Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal/Archive 2

WPBIO taking up miles of space
Can we at least put it at the bottom of this page? Dev920 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war - let's see what other editors think - should the tags at the top,stay or should they go? --Charlesknight 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. In the meantime, can we please be rid of it, as it clearly irritates me far more than you. Dev920 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it needs to be at the top, because of the living person box. Otherwise no one will see it and it's a very important policy. This isn't debatable, since WP:BLP warning now needs to be on every Talk page of any article on a living person. It's not taking up that much room anyway, much less miles. plange 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article and Peer review
I put the article up for Good Article Nomination, I think it meets the criteria. Stevenscollege 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh god, not more tags. Dev920 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a peer review as well? Dev920 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's quite a bit down to the good work performed by DEv920 (I forget the numbers for the moment) and people like yourself.

--Charlesknight 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Charles! Dev920 21:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I've got a stick up my arse does not mention I don't appreciate good editing :) --Charlesknight 08:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, peer review would be good Stevenscollege 21:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we do that before, during or after the GA process?
 * Now I think, even if the article doesnt pass any advice on how to improve it wouldnt go a miss Stevenscollege 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, added. Now we wait. :D Dev920 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats great Dev920, thanks for that Stevenscollege 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the peer review tag on, I know how much you hate them Dev920, but its for a good cause Stevenscollege 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry dev, I see what you did22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Stevenscollege
 * GRRR. Dev920 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't get much response on the peer review, you can try doing the peer review through WP:BIOGRAPHY plange 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. You should really add Peer Review Bio to the list of related peer reviews: I didn't know it existed, or I would have put it there. Dev920 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, will do-- we just added the peer review process recently and this step got neglected :-) plange 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero response on Peer Review, adding to Bio as well. Dev920 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw the submission on Bio Peer Review and put some comments there now especially so that the article can get GA status. RelHistBuff 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have dealt with points raised. Working some more on them. Also, is it just me or has that senetnce about Jake being viewed as an international sex symbol strangely vanished from Personal Life, even though the code is still there in the edit box? Dev920 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the suggestions on the WP:Bio, youve done alot of good work on here today Dev.Stevenscollege 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! But will it be enough, is the question? Dev920 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * wow, you have been busy, the personal life section looks great, a whole lot better, good stuff.Stevenscollege 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the rock the vote video with Jake and Peter on youtube and linked to it.Stevenscollege 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the "edit this page" to edit theres a passage in the personal life section that starts "Jake is also politically active..." but it doesnt come up on the main page, why is this?Stevenscollege 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't like multiple references. I don't know why. I have removed them. Dev920 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture.
I have emailed Ally at IHJ to ask her if she will release one of her photos of Jake into the public domain. In the meantime, I will put up a ohoto of him that I found under the Press ection of his website, and claim it as fair use. I hope it is. Dev920 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual quote
Regarding Gbambino's addition, I think it should stay. I have removed the previous duplicate quote. We have been looking for a reputable source to mention this for some time: what is more reputable than GLAAD? Dev920 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Im all for it, and its been a while since we`ve had any incidences with people deleting things that imply anything other than rampaging heterosexuality, so I hope it stays, however if you follow the link from the GLAAD site, you go to the OUT interview with a credit for a journalist, Bruce Shenitz and thats what we`re all about here, references we can point to. Stevenscollege 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually forget that the interview doesnt say that,oopsStevenscollege 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why IHJ should have a link.
From WP:EL:

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.

IHJ has links to interviews, downloadable video of Jake interviews and footage of award ceremonies, and the world's largest gallery of pictures of Jake. I feel it has meaningful content that cannot be dumped into this article, and in addition to that IHJ is the hub of everything Jake online. It has reports of people who have met Jake, with photos, it has updates on his work and whereabouts, and therefore I think it should be included. Can we add it now?Dev920 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Under that basis - yes. However I'll delete any attempts to add random blogs - WP:EL allows for one fan site (and that's if it's mandated). I'd have to see a very strong case for another to be added (considering we have two).''Two? What's the other one?''


 * You are referring to JW? Hardly random, but its quality has severely gone downhill recently, so I wouldn't reccommend adding it anymore.Dev920 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules here, and this Wiki stuff is way technical, but I just want to say that the statement above, which I repeat below, is a subjective opinion only. The quality of Jake Watch has not gone downhill. Yes, it does fluctuate, but that's all. If you dismiss JW, then you dismiss all of its stellar humourous posts since its beginning in April 2006 which are preserved at the website.

''.....JW? Hardly random, but its quality has severely gone downhill recently, so I wouldn't reccommend adding it anymore.''

To quote Britpopbaby herself, "That's kinda what JW is all about. How many times - JW IS NOT A FAN SITE BUT A HUMOUR BLOG FOR MINE AND PG'S WRITING.". I will never support the inclusion of JW as a fansite for Jake when he is clearly not the point of her blog. You don't not read JW for Jake information, you read it because you like Brit's style. Thus it is not appropriate under WP:EL or indeed generally. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"I will never support the inclusion of JW as a fansite for Jake when he is clearly not the point of her blog."  Dev920

Exactly who has the final say here? I think you, Dev920, are biased against Jake Watch, so that right there should disqualify you from making this decision. Do you own Wiki?? Every single post over at Jake Watch has been about Jake, in other words, he has  been  the  subject  of  every  single  one  of  the  650+  posts  in  the  last  18  months ! So how is this not about Jake Gyllenhaal??? point of, subject of, I think that's more or less the same thing in this context. Or should we argue semantics?

And it would be a bad thing to bring Jake Watch to the attention of Jake fans by listing it at Wiki because.......????

You just don't want Jake Watch to be listed here.

You don't even know me, so don't tell me why I read JW. I know exactly why I read Jake Watch, and maybe why the majority of readers over at JW read JW, and it is to talk and laugh and hear about the subject, which is Jake. Hellll-oooo!! I read for content. End of story.

Who is the arbitrator here??? Do I just go ahead and add JW, and check it every single day and keep adding it back, or???? Can exclusion from Wiki be based on smone's prejudice against the content??


