# Talk:Jude Law

What the heck is the fan favorite psychotic vigilante "Rorschach" ? JackofOz 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Rorschach (comics), from the Watchmen comics series. He's the one wearing the white mask with inkblots.—jiy (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is a worry.  The lead para says 29 December 1972, but the infobox says 28 December 1971.   Which is it, and let's have a citation to prove it. JackofOz 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)...............It is 1972 because he was in the year above me...--Lee F 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really count as a citation, nor does it give us a firm date. Tinkstar1985 12:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have become well-cited in the meantime.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

don't you think there are some serious stuff in his filmography that worth some mention? like closer, mr.ripley, and else...--Quinlan Vos 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The person who removed his photo in May is called Szczepan1990   ?  I haven't learned how to properly upload photos to Wikimedia Commons yet, otherwise I'd take care of it.  I don't understand why the image was removed.  eveningscribe 18:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading the history incorrectly; Szczepan1990 has not edited this article.  However, there have been several pictures removed, all because they either do not contain proper copyright information or they violate fair use.  It is also possible that the image was deleted for these reasons, as well. María (críticame) 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation!  eveningscribe 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just Jared (justjared.com) is a blog. It is self-published (apparently). This source does not meet WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V#Sources for WP:BLP. Please investigate and decide what to do.  If these multiple references to that blog are being used as sources for statements in this biographical article Jude Law, the statements citing this source (multiple ones) will need either more acceptable sources in keeping with WP:BLP#Sources etc. or they will be need to be deleted. Self-published blogs are not generally acceptable as sources in these articles on living persons, even if they are public figures (celebrities). Such articles require reliable and verifiable sources as defined in WP:V#Sources. WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core editing policies, as is WP:BLP. See the links in the talk header and template tags.  Thanks.  No non-official unauthorized self-published fansites are permissible as sources or as external links in this article: WP:EL.  Links to videos posted by people in sites like Youtube and AOL are potential copyright violations (for policies, see WP:Copyvio; Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, etc.); they may be deleted as well. [will be away; these problems still need resolution.  See cleanup tag at top of article.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree re excessive reliance upon a self-published blog for many citations in this article. Here are some other (hopefully better) sources of possible use: [1]
[2]
[3]
[4] Maybe it would now be a good idea to start replacing the blog citations with more reliable ones. Peter morrell 07:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, an editor put a hidden note in the article which asked if the use of the website JustJared.com is allowable in Wikipedia. While this celebrity gossip website is not exactly a NewYorkTimes.com - level source (sarcasm!), it may have the level of editorial oversight required of Wikipedia sources.  Random, anonymous users cannot just post stuff on it. But is their a proper editorial board? I don't know. If there is proper editorial oversight, JustJared.com may be an OK source, as long as what they are claiming is factual (e.g., "Jude Law cut the ribbon at a the unveiling of a new AIDS clinic") rather than speculative and gossip-mongering ("Jude Law seen leaving health clinic; is he ill??).Nazamo (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

His real name is David Jude Law, which is why he is often called Dave by photographers who obviously feel the 'Jude' part is pretentious.
http://www.biggeststars.com/j/jude-law-home.html
http://www.mooviees.com/2897-Jude-Law/celebrity
I amended his details to reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.55.54 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 

I think the Pearl Lowe incident is important because it might mark a decline in fanfare.

In 2001, rumours spread that Goffey and Lowe had engaged in 'wife-swapping' with Jude Law and his now ex-wife Sadie Frost, whilst on holiday in Greece. Although Law denied this, Lowe later told News of the World in 2005:The story's correct, even though I wish it wasn't.... We thought it would be fun, but it turned out to have some unpleasant repercussions. Danny and I had real problems in our relationship as a result. The swinging sessions are also speculated to be what caused Jude and Sadie's divorce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.8.152 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 

