Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Libertarian?

AFAIK no. Still he is listed in the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager2378 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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:

• IHeartJake The premier Jake fan site
• Jake Watch A humour website about Jake
• Wet Dark and Wild A serious website about Jake

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)

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)

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)

This has been bugging me for a while now. Under his personal information, it's stated that it was officially stated that the couple was still together. While that was true at the time, we later learned that there was indeed a break up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymoss (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried editing this but someone changed it back. It's obvious that Reese & Jake have broken up. Otherwise, People Mag's stories about her and her new boyfriend insiniute that she's cheating on Jake and we know that's not the case. However, if you are going to use People as a reliable source saying that they are still together, that implies that the stories about her being shown with Jim Toth or correct. I don't think it's right to have disinformation on the site. Eventually, you'll hve to state that they have broken up. Marymoss

The problem is that you simply removed sourced content without trying to reword it and added a short statement that was in no way whatsoever sourced. If People can support that they were together, it certainly can also source that they have split up. That has been the problem with this event all along. No one bothers to back up his or her change with reliable sources. Provide that and it likely won't be reverted. We can't add something that you know but is not sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have a source but don't know how to add it. I mentioned in the Reese Witherspoon discussion that the main problem is People magazine. They reported that the reps denied the report and weeks later carried on and started reporting on her new boyfriend. Or maybe it was the reps who dropped the ball. Anyway, here is a source--Us Weekly. http://www.accesshollywood.com/reese-witherspoon-and-jake-gyllenhaal-split_article_26796 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymoss (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I answered you on the Witherspoon article. But if Access Hollywood got their information from US Weekly, the original source should be used, not AH. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

He's not officially a godfather, he was more a pseudo-uncle. There's an article on it somewhere... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
Maybe it is a joke and I missed it but... Yil-En-HOO-Le-Hay.... Plbogen (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently some people forgot to read the rest of the article after the video On Yahoo! Movie Talk...It explains that he was joking, and the correct pronunciation is "JIH-luhn-hall"--Infero Veritas (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3GN_YQKR1k&feature=fvhl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.144.254 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?

If you want to claim that Gyllenhal is a jew then you have to come up with a reliable direct source. The current source is a jewish webpage that simply just claim Gyllenhal to have said that he feel more Jewish then anything. But they don't even put up a source or a interview with the person himself. I'm going to edit this page. If jews want every single person with Jewish ancestry to be practicing jew then atleast put up a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.131.71 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article also states that Jake had a bar mitzvah. They don't actually let non-Jews have bar mitzvahs. And his mother is Jewish. Whether Jake is practicing or not is entirely irrelevant to whether is IS Jewish or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:53, 20 July 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 :)

• "The one Jake: why Gyllenhaal spells success" :
  • Hiscock, John (December 12, 2005), [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/12/10/bfgyllen10.xml " The one Jake: why Gyllenhaal spells success"],''The Telegraph''. Retrieved [[November 6]] [[2006]].
  • Hiscock, John ([[December 12]] [[2005]]), [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/12/10/bfgyllen10.xml "The one Jake: why Gyllenhaal spells success"],''The Telegraph''. Retrieved [[November 6]] [[2006]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I think that the pictures used in the article do not do Jake Gyllenhaal justice. There are a lot of way better pictures. There should be a picture of him when he is young, and a picture of him with his family. The pictures used don't really say much about Jake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILYJG kk (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the page is of Stephen Gyllenhall. It is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.172.52 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just came here to say this. The photo is just so weak and misleading. It's like a photo captured by a web-cam or something! SiarFisher (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg

I'm not entirely sure why this image is here. It has an inadequate fair-use rationale and doesn't seem to be illustrating anything in particular that needs a non-free image for it—sure, that was an iconic role of his, but nothing about his appearance in that particular image is especially iconic. Looking at the first FAC (over 3 1/2 years ago), it seems that the image was kept just to be decoration. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is or is not fair use is so inconsistently applied it is hard to know but based on editors aggressively deleting images all over the place I am quite surprised either the Brokeback Mountain or Donnie Darko images have been allowed to remain in the article. Hell if the image policy is going to be ridiculously unfair I reckon we should just leave the images (since they do provide some useful context and highlight his two most notable roles) until someone forces them to be deleted. -- Horkana (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA discrepancy