 * I think the quote I provided indicates that the blog is not about Jake, it's about Britpopbaby and her subject happens to be Jake. In fact if you have read the entire blog, than you will know that Brit was planning to start a blog anyway, looked around for a subject and by chance hit upon Jake because BBM was coming out. If you read for content, that's great. If you think I'm biased against Jake Watch, that's fine. But it won't change the fact that per WP:EL, only one fansite is allowed per article and on this article, that site should be IHJ, Jake's largest and best known fansite, and not JW, which is disputed (by BPB herself) as a fansite. Please sign your posts with four tildes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote you provided, yeah, so what?? What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? I have read the whole JW blog, and I know what BPB has said about her blog. People say lots of things. That does not change the fact that the JW website has as its subject: Jake Gyllenhaal. Don't try to hide behind one sentence that BPB made, that does not change the fact that all 650+ posts at Jake Watch have been about Jake.

Not to mention the fact that you totally ignored everything I wrote yesterday, and instead you dredge up one single sentence that BPB made once, as some kind of "defense"??? Is that the best you can do?? Your defense is flawed.

PS: Your sentence makes no sense, "the blog is not about Jake ......../ her subject happens to be Jake."

Those are your words. Here is the complete quote:

I think the quote I provided indicates that the blog is not about Jake, it's about Britpopbaby and her subject happens to be Jake.

So, where do we go from here? I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore until you take your prejudiced blinders off, I repeat, who is the arbitrator here???

72.39.127.157 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't one, just me. Thank you for signing your post, but as I have no intention of removing my "prejudiced blinkers" as you require before further dialogue, our conversation must sadly come to an end. Good day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I've added the picture of Jake that Ally sent me; it's a little low quality, but frankly, she didn't have to give to us (and she asked someone else for it as well) and I'm extremely grateful to her. YAY Ally! Dev920 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
A lot of these trivia things are mentioned in the article, someone took a lot of time on this but it doesnt look rightStevenscollege 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There were no ref. beside any of the trivia and it looked a bit odd so I deleted it, but as I said someone took time to do it and I didnt enjoy deleting it but still if people want it back it should be discussed.Stevenscollege 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost all of it I know is true (well, was mentioned in interviews I read). Next time I have a major lets-edit-Jake's-article night, I'll source the useful bits (it matters to no-one that Jake gave Kirtsen a kitten, I think - at the very least it should be on Kirsten's page, not Jake's) and add them to the appropriate place in the article. Dev920 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Lee Curtis
The article states that "he counts Jamie Lee Curtis as his godmother" now that she is his godmother. These are very different things. This article implies that he consider Jamie Lee and her husband two gay men.

GA on Hold
Everything's all good except this paragraph, nothing is sourced

Fix that and i'll pass it

(The Bread 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Iv found references for the information in the paragraph.Stevenscollege 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All fine, just this bit (In bold) about his critical acclaim to cite

(The Bread 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC))


 * I re-wrote the paragraph a bit, I think its fine now.Stevenscollege 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Passed
See above. Good Work everyone

(The Bread 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Good Article
This is great news, Its a superb article esp. compared with other actors articles and our relentless references and sources cant be beat, and there is only 1419 Good Articles on the whole Wikipedia. Thanks should go to Dev920 who`s done more than anyone on Jakes page, so the next step is A class, but we shouldnt rest until we get FA class with the gold star, who do I have to sleep with to get this star.Stevenscollege 23:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!! We did it!!!!!! So happy!!!! That's it, barnstars for everyone!Dev920 10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Making the article even better
On the peer review page there are suggestions from Rossrs from 27th Aug. which I think are great and which I havnt seen till now! which is pretty stupid since im the one who wanted it peer reviewed but still Rossrs suggestions will put us on a path to the gold star.Stevenscollege 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's been a lot of suggestions on the review. I think if we implement them all they'll probably carry us to A-class without that much more effort, don't you think? Dev920 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

quick note.
I've messed up the html on the references but have to leave the house right now, can someone else fix it please? Dev920
 * Done. --Muchness 12:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dev920 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Movies
Ok, it occurred to me, as I was editing Jake's Career, that Donnie Darko, despite being an iconic film, has only a brief mention in the one big happy Gyllenhaal family paragraph! The article also doesn't mention Josh and S.A.M., Highway, Moonlight Mile, or The Man who walked between the Towers. These need to go in if we're to have a chance at FAC, methinks... Dev920 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, well done stevensollege. I think Josh and S.A.M. only needs to be mentioned in passing and the only notable thing I can think of about Highway is that it went straight to video, apparently. Does that make it Jake's worst role choice ever? Dev920 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirsten in the NOTW
Theres a revealing interview in The news of the world which sheds some light on her break up with Jake, the obvious things caught my eye "We tried to spice things up — we had sex in cars, in the bathroom and even by the sea" there you go.Stevenscollege 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Dev920 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * we`re on the same wavelength Dev.Stevenscollege 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * :D Dev920 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the bit where I scream "not without a source!" - Let's face it, it is the news of the screws, they post any PR piece - even better if it makes SOMEONE look a virile hetrosexual... :) --Charlesknight 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. Unless there is incriminating evidence otherwise...
 * Is it me or is it slightly strange that the editors to American actor Jake Gyllenhaal's article are all British? Dev920 21:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I took another look at that Trivia section today, and most of it is already in the article. I added a thing about his missout of Spiderman 2, but I think we can consider that little seam mined. Interestingly, it seems to have been copied. Plagiarism, or a Jake fan proclaiming her love on every avenue? Dev920 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

