with her ex, I say take the information off.

Would it not be better to wait until either Jake or his people confirm he is seeing someone and then post that rather than post every tabloid rumour.

Stevenscollege 15 June 2006

Gulf war quote

Jake did not say "all marines did during the war was masturbate" (or something along those lines), it was Swofford in Jarhead. A few right wing "news" sources were trying to cause bother and because of this I dont think links to these sites are credible, so I deleted sections of the article, twice so far, which are clearly false. Stevenscollege 18 March 2006

There are more than one source that have him saying it. Yes Fox News aired the story, right wing or not, other sources have said it. Bottom line is there are no sources that discredit his quote, so why take it off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs) 5:56, 21 May 2006.


You`ll notice all reports of this quote do not give us any context, was it a magazine interview? was it a television interview? Who was the reporter that took the quote? was he promoting Jarhead?. The answer of course is simple the quote was plucked directly from Jarhead, he was reading a script!!!!.Stevenscollege 21 March 2006

Yea... that is pretty obviously just flawed reporting by fox and the "other sources" thank you, Stevenscollege for keeping just facts on this wiki. Misterniceguy7 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you--David Foster 03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Personal Life

I have added information on his friendship with Austin Nichols, and the rumours of his latest dates. I have sourced it all to reputable newspapers, and haven't added untoward speculation. If anyone wants to take me up on it, please could we discuss here rather than getting into an uncommunicative and unhelpful edit war? Thankyou. Dev920 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source says:

"Blogosphere gossips have been claiming that Gyllenhaal was ready to admit he was having trouble quitting actor Austin Nichols, whom he has known since high school. But sorry, guys, there won't be any coming-out party. Even though Jake is now split with Kirsten Dunst and Nichols broke off his engagement to Claire Oswalt, Gyllenhaal's rep says he and Nichols are just friends. … "

So that's just a comment that some bloggers would like him to be gay...

I think we need something significant than that - otherwise every wikipedia article will be full of such crap.

--Charlesknight 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Part of the problem with Jakes private life is that theres a group of fans who are determined he`s in a gay relationship and another group who insist he`s not, NO ONE KNOWS, I would prefer we said nothing about any relationship until he confirms it. Stevenscollege 15 June 2006


Heh - I ended up here via clicking Random article so you can put in the "don't give two shits either way" camp :) --Charlesknight 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the issue is that some people think he's in a gay relationship with Austin Nichols. Ignoring the agruments for and against, it IS known that he and Nichols are friends, no? I remember something from the TDAT interviews where Nichols mentioned he became good friends with Jake, and they ahve been photgraphed together doing friend stuff. The issue that Charles Knight has above is that my source implied he is gay - ok, so lets replace it with a better one. There's no need to take the entire thing down. Let me go see if I can find a better one. Dev920 12:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No that's not my issue at all - my issue is that all your source actually say is that some bloggers have claimed that he's gay - that's it. That's not a significant source in my view. As for "no need to take the whole thing down" - I actually see no reason to INCLUDE it. Virtually every single male celebrity (Mr.T aside) I can think of has been accused of being gay/Bi-sexual as some stage. Are we going to add every random rumour to all those pages?

--Charlesknight 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not trying to add random rumours. I want to add a line saying that Nichols is Jake's friend - because he is, and his best friend at that. So, I'm looking for a source that says they're friends, but not adding the gay thing.
But it's proving rather difficult - try adding "Jake Gyllenhaal Austin Nichols" into Google, or even "Jake Gyllenhaal Austin friend". The Toothy Tile rumours and Laker game pictures are now on almost every blog - this may take a while. Dev920 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I just like to keep Wiki`s reputation intact with the subjects im interested in and I would rather we dealt with established facts. Its true Jake and Austin are friends and its suspicious they havnt been photographed or seen together for a while, but if we say there may be more to there relationship (which we dont know because its gossip) we may as well go the whole hog and say Jake`s toothy tile [1]. Stevenscollege 15 June 2006