In this article and the one about Maggie Gyllenhaal, their surname is rendered in IPA as /ˈdʒɪlənhɑːl/, but in the article about their father it is /ˈdʒɪlənhɔːl/. Which is correct? Shouldn't they be consistent? --N-k (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

To me all IPA spellings are incorrect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3GN_YQKR1k&feature=player_embedded /Jillenhyylehe/ is what I hear. It might be he was pulling the interviewer's leg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.19.140 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure he was taking the pee.--Michig (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Any reason to think Wells made a mistake? — kwami (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.105.143.7, 5 May 2011

The pronounciation for Gyllenhaal is incorrect. In an interview for Prince of Persia in 2010, he pronounces it on camera and says it is pronounced 'yillen-hoolahey'. This is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3GN_YQKR1k 122.105.143.7 (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Regardless how he pronounced his name, people hear what they want to hear. Published and reliable sources are needed here. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, by the way. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a joke.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Highway edits

Earthh has edited the article to remove sourced material and replace it with unsourced material (he now sources IMDb, which is not a reliable source). I have paid some attention to his contention that a qualifying phrase was effectively original research and removed that phrase, but he insists on putting his own material in.

Before Earthh's last reversion, the material read:

After the critical success of Donnie Darko, Gyllenhaal's next role was as the lead character in 2002's Highway. His performance was described by one critic as "silly, cliched and straight to video."[15] Gyllenhaal had more success starring opposite Jennifer Aniston in The Good Girl ...

With Earth's changes, it now reads:

After the critical success of Donnie Darko, Gyllenhaal's next role was in 2002's Highway alongside Jared Leto. He was nominated for a DVD Premiere Award in the category of Best Actor for his performance, but lost to Gary Sinise.[15] Gyllenhaal had more success starring opposite Jennifer Aniston in The Good Girl ...

The citation in the old material is gone, and the citation to the new material is IMDb. Thus, the review of his performance is gone. The new material is not reliably sourced. The phrase "more success" makes no sense in the new material because there is no indication of lack of success in Highway, as there was in the old material. Also, the DVD award doesn't appear to be much of an award. The "official website" listed on the Wikipedia article (which is just a tiny stub) redirects to Variety's website.

I will revert one more time and invite him to discuss this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Men Vs Wild

If anyone thinks this is important, he was on Man Vs Wild with Bear Grylls just yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.255.237 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

Sorry to even have to add this clutter to the talk page, but the article is semi-protected. Under Jake's Filmography, he is listed as acting in the film An Enemy (2013). The article linked to by this text, and the correct name of the film, is Enemy as per 3 of the 4 sources in the film's Wikipedia article. The fourth source does refer to the film as An Enemy, but I believe this is a mistake on the author's part. --Kaztheberserk (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

The nomination for Best Male Lead regarding Independent Spirit Award was in 2001, not 2002. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Spirit_Award_for_Best_Male_Lead Dimethylpetrichor (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

Extended content
Personal life == Religious views When asked about being a Buddhist, 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. References

PalliCV (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Elswit

Addition for the § Family and relationships section, where it mentions his godfathers: cinematographer Robert Elswit (who was also the cinematographer for Nightcrawler, that starred Gyllenhaal) is Gyllenhaal's godfather.

References

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting an "addition" to the "section" where it mentions his "godfathers", namely that "Robert Elswit" is "Gyllenhaal's godfather". Complete with a reference to back up the new material. (pending changes > semi-protection) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where in the section do you want the material added? Between which sentences? What exactly do you think the sentence added should say? Thank you for your interest in contributing to the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, please leave this section alone and let someone else take a look at my request. Thanks. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. On the face of it, your proposed addition could be integrated like this:

The son of director Stephen Gyllenhaal and screenwriter Naomi Foner, Gyllenhaal's immediate family includes his sister, actress Maggie, who is married to actor Peter Sarsgaard, Gyllenhaal's co-star in Jarhead and Rendition. In December 2006, Jake and his sister escaped a fire that destroyed Manka's, a famed lodge and restaurant in Inverness, California, at which they were vacationing. Gyllenhaal's niece, Ramona Sarsgaard, was born on October 3, 2006. Actress Jamie Lee Curtis is Gyllenhaal's godmother. Gyllenhall has repeatedly referred to his godfathers being a gay couple; one of them is Robert Elswit, who was also the cinematographer for Nightcrawler, which starred Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal himself is the godfather of Matilda Rose Ledger (born October 28, 2005), daughter of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams, both of whom co-starred with him in Brokeback Mountain.