FA
We haven't got any new responses since we got GA. And we've also now included all of his career, so I can't think of anything that is relevant and not in the article. Shall we nom for FA? Dev920 06:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take that as a yes then. Dev920 20:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work all round I think. --Charlesknight 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Release date sources
I notice one film is cited to the IMDB for its release date. IMDB is frankly not a reliable source for anything anymore - not trivia and other info about actors, nor box office nor past or future release dates. http://www.comingsoon.net is good for upcoming release dates, though. Hope that helps, Mad Jack 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have changed it, thankyou very much. Dev920 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC was failed on Sept. 21
Keep working on this one. It is not that far from FA status. Do NOT just give up on it and throw up another unprepared candidate!! In any case, here are some lessons to take to heart anyway: 1) always provide FULL bibliographic refs (author, date, publication, title, access date where necessary) BEFORE applying for FA status. Do it for EVERY reference and for EVERY article anyway. 2) Try to present as much criticism and as many different views as possible BEFORE applying for FA status. 3) Get as much input as possible from experienced writers and editors from all over Wikipedia BEFORE applying for FA status. 4) Learn, learn, learn and pratice, practice, practice. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Early life section
I restored it to before "Career", for the purpose of chronological order, so to speak. It's usually customary to have that section before career, i.e. all of the other entertaiments FAs (Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman, Mandy Moore, etc.) Mad Jack 05:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's featured!!!!!
So happy. So very, very, happy. Yay! Dev920 (Tory?) 16:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Never Mystic (tc) 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Good to see another actor article join the pack Mad Jack 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! This is one of the best page for actors! Modelwatcher 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo?
What happened to the photo?
 * What photo? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

mother
Just passing by this page and wanted to mention to regular editors that it's a little confusing to have his mother listed in the intro sentence as Naomi Foner but in the body of the piece as Naomi Achs - I don't know which is preferable, so I didn't change it - but it doesn't make sense to have it the way it is now. Nice page, however - particularly impressive refs. Tvoz 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone keeps changing it, I'm not sure why, given she's known as Naomi Foner. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

descriptions
why are there so many words like "prolific" and "diverse" when these are just emotional words that can be articulated in a more factual manner?

The unintentionally funny award
"Gyllenhaal (rear) in the movie poster for Brokeback Mountain." James.Spudeman 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! I don;t know who added that... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationships
I may be out of the loop here but there was a bit in the Relationships section about his friend Austin, its not there now and I dont see anything on this page about getting rid of it, its just I remember the fuss Dev and I had to go through to get that up with a suitable reference.Stevenscollege 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a quite large fight in the fandom about it and I thought it prudent to remove it. Email me and I'll tell you about it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

notable roles
What are the guidelines for "notable roles" on the actor infobox template? I ask because I'm wondering why Donnie Darko isn't listed. I think that's a pretty notable role. What's the concensus? --Purplezart 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just coming here to ask the same thing! I'd say that was perhaps his most notable role! Or, maybe his second, behind Brokeback Mountain. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added it to the list. Feel free to dispute it here, if someone feels the need, but I genuinely feel it was one of his most important and notable roles.