Well, I think the Toothy debate will go on up til the moment Jake flat out confirms or denies it, or some really incriminating pictures come out[pun intended]. But I don't want to push any gay rumours - if you look at the top of this talk page, I did originally strip down the original Toothy info from its original mass speculation - though it has now all been taken down.
But it cannot be denied that Nichols and Jake ARE friends - my problem is finding a link to that that doesn't involve great big gayness. ;D Dev920 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Have found http://www.ym.com/stars/inthespotlight/apr2004.jsp which shows that they were friendly on the set of TDAT, but nothing else as yet. Dev920 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a loty of trouble finding a link that says they are friends without it presuming a "with benefits" friendship. Can anyone else find a link where it says they are friends, or should we try to find the least most speculatory link? Dev920 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I found this papermag article and put it as a link on Austin`s page it says there friends and provides this quote ""I've learned a ton from Jake. He's a really sharp guy. He told me everything about acting, the business, girls, life." Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

"being pals with Jake Gyllenhaal has helped." Works for me. Dev920 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


OK put it on the page and we`ll see how it looks. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Done. What do you reckon? Dev920 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


"Jake has encountered public speculation" - This is of course true so a link to something explaining this I think is required and of course we`ll see how long this stays up! Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Well, every single gossip site on the net is carrying the rumours - which do you think would be considered most "reputable"?Dev920 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I think theres a lot of unneccesery-looking-down-your-nose-attitude regarding blogs and gossip sites on wiki, but some of them are pretty tacky, this link isnt bad [2] Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Well, ignoring the fact that it quotes the exact thing from the website link taken down originally, I think it's great. :D Also the fact it has a picture from the Lakers game is good; a nice visual to show that they are friends. Stick it up and lets see if everyone else approves! Dev920 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Well its up we`ll see how it goes, and iv asked in the history to discuss before deleting. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006


Iv found this quote from a Details magazine interview (which iv put in the interview section of the external links) " I've never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don't think I would be afraid of it if it happened." im thinking of puting it after the Austin bit, What do you think? Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

It's been put up before and taken down again in the past, because its the most ambiguous statement he's ever made. Although I don't object to the content, I think putting it up after the Austin bit just doesn't flow very well, but maybe somewhere else? Dev920 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good quote because it shows at the very least he`s open to the possibility, also I cant imagine any other actor saying it, tell you what I`ll put it where I was thinking and if it looks horendous take it down. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006


AdamBiswanger1 has expanded the quote, which is good and fleshes it out but im thinking "how long will this be up" Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Yes, I think what started out as a simple statement that he and Austin are friends has gone a bit the other way... Still, I think we did it all from consensus, so I suppose a problem can be easily raised here. Dev920 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it always better through consensus (even if it was just two of us, and another just now) but I will say I wanted to avoid actually saying gay or bisexual mostly because this is where the problems are, with regards to manic deleting. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Yes I know, which is why I was concerned over it's being placed in his personal life. Havings aid that, he was giving a personal interview rather than a filmd related one so... Dev920 21:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about putting the quote at the bottom of the career section which starts "When asked about the kissing scenes with Heath Ledger..." I also dont believe the quote is that misinterpreted by leaving out the bisexual bit, people can click on the link to see the full interview. I would say leave the bisexual bit out if AdamBiswanger1 doesnt mind undoing his work. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

Yes, i think that is more related. Give it a go, and we'll see. Dev920 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Excessive External references

I've noticed we have a lots of external link references in the article. Would these be betetr off as a reference section, do you think? Dev920 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes thats a good idea, go for it. Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

I'll do that in a bit - I'm on a laptop at the moment, trying to do stuff for spoken wikipedia, and it's taking up more time than I thought. Dev920 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea, too. AdamBiswanger1 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou Adam. All done now, and doesn't it look much more professional now. Dev920 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work here Dev920, Stevenscollege 16 June 2006

You're welcome. Thank you for being around to keep a calm eye on things. Dev920 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dispute

What is the detail of the "dispute" listed on the frontpage?