References

The problem is, your note that Elswit is Gyllenhaal's godfather, combined with the existing statement that Gyllenhaal's godfathers are a gay couple, implies that Elswit is gay. I can't find any corroboration of that; in fact, IMBd lists him as being married to a woman. So per WP:BLP I can't make this edit. But I could surely incorporate your addition if you can (1) show that Elswit is openly gay, or (2) show that Elswit is not one of the gay couple referred to, or (3) suggest alternative wording that would not be read (or easily mis-read) as implying Elswit is gay. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, good point. My knowledge of Christianity (and godparents in particular) is limited, but maybe both of Gyllenhaal's parents chose an individual and those two individuals plus their respective parners became godparents? I'll try to find out more about Gyllenhaal's situation. Thanks for your feedback. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but it gets even more interesting. According to virtually every reliable source I can find, his godfather was in fact Paul Newman, who also was not gay! --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute... He said his godparents are gay while he was promoting Brokeback Mountain, which was a 'gay-cowboy movie'. And he said his godfather is cinematographer Robert Elswit when he was promoting Nightcrawler, in which Gyllenhaal plays a 'cinematographer' and of which Robert Elswit is the cinematographer. I'm starting to think maybe he's making all of it up for promotional reasons. Seeing how Paul Newman and Jamie Lee Curtis are consistently mentioned in reliable sources as his only godparents, it appears Gyllenhaal is not a reliable primary source. This means we should probably tag the material about his gay godfathers with {{Primary source-inline}}. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the content (that he said his godparents are gay) is factually correct, we should probably remove it. Him lying about it is interesting though and it would be nice if we could mention this, but it would be WP:OR until a reliable, third-party source figures out what I/we just figured out. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There seems to be quite some confusion about who his godfathers are, and given his apparently conflicting comments on that issue, it's probably best to remove it entirely unless there's third-party confirmation. Huon (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here I am again with new information, I hope it's okay. I found this The Daily Telegraph article. It says:

So let's get it on the record: is he saying he is open to persuasion? 'No, I am not open to persuasion myself, but the idea of homosexuality is acceptable to me. I grew up in a city where half the people I know are gay. Both of my godfathers are gay.'

Paul Newman is gay! He laughs again. 'No, he's my celebrity godfather.' What's a celebrity godfather? 'That's the godfather that the media give you. He's a close friend of my family. He taught me to drive. I have literal godfathers and celebrity godfathers.'

I see. And Jamie Lee Curtis, is she a celebrity godmother or a literal godmother? 'Both. That's why it is confusing growing up in Hollywood.'

So it looks like Jamie Lee Curtis is his actual godmother, and Paul Newman was his celebrity godfather. This could mean Gyllenhaal's claim about Robert Elswit being his (real) godfather is true after all - if Elswit is, I guess, bisexual, because he's married to Helen Elswit. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Still strange that he says that "both" of his godfathers are gay. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, what is probably more likely, Robert Elswit must be another celebrity godfather. Yeah, that must be it. :) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. How is this:
Gyllenhaal also has what he calls "celebrity godfathers", including Paul Newman and Robert Elswit.

References

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing . I doubt that Gyllenhaal lied about his godfathers. More likely there's just been multiple people who have been some sort of godfather to him, especially given Newman's death in 2008. I haven't checked the youtube video, but The Guardian describes Elswit as Gyllenhaal's "godfather", not "celebrity godfather". So I've gone with

Actress Jamie Lee Curtis is Gyllenhaal's godmother,[1] cinematographer Robert Elswit is his godfather,[54] and he referred to the late actor and director Paul Newman as his "celebrity godfather".[55]