Awards table
The table is a bit misleading and confusing for readers who do not know how performances are dated. Brokeback Mountain was actually a film from 2005, and was nominated as a 2005 film. While the Academy Award was given out in 2006, the table should still reflect the year the film was made. I would make the changes myself, but I am not confident of my ability to change the table, and don't want to screw up a FA article. Jeffpw 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the year (Jarhead was in the same position). However, was it the right thing to do? The award was given out in 2006, but the filmography above marked it out as a 2005 film. Was that too confusing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a problem actually. It's an Awards table. Each row starts with a year. That year is the year of an award. End of story. Not confusing. Or at least I don't think so. This isn't a filmogaphy section, it's an awards section. A year in the awards section means year of the award, and that's how most Wiki articles operate. But that, admittedly, is where some confusion comes in, because I've noticed that most ceremonies name use the year the ceremony is held, but a few go by the year of release for the films being judged. Still, I think that you must use the year the awards people themselves use, because when you look up an award nom/win on their end, usually you will not find the actor's nom/win if you go by the year of the film. Here's exhibit A: BAFTA_Award_for_Best_Actor_in_a_Supporting_Role, where Gyllenhaal wins the 2006 BAFTA, not the 2005 one.--Melty girl 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Award-winning"
In response to Melty girl's comment, something does not have to be an opinion to be POV. The first sentence is to identify the subject of the article, the fact that he is an actor from the U.S.; the article is not about his awards. Information about any awards/nominations important to his career should be noted in the corresponding part of the lead. 17Drew 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing issues here. Your edit summary stated that you removed information about his awards because it violated WP:NPOV, but that's incorrect. If it's POV, then it can't be in there at all, right? On the other hand, if the issue is that it should be in a later sentence of the lead rather than the first sentence, that's a totally different issue for NPOV. But you're still incorrect. If you refer to WP:MOSBIO, you'll find that the first paragraph should include 5 things, including, as you state, where he is from and what he does -- but also "why [the subject] is significant". Awards are one indication of recognition from the industry in which Gyllenhaal works, and they help explain why he is significant. Therefore, your edit is still not supported. I suggest that you solicit other opinions before reverting these changes again. --Melty girl 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The information itself is not POV; the way it's being presented is. For example, the quote calling his performance in Bubble Boy an "empty-headed, chaotic, utterly tasteless atrocity" is not POV since it's presenting it as a reviewer's opinion and is presented in the context of discussion of the film.  But saying that Gyllenhall is "an American actor whose performance has been called an 'empty-headed, chaotic, utterly tasteless atrocity'" would (although true) be undue weight.  Similarly, any awards/nominations should be mentioned in the context of talking about that time in his career, and describing him as "X-winning" or "Y-nominated" in the first sentence (note that WP:MOSBIO doesn't say that belongs in the first sentence) implies that the article is about his awards and presents undue weight to a positive bias toward him.  17Drew 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not POV to mention that he's won several awards. That's a ridiculous assertion, and even if common sense doesn't reign, the fact that every other acting FA mentions their awards in the first three sentences should tell you about what is appropriate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Drew, your above insult against Gyllenhaal's acting shows a clear bias. Looks like the real issue is that you don't think he deserves the awards and nominations he's won. Well, sorry, but you can't change the facts. It doesn't matter whether we agree with his prestigious wins/nominations. They represent crucial information about his place in the film industry and help demonstrate his signficance, and as such, belong in the lead, as per WP:MOSBIO. --Melty girl 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dev920, please see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, where there appears to have been consensus against including such phrases in the lead sentence. Melty girl, I made no insult against his acting; in fact, I somewhat like it.  I chose that phrase as an example to show that although it would be true to say something like that, it's obviously POV.  It's silly to try and read that as an indication of my attitude toward the subject, considering NPOV states that my opinion really shouldn't matter.  17Drew 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I misinterpreted your above statement. I suppose you only meant his perforamce in Bubble Boy. But more to the point... I don't see consensus at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. On that topic, I would assert that awards are factual and not POV, and that the awards considered most prestigious by the film industry are worth mentioning here, not because they mean that Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor. That's not how I take it, because I often disagree fervently with who gets awards, and I presume that other readers must also. No, mentioning top awards is a NPOV way of helping to convey how an actor's career is going and their signficance. The Oscars, in particular, influence salary and how an actor perceived by the public, within the industry, historically, etc. Major awards are a meaningful, objective reality in terms of career opportunities, money, fame and history, but I think people are smart enough to know that don't necessarily mean that the actor is objectively the best. And I must differ: "Why they are significant," is recommended for the lead paragraph in WP:MOSBIO along with name, dob/dod, nationality, and what they did. So the question is, do major award help document "signficance"? I would say that for actors, Oscars and BAFTAs do. --Melty girl 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Based on your contributions, I'm assuming you're Melty girl and forgot to log in. The majority of the people who contributed to that discussion agreed that including the information in that way (not necessarily the information itself) is POV, and two of the people who disagreed commented that it's often a reflection of poor writing. WP:MOSBIO states that significance should be conveyed in the lead paragraph, not sentence. Note how the examples provided, Cleopatra VII and Petrarch, simply provide the geographic and temporal context as well as what the people did for a living. Later in the leads comes information about their actual lives and accomplishments. As you stated "mentioning top awards is a NPOV way of helping to convey how an actor's career is going and their signficance"; however, Neutral point of view indicates that it is often where and how the information is presented that makes it POV. 17Drew 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this on the front page and was shocked to see his "award winning" info in the lead sentence. The lead sentence should state the basics, not the impact. Per WP:LEAD. Even if you look at the examples provided, they all show the same thing, which is "what the person has done" and not what the person was awarded for. Jake Gyllenhal is an actor. He acts. The first sentence should be "Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor, and so of director Stephen Gyllenhaal and screenwriter Naomi Foner. He began..." The last paragraph should cover any awards he was given. I'm sure he's won more than just an AA and a BAFTA. Why aren't we mentioning all those other awards? We do we give preference to these two? Because we consider them prestigious? I'm sure the people at the Saturn Awards consider their awards just as prestigious. Too much weight is laid on the award winning issue, when that isn't what he is notable for. That's just a byproduct of what he does for a living. That's like saying if Bill Gates won the "Employee of the Month" award that it should be in the opening line of his article. That isn't what Bill Gates is notable for. Drew pointed to the talk page of NPOV, but the mainspace actually adresses this idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, WP:MOSBIO recommends impact for leads. It's right there in the five recommended items for the lead, if you'll just take a look: "5. Why they are significant." If that's not "impact," I'm not sure what is. The question is whether or not an Oscar nomination helps explain why they are significant. I would say yes. Saying no is to ignore the very real impact an Oscar nomination has on an actor's career. Whether or not people agree with all nomination choices, I think most people would agree that in general, an actor's importance rises with each Oscar nomination, simply because of the power of the Academy Awards in the film industry. Obviously, it's not the only way to convey significance -- but it is a totally valid way to do so. --Melty girl 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Read what it says, "in the first paragraph", not "in the first sentence". If the first sentence is "his an award winning actor", exactly how is that neutral? That seems like praise to me. It seems like the first time hit person gets mentioned you have to bring up the fact that he won an award for acting. How about talking about the basic information about the character, you know, per that other guideline WP:LEAD. Notice how in MOSBIO, the "impact" information is the last thing on the list. But notice how on this page it's right there at the top. Also, read the link above about fairness of tone. Just because it's factual doesn't mean that it fits NPOV.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Think about it: if significance/impact weren't appropriate, then why do we even debate whether any articles aren't significant enough to be in Wikipedia? Significance is a tricky thing to get right, but it's a constant theme here. We must immediately answer the reader's question, "Why should I care?" in the lead of each article. And that's why significance is recommended for leads in biographies. --Melty girl 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Guide to writing better articles. The first question to answer is "About what am I reading?".  You can't tell someone that what they're reading is important if it hasn't been established what that is.  17Drew 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bignole, please read my above comments on how awards are not simply praise -- they are career landmarks and constitute industry-wide perception on why an actor is significant. Also, this is biography of a living person, not an article about a "character." Finally, WP:MOSBIO recommends five things for the lead paragraph. If I was to put them in order for you, the lead would barely change. Here it is for you in strict 1-2-3-4-5 order (which doesn't read as well): "Jacob Benjamin "Jake" Gyllenhaal] (born December 19, 1980) is an American actor who is Academy Award-nominated and has won the BAFTA Award." --02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melty girl (talk • contribs).


