Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jake Gyllenhaal article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Jake Gyllenhaal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 23, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Edit wars

I have been directed to come here to discuss some additions that I believe would improve the Jake Gyllenhaal Wiki page. I recommend adding three additional External Links. As follows:

For some reason there are two people here who want to suppress these links. I don't know why they want to keep these meaningful web links from being made available to anyone researching Jake Gyllenhaal. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia, if it is to be a premier source of information I think it makes sense to include this valuable information.

BTW, the Wiki page for Jon Stewart has at least 14 links, so why is it a problem for this wiki page to have five? And furthermore, how is IMDb an acceptable External Link, and three dedicated websites are not?? IMDb is like the Yellow Pages fgs, how does it even qualify? Good grief!

I don't know if I need someone's permission to make these changes, I believe Wiki edits are permitted by the general public? I object to my edits being erased and I would like to see this meaningful information added to Jake Gyllenhaal's Wiki page.

TY, 72.39.127.157 04:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you will click the history tab, you will see my edit summaries explaining why I reverted these additions. I understand your frustration, but the reverts that you've experienced from me and another user are not personal. They have to do with Wikipedia's copyright policy. Fansites usually violate copyright laws, and as such are not supposed to be linked to. You may find links to fansites offered at other pages, but once an experienced Wikipedian notices them, they will be removed. Please read the policy info at Wikipedia:External links (also nicknamed/aliased WP:FANSITE) for a full explanation. --Melty girl 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As Melty girl has noted, all other considerations aside, the sites listed display large amounts of copyright content in violation of the creator's copyright (magazine scans, copyright photos, copyright videos, etc). Per WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works and WP:EL#Restrictions on linking, we can't link to these sites. --Muchness 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think IHJ is an unreasonable link - it was there when I had this article featured, it contains much additional information on Jake, particularly in terms of reviews and interviews, and ultimately, I would be deeply surprised if I were on the article of any well-known celebrity and their main fansite wasn't listed - it's the gateway into the fandom, if you will. WP:EL used to have a thing that said that linking to the main fansite was acceptable, and I think this is the policy we should probably stick with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the link again. Editors are restricted from linking to sites that violate the copyrights of others, without exception. --Onorem♠Dil 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't completely agree with the policy. I think it is odd for Wikipedia to see itself as responsible for the content at other sites. Copyright violations abound on the web, and that's just reality of it being open source. Fansites are popular and it would be nice to include them as resources. On the other hand, WP:EL is the community's policy, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the ramifications for Wikipedia. And people will find fansites via search engines -- WP isn't the only game in town. The policy no longer exempts one fansite, and even if it did, all the fansites claim they are the biggest or best, so how to choose? It's more trouble for everyone when the policy is enforced in an uneven way, and some pages have fansites and others don't. Many fansite admins only come to Wikipedia to add their links and don't understand how things work here. Many of them don't understand copyright laws anyway -- they find photos on another site, slap their site's logo on it, and complain bitterly when other fansites "steal" them. So better for them to discover that fansites simply aren't allowed on Wikipedia across the board, period. --Melty girl 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in the movie Jarhead

Jake Gyllenhaal did an excellent job in the movie Jarhead. I believe he was nominated for an Academy Award, but he didn't get it; he DID get an award for Jarhead that I do not know which one it was. learnportuguese 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours, rumours, rumours.