Thanks for your research and your persistence. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid this is not a good solution. Newspapers call(ed) Paul Newman his godfather, without the use of "celebrity", all over the place (examples: LA Times, The Independent), even though Newman was his "celebrity godfather", which means that looking at just The Guardian is not nearly enough to understand the actual situation. Man, I feel like slapping Gyllenhaal in the face; why can't he say "celebrity godfather" when he's not talking about his literal godfather. *Rolls eyes.* Here's a new plan: since we do not know whether those gay men he mentioned are celebrity or actual godfathers, and since the same goes for Robert Elswit, let's just write down that he has both literal and (what he describes as) celebrity godparents, and that Paul Newman was just a celebrity godfather, that Jamie Lee Curtis is both, and that other godparents of unknown status are those gay men he mentioned and Robert Elswit. Agreed? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a complete and specific description, in a 'change X to Y' format. Remove

Actress Jamie Lee Curtis is Gyllenhaal's godmother,[1] cinematographer Robert Elswit is his godfather,[54] and he referred to the late actor and director Paul Newman as his "celebrity godfather".[55]

and replace it with

Gyllenhaal has both literal and, what he describes as, celebrity godparents. The late actor and director Paul Newman was his celebrity godfather, Jamie Lee Curtis is both his literal and celebrity godmother, and other godparents of unknown status are a gay couple and cinematographer Robert Elswit.

References

The second reference is a named reference already in the article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Done, and sorry to keep you waiting. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

Please change "he appeared in the science-fiction film The Day After Tomorrow, portraying a student caught in a cataclysmic global cooling event." to "he appeared in the science-fiction film The Day After Tomorrow, portraying a student caught in a cataclysmic global warming event." REASON FOR CHANGE: The movie THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW depicts a world where global warming triggers an abrupt climate change, creating a global superstorm that unleashes unimaginable worldwide weather disasters. In the span of just a few days, tornados devastate Los Angeles, huge hail pounds Tokyo, and colossal tsunamis and blizzards whip New York. Jcrply (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article for The Day After Tomorrow also describes the film as depicting a global cooling event. The description on this page should not be changed unless that article is also changed. RudolfRed (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As of this writing, the article for The Day After Tomorrow has had a similar argument, and that film is now categorized as "climate fiction-disaster film". Given how little importance the classification of this film has on the Jake Gyllenhaal article, I would agree with you (RudolfRed) that we should respect whatever classification is listed there. I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Juansmith (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Musical interests and skills

I see no mention in the article of Jake Gyllenhaal's musical abilities, performances, interests or skills. This is strange, because he gives a creditable few seconds' worth of basic rock drumming in Proof, and some bloggers mention him playing trumpet, keyboard and other instruments. A logical place for mentioning these would be under the Jake Gyllenhaal#Politics and other interests section, unless of course he uses those skills professionally.

yoyo (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2997996/Marcus-Mumford-honorary-band-member-Jake-Gyllenhaal-reunite-New-York-City-four-years-toured-group.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.155.95 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

187.188.14.35 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC) and produced and starred in the crime thriller film Nightcrawler, his performance in the latter received critical acclaim by many critics, with many saying "his best performance to date", he also received nominations for the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Awards, both for best actor.

It's already in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

Previous

Replacement

The long-standing lead image was recently replaced. I realise that the replacement is newer, but the former image was better suited as a lead image for several reasons and it should be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I disagree, the idea is to have a more current image of the actor, the one that was previously is 2015. The last one is 2016. The truth I do not see any sense to have an image of 2 years ago put in the template.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox pic change?

I think that the infobox pic should be changed back to this one. His face is much more visible there in comparison to the current one, which has odd lighting in my opinion. 100cellsman (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

Add: "On July 11, 2019, it was noted Gyllenhaal’s production company, Nine Stories, (in conjunction with Seaview Productions, Troy Carter and Level Forward) will be releasing “Slave Play,” directed by Robert O’Hara to be released in New York City in late 2019."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillakitty (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: The way the suggested addition is worded may be misleading to readers. It states that Gyllenhaal's company "will be releasing Slave Play", while the Deadline source states that Gyllenhaal and Riva Marker's company only signed on to become one of the producers of the play after its original start, where it ran in much smaller venues for just under a year and without any input from Gyllenhaal. That point needs to be clarified.  Spintendo  22:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Politics and other interests -- Possible addition:

For the 2018 midterm elections, Jake Gyllenhaal endorsed Beto O'Rourke as Texas senator in a hotly contested and nationally publicized race that Ted Cruz, the incumbent, eventually won. His endorsement came in the form of a facebook post that included a picture of him in a "BETO" shirt and lengthy caption that also endorsed Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, Kyrsten Sinema, and Jacky Rosen in their respective Senate or gubernatorial elections.