 * It doesn't matter. Read NPOV's fairness of tone. Just because it's true doesn't mean it isn't still POV. Also, what part of "first paragraph" is unclear at MOSBIO? First paragraph is not first sentence, at least not in America are paragraphs regulated to a sentence length. I don't think they are anywhere. You've taken a style guideline and gone the extreme. It clearly says "first paragraph" but you are interpreting it as first sentence. WP:LEAD clearly says what goes in the first paragraph, and Drew showed you what goes on the first sentence. NPOV tells you how you can still push a POV, even when it's significant information, by the way you present it. Yet, nothing has said "list accomplishments" (as that is what the awards are, they are accomplishment) in the first sentence of the article. It's the same reason films do not start their articles with "an Academy Award winning film", because it places undue weight on this positive moment, and neglects the neutral information. Saying they won an acclaimed award is not neutral. We don't say "Sylvester Stallone, an American Razzie Award winning actor". That would be rather negative.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For a good example of how the lead should look, see Mariah Carey. The first sentence doesn't mention her Grammys or Razzies but rather establishes her birth year, nationality, and occupations in the first sentence.  The rest of the lead summarizes the article while establishing her notability in a neutral manner.  This is much closer to how a lead should look.  17Drew 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Drew, you have some persuasive arguments that I can almost get with fully. But I ask all of you, why are you OK with having the lead section talk about Gyllenhaal working with Academy award winner actors in an upcoming movie (whose notability for this lead has yet to be seen), yet his own awards don't figure in his own lead section? --Melty girl 07:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pick your battles", if you will. I don't know anything about Rendition (and have no idea how notable it may or may not be).  Though I do believe it would be better to reword that, mainly since who else is in the film doesn't seem as important as what the film is actually about.  I first removed that part from the lead sentence when I was surprised to see that in a featured article summary; I'd only read the first paragraph then, and I didn't want to start making further, potentially controversial changes when one was already disputed.  17Drew 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I think Rendition should come out, or at least the info about the other stars having won awards should come out, in favor of plot, as you suggest. And I would work at least the Brokeback award & nomination back into the lead somewhere. --Melty girl 08:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this? The sentence about him play diverse roles was bugging me since most actors end up playing more than one sort of character.  And the Academy Award nomination is mentioned as an indication of the degree of acclaim his part had.  17Drew 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it -- is the BAFTA win not notable enough? I would lose the part about his Rendition co-stars being award winners/nominees, but now it looks like that whole sentence is gone anyway. Seems a bit short now, for such a long article. Dare I suggest that Maggie Gyllenhaal be added, in addition to his sex symbol status? Oh dear. --Melty girl 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a general thought; if we included the fact that Tom Cruise was a Raspberry-award winning actor in the first sentence, that would show a clear (negative) POV. So the opposite is also true. CloudNine 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Drew, I'd reword the one sentence to be more: "Since his role in October Sky, his performances have seen diverse characters such as Donnie Darko, in which he played ...." -- The way it is written now, it gives off two meanings depending on how you read it. One, it's like you're saying October Sky was a diverse role, because the next part says "followed by Donnie." It insinuates that October was diverse, while the beginning of the sentence suggests that the diversity came after October Sky. Also, "cult hit" would need a citation in the lead. I'm not a promoter of such things, but those types of words in the lead are some what controversial because of their subjective nature. I assume just dupe the source being used in "Critical success".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chimming in. I agree that the awards should not go in the FIRST sentence, but now they are removed from the lead section? Is this appropriate? I will defer to others, thanks, --Tom 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It should be noted that he has one awards for his acting, just not be the first thing the reader sees. Angelina Jolie mentions them later in the paragraph.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd, not cowboy
Cowboys tend cows, shepherds tend sheep. They were gay shepherds, not gay cowboys. --Caja do Queso 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * maybe that's why they're "gay cowboys" and not gay cowboys?--345Kai 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also it's up to interpretation whether they're gay or, y'know, bisexual. --Kinst 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why the scare quotes are used. Although "bisexual shepherd" may be the more accurate term, what happens in the film isn't so relevant to Gyllenhaal's career as is the public's perception/interpretation of the film.  Note how the main article refers to them as "two sheep

herders who have a homosexual relationship". 17Drew 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you're being completely absurd -- why don't you make a notation that they were only shepherds for that one summer. Afterwards - only Heath Ledger's character worked on a ranch and could therefor properly be called a cowboy.

HA! All valid points. I think it's just funny how most people assume that someone with a cowboy hat and horse is a cowboy. Even funnier when you consider that the modern cowboy hat is an Hollywood modification of a true cowboy hat that was prompted by limitations in film lighting. --Caja do Queso 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First major film?
In the first paragraph, it says his first major film was Donnie Darko, but both Bubble Boy and October Sky came out first (and farther down it does say that October Sky was his first major film). Should the first paragraph be tweaked? 70.171.162.213 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Might it be more accurate to refer to Donnie Darko as his breakthrough role? 17Drew 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hacked and Vandalized
Main page featured article is vandalized. Someone fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Actually, it looks like the article was restored before you even finished leaving this comment. 17Drew 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd subheading
First of all congratulations to all involved for making a fine featured article. One nit pick though - the heading 'Brokeback Mountain and the future' is sort of misleading now that we're two years on from Brokeback and the current text beneath contains references to already released films. Perhaps it ought to be changed to 'Brokeback Mountain and after' or something similar? Lisiate 05:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I wrote this article in Summer 2006 and it hasn't substantially changed since then. Either me or someone else really needs to update it, I just have so much other stuff to do it's trying to find the time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The article should include pronunciation of his last name. "Hard g" like "get" or "soft g" like "jello"? I've heard it both ways. Timneu22 10:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's G like a J Sam Orchard 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be added to the article's opening sentence. Pronunciations are almost always added to surnames when the name isn't common. Timneu22 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what the footnote after his name is in the opening sentence. -- a pronunciation note. --Melty girl 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace?
The Early History section says he was born in Staten Island. The infobox says Los Angeles. So which is it? Unless there's a "Staten Island" in California that I'm unaware of. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs Protecting?
Someone keeps erasing the whole article and placing rude comments in it place. Sorry this is my first time getting on the talk section, so I hope I did this right65.67.253.156 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Tee Jay
 * You did fine. :) Unfortunately, the request I put in for page protection was refused. Because this is a featured article. So the higher-rated the article, the less protection it gets from vandalism? Go figure... *sigh* -Ebyabe 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's ridiculous. The vandalism on this article has grown to epic proportions. And the homophobic aspect is depressing. --Melty girl 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the whole assume good faith thing, which is apparently primary to Featured Articles. Which is fine to a point, but not in the face of constant vandalism. I'm tempted to ask if the article can be demoted, so it can get protected. Like if we all didn't undo the vandalism and let it become a complete mess, that'd do it. Frustrated, me? :) -Ebyabe 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been contributing to the counter-vandalism efforts on this page. It's honestly not that bad; by this time tomorrow, the vandalism would have stopped.  It's only because it's on the Main Page -- though it's more exposed to vandalism, it's also more exposed for constructive edits.  --Ratiocinate (t &bull; c) 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But what's good faith about deleting the whole article and replacing it with homophobic references?! --Melty girl 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing. That's why changes like those get reverted, usually within one minute.  Warnings are placed; if the vandal is persistent, he/she is blocked. --Ratiocinate (t &bull; c) 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate characterization
There was a characterization in the lead as a "gay cowboy" of Jake Gyllenhaal's character in Brokeback Mountain. This is simply inaccurate as a description of the film. That particular description entered informal description of the film in popular discourse—I myself jokingly talked about he "gay cowboy movie" prior to seeing the film (and only knowing the general premise).