--Charlesknight 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Should the page say anything about Jakes sexuality.

Stevenscollege 17 June 2006

Not without verifiable references. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, so all un-referenced bits of information on the page will be deleted.Stevenscollege 17 June 2006
The orginal intention was to mention the friendship of Jake and Austin Nichols, but it is very difficult to find a link about that which doesn't talk about his sexuality. Try finding one - as far as the Internet's concerned, it would seem, Jake and Nichols are doing it and that's that. Which is quite irritating for our purposes. Dev920 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
See WP:POINT. Attempts at disruption that you are suggesting would inevitably lead to blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This is what we had "Recently, Jake has encountered public speculation about his personal relationship with friend Austin Nichols who he met while filming The Day After Tomorrow" there is I think nothing wrong with that but I will concede the Defamer link did have "gay" in the head line.Stevenscollege 17 June 2006
What disruption, Zoe? We tried to add a verifiable statement, that Jake and Austin are friends. This, completely and undeniably, true. The problem we have in proving that by finding a suitable link, however, is that the photos which prove their friendship are on a locked gallery at iheartjake.com, and where they are posted elsewhere, the article in invariably about the rumours. Additionally, Jake's PR rep officially confirmed they are friends, but the only place this can be linked from are all sites that focus on the speculation. So although it is true that Jake and Austin are friends, trying to find a link to that without also implying they are in a relationship has proved an absolute nightmare, per discussion in the above section. Dev920 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
all un-referenced bits of information on the page will be deleted - that disruption. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a tiny article in the new york daily news down in the bottom paragraph "Gay fans of Jake Gyllenhaal are determined to claim the "Brokeback Mountain" star as their own. Blogosphere gossips have been claiming that Gyllenhaal was ready to admit he was having trouble quitting actor Austin Nichols, whom he has known since high school. But sorry, guys, there won't be any coming-out party. Even though Jake is now split with Kirsten Dunst and Nichols broke off his engagement to Claire Oswalt, Gyllenhaal's rep says he and Nichols are just friends" If Jake`s PR is releasing press statements, it must be in response to the "public speculation" we put in our paragraph and its got 2 reporters names, Jo Piazza and Chris Rovzar, could we keep what we originally wrote and link to this snippet of news.

Stevenscollege 17 June 2006


Ok then. I have now set up a website to pull those pictures I was referring to out of the locked gallery at IHJ. It is available here.[3] I propose that, as these are photos, the provenence is largely irrelevant and we apply WP:IGNORE regarding WP:RS. Dev920 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


wow - I was going to stay out of this but your site seems to have a pretty clear and frankly sleazy agenda to say "nudge nudge wink wink - those two are at it". --Charlesknight 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Well, that certainly wasn't my intention! Quite the opposite, obviously. What made it seem "nudgy" to you, and more importantly, how do I make it not nudgy, as I apparently haven't noticed this subtext I seem to have added? Dev920 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Well look at the titles you give to the photos "looking very happy and relaxed", "Body language indicates familiarity", "Both seem quite happy here" - say you were doing a page about George clooney and his friend Matt Damon - would you be using the same sort of headers? I doubt it. Look at some of the comments you've put underneath some of the photos "Notice they are copying each other's body language - indicates interest what the other in saying." - You then have one photo (and we are the reader of the website have no idea out of a series of how many) that says "There evidently isn't anything interesting happening in the game, or Austin would be looking too. Evidently they're a little bit off with each other" - A little bit off with each other? Why would could you mean?

--Charlesknight 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is people like Charlesknight dont understand what we were trying to do we only wanted to say jake and austin were friends but were handicapped because most websites have a nudge nudge wink wink subtext but as I say above this new york daily news link should be a good enough reference to keep the paragraph that was deleted.