--
Thoughts about this addition? (Wording can change if too verbose. Please feel free to provide an updated version.) theraefactor (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Syrinesyrinesyrine (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal has dropped out of Columbia University and did not finish school it shouldn't say "alma mater Columbia University"

 Not done From alma mater: "[it] is an allegorical Latin phrase for a university, school, or college that one formerly attended. In US usage, it can also mean the school from which one graduated." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Add to Accidental Love Section: Set floral design by Ruby Jourdain of Floral Elegance of Columbia, SC. 173.75.222.180 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Paul Newman is not Jake's godfather. Mattress67 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It's describing his "celebrity" godfather. .Paul Newman is gay! He laughs again. 'No, he's my celebrity godfather.' What's a celebrity godfather? 'That's the godfather that the media give you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead links

There are quite many dead links in this article [1], and some of them cannot be replaced by another link (I translated it into Vietnamese and did try to fix). Is there any way to fix them? Hien712 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've tagged them all, that's a start. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 22:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's good to hear that. Thank you. Hien712 (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: family and relationships

Please add half sibling Luke Man Gyllenhaal to the family and relationships section: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pregnant-stressed-science-says-talk-to-your-baby_us_57a0093ce4b004301c51c125; http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/25/kathleen-gyllenhaal-health-meets-hollywood-qa-10351 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.155.95 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

godparents

Note: Newman is not Gyllenhaal's actual god father, and despite popular belief Newman did not teach Jake to drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelynkircher (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

if he is Jewish (or Buddhist), why does he have godparents or is a godparent?--99.253.58.249 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Pronunciation

The Swedish pronunciation is [ˈjʏ̂lːɛnˌhoːl], not [ˈjʏ̂lːɛnˌhɑːl]. Conan O'Brien is not a reliable source. The "aa" digraph is a variant spelling of "å" (pronounced [ɔ] when short, [o:] when long as in this name) encountered chiefly in some names and situations in which "å" cannot be written. 2001:16B8:463B:5200:5D8F:BD45:E251:5E66 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Take care with use of dates in article, with preposition "since".

The one current sentence using a construction with the word "since" (e.g., "since 2018") should be edited for accuracy to source, and it should be kept in mind that use of such constructions begin their obsolescence the moment the edit is saved. Here, it does not appear inaccurate, but consulting the attached source makes clear that as soon as the calendar page turned on 4 October 2019, the article sentence was unsupported, and so could be presumed inaccurate.

That is, in actuality, that source only supported the text from "late 2018" to 4 October 2019, and while it was unlikely to become inaccurate immediately thereafter, cases of such statements becoming inaccurate soon after are plentiful. (That is, a sole basis on the 4 October 2019 source leaves the 2021 article unsupported and inherently inaccurate, unless reworded, or further sourced.) Fortunately, other more recent, acceptable sources are likely available,

Regardless, instead of "since [date]", the use of a construction like, "As of [month and year of source], he was... which began in late 2018." is much closer to the content of the current source than what currently appears, and should be considered even when another, more recent source is added. (An edit that just adds a supporting source from 2021, if such indeed exist, just kicks the can of attending to the essential problem down the proverbial road.) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.16.20 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Film producer

He’s called a producer in his filmography and awards pages. Both articles are featured lists and considered the best pages among here, User:KyleJoan disagrees with this occupation even though it’s on those pages. I don’t get it, why that doesn’t apply here. Sheldon the God (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Nothing at Jake Gyllenhaal filmography justifies him as a producer (no, producing 9 film in which he acted doesn't make him a producer). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