It's not really an offensive term—I might still describe it that way while being slightly tongue-in-cheek—but it is also not a truthful or helpful description; it is certainly not encyclopedic. If you saw the film, you know that a big part of the point of the story was the deliberately unanswered question of whether Jack was gay, or bisexual, or had a "special" connection to Ennis apart from his other sexuality, or whether the question itself was not meaningful. Just using bad shorthand because the same term is popularly used ironically doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I'd be open for some other short phrase than the one I used, if you felt it read better. But I'm definitely not good with mischaracterizing the film just to stick in a "cute" phrase. Perhaps a slight rephrasing along the lines of "portrayed a homosexual relationship between cowboys", or something like that. I don't think what I used is the most mellifluous, but it's better than actively falsifying the intent of the film. Truth comes before beauty in WP. LotLE × talk 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's "offensive" to be gay. Of course it's not, that's asinine.  The point is that it's not a characterization of that film.  The characters in Brokeback rather pointedly elide any reference to being gay/homosexual/bisexual/etc; the film plays against your expectation that they might explicitly say something along these lines.  In contrast (just off the top of my head, not necessarily the "deepest" analogy), think of a film like Gods and Monsters which is also a "historic" reminiscent on sexuality and attitudes towards it.  In that, Ian McKellen's character is self-acknowledgedly gay (not sure the exact terms he uses in the film, but it's a self-identity).  I would have no issue with using the phrase "gay film director" in describing Gods and Monsters (that phrase doesn't appear to be specifically used on WP, but it wouldn't violate the intent of the film).


 * My point isn't some hobby-horse about gay-rights, nor about homophobia, it's about a film, and what the film actually does.  LotLE × talk  21:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's absurd to be afraid to characterize Gyllenhaal's Brokeback Mountain character as "gay". The character has gay relationships, period. Yes, he also has at least one straight relationship, but come on. He might be bisexual, but it is absurd to suggest that it's inaccurate to describe his character as a "gay cowboy" upon brief mention/characterization. This is a semantic distinction and larger discussion more appropriate for the body of the Brokeback article or the Jack Twist article. Refraining from labeling the character as gay is like saying that you can't refer to any character of African American descent "black" because scientifically there's no such thing, and the character has a white grandparent and so on. Sorry, but in shorthand, and in social reality, these characters are black. Just like Jack Twist is gay. And I say this as a bisexual of mixed African and European descent! Will others please chime in here? Thanks. --Melty girl 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of being afraid to characterize him as gay. The truth is, we don't know his sexual orientation -- in fact, one of the main themes of the film is this confusion.  He does, however, have a homosexual relationship, and that's what should be in the article.  --Ratiocinate (t &bull; c) 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * More succintly put, yes. As I said, the character has gay relationships, period. And the central (gay) love story is the crux of the story. --Melty girl 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Give the autobiographical "woe is me" tale of sexual-identity a bit of a rest, Melty girl. I knew self-identified gay cowboys before you were born; and for that matter, was also at gay-rights rallies before "gay" was an encyclopedic word in any context. The discussion here is about a particular film, not about your personal sexual ontology—what Ang Lee does or doesn't do matters, not how you think things "really are".