Stevenscollege 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


"The problem here is people like Charlesknight dont understand what we were trying to do we only wanted to say jake and austin were friends but were handicapped because most websites have a nudge nudge wink wink subtext" so the answer is to set up your OWN website with a nudge nudge wink wink subtext" - I have NO problem at all with a line that say they are friends but frankly I have to wonder about the agenda of someone who claims to want the same but then sets up such a website! --Charlesknight 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


You're taking issues with my captions? No, I meant nothing by way of wink wink nudge nudge. I was trying to support the idea that they are friends, and good ones at that, rather than people who happen to have been photgraphed together a few times. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was anything deeper about their interaction than that. The photos came straight from iheartjakemedia.com, which was mentioned there, and anyone can go check that. When I said "a little bit off", that was exactly what I mean - their body language in those photos suggests they have had a disupute of some kind, whether its over the game or something else I don't know - don't you have arguments with your friends? If I were doing a page about George and Matt, I would put up exactly the same things. I think you're assuming a sexual subtext where I certainly didn't mean any; I will put up a disclaimer on the front to address your concerns. Dev920 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you already have one? at the top [b]"Because, seriously, they might *not* be gay.."[/b] - that's a disclaimer right? --Charlesknight 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was humourous dig at the fact that I can't find anywhere that says they are friends without adding gay stuff. :D Dev920 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway - let's try and agree some copy - can someone suggest something and then we can discuss it?

--Charlesknight 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, i've added a disclaimer: is that ok?Dev920 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Getting back to the original problem is saying this "Recently, Jake has encountered public speculation about his personal relationship with friend Austin Nichols who he met while filming The Day After Tomorrow" so inflammatory it should be left out.
Stevenscollege 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it is inflammatory, but its also true. He has encountered speculation. Is that notable? Dev920 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
In the link I provide from the NY daily news it talks about his PR`s statement that Jake and Austin are "just friends" that surely is confirmation of "public speculation" I say put it back.
Stevenscollege 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I would be inclined to agree with you, stevenscollege, but radiokirk, the guy who protected this page, sent me a number of message culminating in this one[4] and as a result, I don't think it would be a good idea.Dev920 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I am frankly stunned by that, it IS the gossip page but they are reporting an official PR statement, with all respect to Radiokirk can he really tell us what is "dubious reliability". I found a publication and it IS credited by reporters (Jo Piazza and Chris Rovzar), seriously this is wiki policy isnt it? find a source which I did, is there another policy about the level of respect the publication gets before we can use it?

Stevenscollege 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through WP:RS, and I think that you are right, stevenscollege. The article has journalists to its name, we know where it comes from, and it doesn't cite anything that can't be read from other online sources (but which we can't use ourselves for the previously mentioned reasons). Under the same rules, I think the website I set up could also go in, because it consists entirely of pictures rather than OR. But I can't really think about it now, because I need to go to bed because my brain is falling out, so I'll give a better explanation tomorrow. Dev920 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So I think that this would probably be the best we can come up with at the moment, until a new interview or article comes out:

"Recently, Jake has encountered public speculation[5] about his personal relationship with friend Austin Nichols[6] who he met while filming The Day After Tomorrow."

Obviously the embedded links would become references. What does everyone else think? Dev920 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what radiokirk said to me [7] "defamer.com is not a reliable source—do not restore without one." this one would not I feel meet radiokirks reliability standard. The original Papermag article we linked to after Nichols name is published by paper mag (I dont know how much respect they get) AND is credited to journalist, Peter Davis, I feel this would be better.

Stevenscollege 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Protection

This article has been protected to stop an edit war. I will revist this protection in a few days, or a request for unprotection can be placed at Requests for unprotection. — xaosflux Talk 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks I see that now from the history - Spocks_brain and Stevenscollege] - can we come to come agreement about the edit here?