He’s called a producer in the first sentence of both articles. Again, why doesn’t that apply here when others hav clearly agreed to it. Sheldon the God (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain this. At the time the filmography was promoted, the article merely said Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor who has appeared in 28 motion pictures. If you see the article, it's not even shaped as it is now. This is what I mean that just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it is correct. Articles are changed by anyone at any moment and you might not even notice it. Nowadays there's a weird trend of giving labels to people solely because they have done it/they can do it, like saying that Mariah Carey is a record producer solely because she produces her own material, or saying that Jim Cummings is a singer solely because he has sung in a few films while acting, or saying that Matt Bennett is a ventriloquist solely because he holds a puppet in a TV series. These labels are mere opinions relied on "s/he has done it", but they are not factually correct. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please also rectify this. User Tbhotch is in error. While their understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and concepts are beyond reproach, they apparently do not understand the film business, and how sources are used arising from that business sector. This actor has at least, to my count, 10 producing credits, three of which are as executive producer. If a film production company declares an individual as having produced, through presenting their name as a producer, executive or otherwise, whether they are in the PGA or not, they are a producer—even if they might also act in the film. These are separate roles with separate responsibilities—from simple (in many cases, e.g., making a critical connection between the production and a resource), to complex (including, but not limited to critical roles in funding or day to day production activities). Bottom line, if the film credits say that an actor is a producer in a work, it is inappropriate for a WP editor to presume better understanding of the work and its personnel than the roles properly presented by the production company (and secondary sources citing that information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.16.20 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Tbhotch is right. And MOS:ROLEBIO applies. If there is a plethora of reliable sources describing him as a producer, then please present those here for review. KyleJoan^talk 04:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

Reviewing this old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020. I have concerns about the quality of some of the sources used in this article:

• Rootsweb is generally unreliable from my experience with it
• oneguysopinion.com just seems to be some random blog
• About.com can be dubious at times
• CurtainUp.com
• Some random Amazon ad
• AfterElton
• Gaywired.com

Hog Farm _Talk 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, thanks for the heads up. I've removed the Rootsweb source, and replaced all others with reliable ones. I've tweaked the Media image section as a result. Overall I think this article has been kept in a satisfactory position since its FA promotion. Phew! LM150 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

@Grapple X and Hog Farm: new look, status for WP:URFA/2020? There are numerous unanswered queries on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Had a look over this one; there are issues I would raise if it were a fresh FAC candidate (some prose, like the section below on the use of "since" with dated sources; inconsistent use of ISSNs) but it seems the above sourcing query has been addressed and when I scanned the sources currently used it seemed much more reliable than at the start of the year. It does seem from the updating of current/future films that someone is keeping tabs on this fairly actively at least. I'd say it's satisfactory to me at present. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

"He dated singer-songwriter Taylor Swift from October 2010 to March 2011 [135][136][137]"

March 2011 should be changed to January 2011 or a citation supporting March 2011 should be added. None of the cited sources support the March date. The sources state that the couple was first seen together in October 2010 and last seen together in January 2011. Jojoconejo (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Tobey M.—seriously?

Gyllenhaal was almost cast as Spider-Man for 2004's Spider-Man 2, due to director Sam Raimi's concerns about original Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire's health. Maguire recovered, however, and the sequel was shot without Gyllenhaal. The two actors later starred in Brothers (2009), and resemble each other enough that Gyllenhaal has jokingly complained about cab drivers often calling him "Spider-Man".

Wow—that's out of left field, even for WP. If Jake Gyllenhaal looks even a bit like Tobey Maguire, I'm the Abominable Snowman (and I don't even have a beard!). – AndyFielding (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have found a new Northern Paw for him.Her name is “Panda-V-Aari” now.

He is 19th cousine of which queen?

Dead or Undead.Resting in peace or Unrest creator? 2601:641:480:CB40:3DBB:FC1C:63DF:4307 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Jarhead

How can his role in Jarhead not be mentioned? He was amazing in that movie. StephieRem (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal life; Family and relationships; Further information: Gyllenhaal family

"Gyllenhaal's sister Maggie is married to actor Peter Sarsgaard, Gyllenhaal's co-star in Jarhead and Rendition."

"The Guilty," too. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9421570/ CeeJayDeeOne23 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Relatives/Family?

Why does Maggie Gyllenhaal have Jake listed in her infobox, but not visa-versa? 155.190.60.34 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)