It actually occurs to me a film with a similar ambivalence about racial identifications. Did you see The Human Stain? I would feel likewise unwilling to simply characterize this as a film about a "Black professor". The whole point of that movie (well, one of several main points) is that it just isn't that simple to characterize what Anthony Hopkins' character "really is". As viewer, you might decide your own belief; but in the film, much as in Brokeback, the ambiguity is sort-of the whole point. Somebody might well make a film (or probably have made one) about a "gay cowboy", simply put: Lee didn't make that film. LotLE × talk 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why the scare quotes are there. The lead is not the place to put details about characterization.  His character became famous as a "gay cowboy", regardless of whether or not that description is accurate.  The section that actually discusses the film says that the two "have a homosexual" and doesn't refer to the character as gay.  17Drew 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read Words to avoid. This is Wikipedia policy and prohibits the use of scare quote in most context (especially in a lead like this).  Outside the lead itself, I wouldn't mind if a very brief and cited mention was made of so-and-so calling the film "the gay cowboy movie" or the like.  But the fact it is "common knowledge" the film was so-called is not allowable by itself, only with citation to an example... and not in the lead.  LotLE × talk  23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement, "Jack Twist is gay" is false. It is just as false as saying, "Jack Twist is straight".  Like LotLE said above, it would be fine to mention that Jake Gyllenhaal played a character commonly perceived to be a "gay cowboy" (with, of course, the appropriate citations), but the fact of the matter is that Jack Twist's sexual identity and orientation is clear to nobody -- which makes it a major issue of the film.  --Ratiocinate (t &bull; c) 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. I can't believe that because one person wants to parse the fine distinction between "gay cowboy" and "cowboy in a homosexual relationship", the language of the lead has to go downhill. And, guess what? "Cowboy in a homosexual relationship" isn't even accurate. Jack Twist had multiple gay encounters, not just one, one clearly shown, several more strongly implied. So should we change the lead to "cowboy in multiple homosexual relationships"? This is absurd. Well, I leave you to lie in wait until the next hapless editor comes in an restores "gay cowboy" for it's snappier, more culturally renowned and perfectly accurate phrasing. --Melty girl 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack quite clearly wanted to ditch his (heterosexual) marriage for a primary relationship with a male. He tried for years to get Ennis to move away with him. When that failed, he searched for another man to fill that void. In the meantime, he went to Mexico regularly to find other men he could have sex with and was gay bashed during one of these trips and lost his life. He may not have said, "I'm gay", and he may have been troubled about it, but it's certainly what he was. Ennis is perhaps more enigmatically bisexual, but he was clearly more stongly attracted both physically and emotionally to Jack than to his own wife. In addition, the attraction and pull towards Jack never died, even though Jack did, whereas his relationship with his wife fizzled as he dreamt about Jack and ended early both emotionally and physically. He never had any other sexual connections we know about did he? If he did they were few, far between and short. The reason he didn't join Jack in life was because of fear of societal reprisal, such as happened later in the bashing murder of Jack and earlier in the torture murder of the queer man in his childhood that his father took him to see, it wasn't because he didn't WANT to join Jack. It is actually more of mischaractirization to call them cowboys, as has been pointed out, as they were clearly shepherds. It *is* somewhat objectionable to put the "gay cowboy" bit in quotes, as it implies a sort of disbelief, as if gay and cowboy was a dubious combination but we'll suspend disbelief for the sake of discussion.Drayke 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. (Would we put "black cowboy" in quotation marks?) I must differ though that "cowboy" is quite accurate. Although the main characters are shepherds, throughout the film many people, including them, refer to them as "cowboy". Clearly, ranch hands who tend many different species of animal are considered to be "cowboys." And Jack Twist is a rodeo cowboy anyway. So "cowboy" is perfectly accurate here. --Melty girl 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And you raise another good point about the Jack Twist character: for decades, he longed to live as husband and husband with Ennis. Seems gay enough to me. Er, I'm sorry: we have to say "homosexual" in this article, right? --Melty girl 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's compromise. I believe that the phrase "gay cowboy" is an oversimplification of his character.  Clearly, others have objected to this phrase, and their opinions are cited on Jack Twist.  No one, however, denies that he has had multiple gay relationships.  So instead of putting in something that's potentially false, let's write something that's definitely true.  --Ratiocinate (t &bull; c) 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about "cowboy", Melty girl. When I think more about that part, Jack actually competed as a cowboy at the rodeo, and Ennis did take other jobs dealing with cattle after their time together as shepherds. Why do we have to say "homosexual" instead of "gay"? There is the idea that "gay" refers to consciously accepting/being aware of your homosexuality and making social/political/sexual choices to come-out, but I'm not sure that is a hard and fast rule, and even if it was, I'm not sure it would apply to Jack. He obviously had a conscious awareness of his homosexuality and sought to act it out, even if he didn't apply a label to it himself.Drayke 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are all missing the bigger issue. The question isn't whether he is gay, straight, bi or transexual. The issue is whether he was a cowboy or shepherd! :) --Caja do Queso 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very stuck on this shepherd point, I see. I believe that I settled it 5 paragraphs above. Even if you want to ignore the dialogue of the movie, which includes multiple references to both main characters as cowboys, Jack Twist was a rodeo cowboy, so your point, in regards to this article, is moot. --Melty girl 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think Caja was kidding, Melty. On the larger point, I agree with you and Drayke that "gay cowboy" is appropriate in this article - and this is not the place to parse the nuance of the character anyway - that belongs in the movie's article.  In an article about the actor, it is appropriate to refer to this character as a "gay cowboy" because that is indeed how the media described the role and how the movie itself was repeatedly characterized.  It is utterly irrelevant that "gay" wasn't a term of the 1960s - we're  talking about the film in the present  - and how Gyllenhaal's portrayal was referenced. This is an article about the actor. Tvoz | talk 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had a peek at the version of October 8, the day this article got the little gold star saying it was one of the best articles on the encycvlopedia. The term was gay cowboy then, and that description works for me. It boggles the mind that some ...err....well meaning Wikipedians have so little else to do, either here or in real life, that they can debate something so utterly trivial for oevr a week now. Honestly, if y'all attempted to write a featuerd article yourselves, rather than spinning your wheels nit picking an article that is already acknowledged to be one of the best on the site, the overall quality of this project would be vastly improved. Jeffpw 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, Jeff - FAs aren't above criticism and I for one only saw this debate today when my interest was piqued by an edit summary - so let's not make assumptions about why this is still being talked about. But, I've already said what I think about the substance of this discussion. Tvoz | talk 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, what happened to the presumption of good faith, Jeff? People are debating this because it is something that is meaningful to them. However, I'm retiring from the Jake Gyllenhaal crapfest, mostly because I do have something better to do and it isn't important enough to me to be insulted. However, I still submit that the issue is a political one to nearly every editor who has steadfastly pressed the pro gay cowboy side. I was challenged by Dev920 to come up with reviews that didn't use the term, and I did provide three major reviews (CNN, Rolling Stone, and Roger Ebert) who all agreed that the terminology was an oversimplification and did a disservice to the story and the characterization. But so what. Politics rule, which is not NPOV. Wildhartlivie 05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What Wildhartlivie forgot to mention in his statement above was that the very first link he sent me actually confirmed that the rest of the media were using the term, rather blowing his entire argument out of the water. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What Wildhartlivie said in her response on Dev's talk page is "I did not say that no media used that term, however I pointed you to an article which only used that phrase in the context of demonstrating how the media trivialized the story." That was the first article, the whole of which Dev seems to ignore in her zeal to support her cause. I still want to see the sources that prove the REST of the media were using it. Three very reliable review sources have panned the simplification of calling it a gay cowboy movie. I've said it more than once, and I'll say it again, this appears to be more of a political issue than an interest in portraying the film for what it is.Wildhartlivie 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The film itself
I added the cite tage to the "gay cowboy" reference. What do reliable sources refer to this character as? Also, I don't have any life, thats why I am here, just for the record. Thanks, --Tom 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the cn tag and will defer to other. Out of curiosity. Does having sex with somebody of the same gender make you gay. Does loving somebody of the same gender make you gay? How does the author of this novel/screenplayer refer to the character? It seems that would be the best way to phrase it. Anyways, --Tom 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag is out now because citations are in. The words are in quotes, so it is apparent that they are quoting from the sources that are given (duh).  The characters were repeatedly referred to as "gay cowboys", the movie was called the "gay cowboy movie" - this is a ridiculous argument.  I have no agenda here, political, gender, LGBT or any other - I'm standing up for what is accurate and cited, and I think that anyone who is editing this article with an agenda pro or anti gay, or accusing others of doing so, ought to stop it already.  Both sides are getting tedious, and at this point I've lost track of what the substance of the argument is, if there ever was one.  Stop edit warring - the phrase is well sourced and I could find another bunch if 4 aren't enough for anyone.  Tvoz | talk 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ok--Tom 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally we're getting closer to someone looking at the actual film, rather than their own political agenda. For some reason, there are a few editors here with a deeply misguided notion that describing Brokeback with the same simplistic reduction used by some right-wing reviewer will advance gay rights in some way. I've been involved in gay rights issues for decades more than most of these folks, and frankly, childishly naive pro-gay people annoy me nearly as much as do homophobes.