--Charlesknight 23:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)



The situation, for everyone now visiting this page is this: there is a rumour that Jake Gyllanhaal is secretly bisexual and in a relationship with Austin Nichols, his co-star in The Day After Tommorrow. This is ciculating on pretty much every gossip blog on the net. Various people have been editing the article on and off to try to either put the rumours on, or to take them off again.

Because we DO know that Jake and Austin are friends, and close ones, I worked out a paragraph with stevenscollege and otehr editors, as shown in the convo above, to mention their friendship.

Since then, people who I can only assume think that any mention of Nichols on this page is tantamount to screaming "he's gay, he's GAY!!!!" have been repeatedly removing it, and stevenscollege has been doing an admirable job of reverting that (and I don't know how he keeps beating me to it). From the patterns, and the fact that both mine and SC's userpages were blanked shortly afterwards, I think we are dealing with one angry Jake fan, who just won't leave it alone. As the paragraph was thrashed out in a long discussion yesterday, I wouldn't say there was a dispute as such, but merely a vandal we can't block because they're using an AOL proxy. And I don't think this person, who hasn't made any edit summaries or attempt to explain themselves, really gives a toss for consensus.Dev920 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


5 (in the sense of a reference - we need to discuss what it says) I would be happy with but 6 opens you up to charges that you are trying to promote your own NN site doesn't it? (that's question rather than an accusation as I haven't a bloody clue about the regs surround it's use)? --Charlesknight 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I created the site expressly to provide the evidence for Jake and Austin's friendship for thsi article - there's nothing on it, but pictures to this effect, so I wouldn't say I was promoting my own site (and I do own a personal site which I have not revealed here because its not relevant). What I'm trying to do is make the evidence that is already available on iheartjakemedia (that they are friends) accessible to people who don't havean account at iheartjake. This would count as secondary sources I think, so it doesn't break WP:OR, and WP:RS wasn't designed for a case such as this anyway.
And I don't know what the NN in your statement means. Dev920 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What now

I think the original paragraph should be put back in with these links as I say above:

"Recently, Jake has encountered public speculation[8] about his personal relationship with friend Austin Nichols[9] who he met while filming The Day After Tomorrow."

and also the next paragraph was a problem but the troll didnt manage to delete it before the page was protected

Jake has been linked to several famous women, including Natalie Portman[10] and Olympic medalist Gretchen Bleiler[11]

so thats my .02, put them back. Stevenscollege 11:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would put "good", "best" or some sort of other adjective (because that why we're adding him rather than Adam Levine as Jake's friend - because he's closer) before the friend, but other than that I am absolutely supportive, because there just isn't any other links we can put in. I'll request unprotection. Me and stevenscollege are in consensus, does anyone else object? Dev920 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Portman yes, as for Gretchen Bleiler, that was completely untrue, and it was confirmed by both parties, she had a boyfriend at the time so it would have been (well in the publics eye) impossible. Maybe a friendship.

I think everyone knows that Natalie and Gretchen never so much as saw Jake's house(or indeed in Gretchen's case, saw Jake himself!), let alone dated him. Note the stories that they went straight back to their boyfriends after the initial media flurry. But the paragraph suggested by stevenscollege only says he was linked to them, which he was, and there are links to back it up Dev920 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Buddhists

I see theres a link to Category:Buddhists at the bottom of the page, is this correct? It should be mentioned in the article if true. Is he?

Stevenscollege 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an interview from the BBC (and which used to be quoted on this page) where Jake remarked that "I wouldn't say I was a card carrying buddhist, but I try to practise right mindfulness" (I copied that from memory, so it may be slightly wrong.) I've also heard that he commented once that he tries to find time to meditate every day, though I've never seen evidence to back that one up. Dev920 22:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Most honored film in cinematic history???

This statement is not exactly viewpoint neutral in its discussion of "Brokeback Mountain". Furthermore, I can name a number of films that are more "honored" (whatever that means): Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Godfather II, Godfather I, Shindler's List. Is Brokeback Mountain even the most honored "homosexual-themed" film in cinematic history? What about "To Wong Foo. . .", "Boys Don't Cry", or "Top Gun"? Just because the author was able to come up with a citation for this assertion doesn't mean its appropriate.