Has anyone heard this rumour that Gyllenhaal is gay? A couple of sites are reporting that he's planning on coming out this month. They're nothing more than gossipmonger type sites, but I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there because it may be worth noting if the rumour picks up speed. So far, I don't see any major outlets or publication reporting on it, though. Th 2005 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, they've been saying he's coming out every month for the past year and a half, hun. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jake and Reese

The problem with the People magazine article (other than the fact no reporter signed off on it) is that it is reporting a rumour, one which I think the magazine would dearly love to come true, cant everyone just wait for this to become official and if you cant, cant you at least come up with official confirmation from Jake or Reese or someone speaking on there behalf that says yes we are in a relationship. Iv tried to find it and I cant.Stevenscollege 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

According to WP:MOS the bolded text in the opening sentence should not be a wikilink, is there a special significance of his surname? Furthermore, should not the pronunciation come after his surname rather than in a footnote, again as MOS gives example of? SGGH speak! 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objects, I will fix this SGGH speak! 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to point out/quote both specific rules for us before making these changes? I very much prefer the pronunciation as a footnote, because it's just not the most important information to read about in detail first thing in the lead, yet it should be specified. (BTW, for the significance of Gyllenhaal, click the link.) Thanks, Melty girl 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing out the MOS, when I linked to it... it merely asks to avoid links in the bolded opening sentence text. SGGH speak! 10:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the phrase "Highlighted items are not linked"? I guess that's what it means, but honestly I'm not completely sure what "highlighted items" refers to. It's not written clearly. If it said, "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface and is not linked," I would be more sure. Seems badly written. But anyway, the link exists in the first section of the body of the article, so it seems fine to remove from the lead.
Second, you didn't answer the question regarding specifically where in the MOS putting pronounciation in a footnote is disallowed. I don't believe such a ban exists. --Melty girl (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't his family line be in a personal life section of some sort? SGGH speak! 10:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
See above comment. --Melty girl (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies on the second part, you are right I didn't answer you. I didn't say this was banned at all, I just think MoS seems to suggest it, just going by what I have seen in all other articles where pronunciation is explained after the bolded text at the beginning. In the mean time, I have removed the link from the first line, as as you say it is linked to again in better context further on. SGGH speak! 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Since the style of footnoting pronounciation is not specifically banned, I would advocate keeping it the way it is. In my opinion, it's rather annoying to have to wade through pronounciation definitions in the lead sentences of biographies. The lead sentence should have the most important information about the subject, cutting right to the chase, and I don't feel pronounciation is the most important information, yet when it's there, it's the first thing you read. I find this irritating, especially in articles where there's more than one pronounciation given, and more than likely, they're all but useless unless you're a linguist who knows the style of pronounciation key given. Still, I do think if you don't know how to pronounce a name and want to know, then you can choose to follow the footnote. So I would not change this article; I think it's superior the way it is, and the footnote is not a discouraged style on WP -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Melty girl (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair-e-nuff, the link has been taken out of the Bold text anyway so that's the main.. albeit hyper-pedantic... thing! :) --SGGH speak! 22:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I'm somewhat confused by the structure of this article. The first section is "Biography", the second "Personal life", but isn't his personal life part of his biography as well? Wouldn't something like "Early life and education" - "Film career" - "Personal life" be more suitable? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When I was studying FA actor articles, I noticed that they all differ a little in structure and this is a common contradiction. I think your proposed structure is better. --Melty girl (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not A Buddhist

"In his spare time, Gyllenhaal enjoys woodworking and cooking.[73] He has said, "I am not a card-carrying Buddhist, but I do try to practice mindfulness" and it is his goal to meditate every day.[74][75]" That doesn't imply that he's Buddhist. He's just pointing out that he's tries to keep an open mind. He's using "Buddhist" as an example. Another example: "I'm not an awesome Karate student, I just try to defend myself." IronCrow (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing in the article inplies that Jake *is* a Buddhist, so that's alright then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dev, IronCrow removed the category "American Buddhists." --Melty girl (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Who on Earth added it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dunno! --Melty girl (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that bit. It was probably an honest mistake, taking his words a bit too literally (just as some have done with the Bruce Willis article). IronCrow (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Newman

Paul Newman is listed as Jake's godfather on both their IMBd pages, but this is not included here. True or not? Morhange (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Do You Pronounce...

Gyllenhaal? Leo (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is pronounced jill-en-hall Btr94 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)