Threeafterthree actually asks the right question. On the film itself, the only mention I can recall of the characters themselves stating an identity is Ennis defensively snapping "I ain't queer". I'm not claiming that characters always speak an "authentic" statement of their own identity. Obviously not. But despite some flaws, one of the most compelling things about Lee's film is the studious avoidance of letting the characters state that they are gay, straight, bisexual, whatever. Sure, some naive touchy-feely editors can decide that they know better than the writers, director, characters, etc. do what the "true nature" of the characters must be... but it's not WP's role to advance some particular editorial position (neither on the film narrowly, nor broadly on the deep nature of sexual identity). LotLE × talk 20:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With four sources, you'll be hard pressed to make a case for "simplistic reduction used by some right-wing reviewer." It's obviously a term used to describe the movie and/or characters, even if only to say it transcends that stereotype. The near-avoidance, by throwing in the almost-weaselly "role that entered popular shorthand," is painful in it's contortions. The quotes around the phrase are enough to show it comes from a third party source. We don't have to, nor should we, rely solely on the film and it's creators. Pairadox 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All four of the sources say, roughly, "the shorthand isn't very accurate". In fact, I'm really not sure what hack reviewer came up with the unfortunate meme  to start with, but no reviewer (of any wing) actually uses the phrase disquotationally.  Am I the only damn editor here who actually bothered to write about film theory and queer theory for philosophy journals? :-) (or who knows how to read a film?!).  LotLE × talk  21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems we have come to a compromise: The same year, he won critical acclaim, portraying a role that entered popular shorthand as a "gay cowboy". This version works for me. I hope everyone else is comfortable with it, too, so we can move forward. I apologize if I offended anybody during our disagreement, and realize we all have the best of intentions, here. Jeffpw 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffpw, you read my mind in terms of concept. Might need a little finessing in terms of wording. I apologize for not having time to offer an alternate wording for the concept (I'm in the process of moving right now), but I did want to weigh in and say that I had been thinking along similar lines. --Melty girl 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Use of (Scare) Quotes
It is *not* clear from your use of quotes around "gay cowboy" that you are quoting someone. I still say that it makes it look like you are emphasizing the words for irony. See Wikipedia's own articles on Scare quotes and Quotation Mark.Drayke 01:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is ridiculous. The quoted words are followed immediately by two - not one, but two - citations that use the phrase. That's what quote marks indicate. Follow the citations. In fact I had 4 citations there at one point if I recall correctly.  It  is a quoted phrase. Not a scarequote, not an agenda, not a smear, not praise. A quote.  In fact  the sentence even explains that this was a characterization of the movie that had entered the public lexicon.  It's not a judgment on whether or not either character was gay, and certainly not an attack on anyone - to make that inference from quote marks is taking this idiotic argument to new levels of absurdity.  I've been away from this article for a bit, working on other minutiae, and I'm frankly stunned that it is still fully protected over this.  So a featured article is marred by this, and people can't improve it, update it, amend it, or do anything other than sigh and shake their heads at what's going on here.  If I thought that anyone was being denigrated for sexual orientation, real or fictional, I'd be right up there objecting.  But that is not what this phrase is doing here, and this is really out of control.  There's real gay-bashing out there folks - I suggest you worry about that, and not about the innocuous, and correctly used, phrase "gay cowboy" describing this movie.  Can we move on from this?


 * Here are the 4 references I posted then:

Tvoz | talk 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. --Melty girl 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Per my comments here, I've protected the page for a month. Please try discussing further, requests for comment, mediation, third opinion - anything but edit warring.  Daniel  07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A month protection? That seems like a long time but I am not that farmiliar with what the standard is or how bad this edit war was/is. From the posts above, it really does not seem that bad, but I do alot of editing of articles pertaining to the Middle East so go figure :) I for one will not edit/revert here. Any other takers? Anyways, Cheers, --Tom 14:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ps, you protected the wrong version :) Just kidding!!
 * The edit warring was moderate, but the idea of protection is to get editors to discuss the dispute here rather than edit war, and reach a solution which everyone accepts. I protected for one month because I thought that it was an applicable amount to allow the parties to resolve their dispute.  Daniel  00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the ifdc-template removed from the Donnie Darko screenshot. – Ilse@ 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Relationships
editprotected As the page is currently protected. I would like to bring to attention (and hopefully removal) a line under Personal life and Relationships: However, on July 31, 2007, paparazzi photographs of Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal laughing in Witherspoon's car as they drove around Los Angeles finally seemed to confirm that the actors are indeed a couple."[56] I am not aware when laughter with a coworker is the substantiation of a romantic relationship. This is clearly conjecture and speculation and has no business in this article or anywhere else in Wiki. 66.109.248.114 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Until one of them says it's true, it's a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.161.61 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

take it off of featured article status
You know it's flattering when there's a rumor that says I'm bisexual. It means I can play more kinds of roles. I'm open to whatever people want to call me. I've never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don't think I would be afraid of it if it happened.

should be repalced with

quotation is a better template to use cause it has a function to quote the whole quotation so it eliminates abiguity70.74.35.53 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're talking about; the first option seems less ambiguous than your preferred option. Also, what the heck does your section header have to do with what you wrote below? --Melty girl 06:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how the committee coulda missed the quotation. In fact, they featured this terribablly poor quality article!70.74.35.53 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, - the two versions are identical except in whether they are indented or put in big quotes. The text is identical. The cites are identical. There is no no ambiguity in either option - they are identical. I don't know what is being said here - this is purely a matter of style and format - content is the same. Is this just disruption? And what committee? Tvoz | talk 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit request
editprotected

The Donnie Darko screenshot survived IFD, so please remove the ugly extra caption. Also, please consider placing the pp-protected template on the page. I was wondering where my section edit links had gone to ... --Pekaje 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. - auburn pilot   talk  16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect the page?
Perhaps it's time? Over 20 days now... All Hallow&#39;s Wraith 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)