Yep, that statement is too much of a boast. I love BBM, but I hardly think it is the most honored film in history. --68.171.155.81 21:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think whoever put that there was because of the sheer number of awards BBM won, starting from its premiere onwards, not the quality of the awards. Has a film won more awards than BBM? Dev920 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Kinda weird that I spent all last week reverting a user who wanted to remove any mention of Austin, and now I'm have to deal with someone who keeps adding bad info to it! Dev920 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

them's the breaks! I'm been spending my time discussing feet! --Charlesknight 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: Yeah, I've seen vandalism like that before. I've also seen in comments that someone has vandalized this page a whopping 22 times (OUCH!), and was ordered to cease and desist or be banned. As I absolutely HATE vandalism, that particular person who vandalized this page is either a punk or goth kid sent by either Jeff Hardy or Bam Margera (that's what I think), but I don't think the subject knows those two strange men in their mid-20s like he is, neither do they have anything to do with the article. That's what terrible vandalism reminds me of: those two conspiring to keep cheating. I don't like vandalism, I never will like vandalism, and we should do something about it.

Oh, and Dev920, don't stop removing the vandalism. Keep up the good work, and if you see Jeff Hardy and Bam Margera-like errors, feel free to block the tortfeasor (sorry, that's a business law term; another word for "instigator") responsible.

--D.F. Williams 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'so-called'relationship with Austin Nichols.

Um, as a fan of Jake Gyllenhaal, I have researched on him. And Wikipedia has not given the full information of him. People are saying he is GAY with Austin Nichols, but here's the truth:Gay fans of Jake Gyllenhaal are determined to claim the "Brokeback Mountain" star as their own. Blogosphere gossips have been claiming that Gyllenhaal was ready to admit he was having trouble quitting actor Austin Nichols, whom he has known since high school. But sorry, guys, there won't be any coming-out party. Even though Jake is now split with Kirsten Dunst and Nichols broke off his engagement to Claire Oswalt, Gyllenhaal's rep says he and Nichols are just friends. … Wiki once said before someone edited it: Jake Gyllenhaal is recently dating fellow actor Austin Nichols. Then it is what is now, but the full information is this. Just to make it clear from that guy's mouth. Source from:http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/407893p-345283c.html

The vandalism that you are referring to has been removed and the user banned for 24 hours. Dev920 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, as a gay fan of Jake Gyllenhaal, I'd like to personally remark that not all of us are alleging he is homosexual. Furthermore, you are not "gay with someone". Take your internalized heterosexism somewheres else. You reek of the same pointless fanaticism as those who are now insisting he is gay.24.224.143.211 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture of Jake was originally added by someone who has since been banned for constantly added copyrighted photos to Wikipedia. The reason for adding it in the image's source information is because it came from IHJ, Jake's largest fansite - is this enough? Futhermore, is it appropriate to have Jake in that kind of pose on Wikipedia? Is there anywhere we can source a better image? Dev920 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

-- How about this picture? http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/specials/oscars06/show/bwhair/jgyllenhaal.jpg

It's from the Oscars last year. I know nothing about uploading and such for this site, so that's all I can do. RattleandHum 5 August 2006

Adding info for films

Iv noticed people putting info for films Jake may do in the future in the article, Id rather we didnt because 1-their just rumours 2- they will have to be deleted when he doesnt make them 3- any of us can just put down any thing we hear and the article will be a mess.--Stevenscollege 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Have to say, I agree with this. Maybe we should let the stuff up go for now but remove anything else? Dev920 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

nonfamous women.

Presumably that girl he kissed in ninth grade... Dev920 22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture.

What is happening with this picture? What was wrong with the Brokeback Mountain one?


Archive

The page needs an archive at this stage - anyone know how to do it - I always make a terrible mess of it.