Can anybody enlighten me as to why, whenever anybody inserts Jude Law's real name -David Jude Heyworth Law- it is immediately removed? Is there something about this whole thing that I'm not understanding?Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tried again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Policy in MOS:BIO#Names. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
One of London free papers (either Metro or London Lite or the other one) is in the habit of calling him Dave, apparently seeing 'Jude' as pretentious. Perhaps his fans see the use/acknowledgement of his 'real' first name here as a similar criticism of him? Catiline63 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. That wasn't the objection the other editor had to the source, it was because the actual page of the source was a column. Since then, sources that aren't disputed have been added and there is no actual need for the disputed column source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As the Webster's reference has in turn been disputed and removed, we are left only with Who's Who, from the Oxford University Press. Unfortunately, while confirming "David", it does not include "Heyworth". --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In the official birth and marriage records on www.ancestry.co.uk (subscription only, unfortunately), he is listed as David Jude H Law and David J H Law, respectively. His mother's maiden name is Heyworth, but his full name is all over the internet. I have changed his name in the Wiki article numerous times, but there is one contributor in particular who only allows "Jude Law", period, and changes it back immediately. Don't know why. Let's see how long it lasts this time! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a newspaper column as a source. A column concerning itself with presenting the biographies of certain personalities does not equate with an 'opinion piece' which is just that, a journalist's subjective opinion. Only the latter is frowned upon by wikipedia. Catiline63 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pace User:Wildhartlivie, it seems that following recent changes the Telegraph reference is needed again. If there is agreement I propose to reinstate it, using as reference the published, print edition, thus: Barratt, Nick (9 September 2006). "Family Detective An investigation into our hidden histories. This week: actor Jude Law". Daily Telegraph. London: 16. AFAICS this would be a perfectly legitimate source. It's not an opinion piece: it's an article like any other, written by a reputable genealogist who formerly worked at the Public Record Office. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't particularly care one way or another about the source, if others think it is reliable. There is another editor who seems to strongly dispute it, however. I'm not certain why a second Who's Who source was needed today. I did remove the parenthesis from the name "David". Who's Who put that name in parenthesis because he's not known by that name, just to clarify why I removed them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So we can consider the Telegraph article as admissible, yes?Catiline63 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think if you want a definitive answer, you could take it to WP:RS/N to settle any questions regarding the reliability of the column. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Catiline63 has taken up this suggestion: See (and comment)  here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the best way to settle the question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No objections, either here or at WP:RS/N#Jude Law and the Telegraph: time to put this to bed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed this sub-section heavily because, as another editor has pointed out, "the section for one play is as long as the sections for either the 1990s or the 2000s". This has meant taking out the names of the other cast members, to concentrate on Law as the WP:TOPIC of the article, and cutting the verbatim quotes from various reviewers, as WP:NPS would have us do. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the other editor who said that, and I agree wholeheartedly with the trim. The section on one performance had aquired undue weight in comparison with Law's entire career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor removed all reviews from the Hamlet section, citing "no need for any reviews, because of a maintain a neutral, unbiased POV. (WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:NEU)". Those policies do not mean to remove reviews because critical response was mixed. My concern initially was that small portions of reviews that did say something both positive and negative were being selectively quoted to use only the positive portions of the review. That is the very definition of cherrypicking and POV referencing. Then the section became overweighted with critical response in order to weight the article with only the positive portions of the reviews. The last edit trimmed the section down to representing both views and lessened the undue weight given the performances. I have been concerned that this was being done by an editor who is a fan of Law's and who almost exclusively edits this article and articles pertaining to Law's career, with one edit to the Hamlet section using the edit summary of "break a leg" - a message to Law. Such single-purpose accounts are sometimes an issue when the work in question exists to promote someone. WP:NPOV does not mean that we will only include positive critical response to an actor's work. This is an issue that most certainly is a problem with this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Old Moonraker was right to trim the section down.  I had noticed that it was going into too much detail regarding this one project, relative to the rest of Law's career.  I think it's good to refer back to reviews, and it's fair to say that not all reviews have been glowing, although most seem to be favourable to some degree.  The way it's currently worded it gives emphasis to an example of a positive review, which seems representative of the positive reviews, and summarizes the not-so-positive and refers to them as "mixed", which also seems fair to me in terms of neutrality.   The less positive reviews don't seem to focus on the same aspect of Law or his performance, so calling them "mixed" seems like a good summary.   Cherrypicking is to be avoided, and this helps to avoid it. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


### Semaphore style
A recent edit referred to a piece in The New York Times to show that not all reviews were positive. This extra example shouldn't be added to the text—the section is big enough already—but out of curiosity I looked it up: Ready, Set, Emote: A Race to His Doom if anybody else wants a look. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I never intended to add the NYT's review. I read it when it's published in NYT, and I'm not a big fan of Ben Brantley's signature style of "celebrity mockery". But since some ip editor keeps referring to the WP's review as the "only" negative one, I brought it up for the sake of NPOV. I don't want this article to look foolish for people who have read the NYT's review. - Gene2010 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I don't recognise Brantley's barbs as accurately reflecting the production I saw, but they're on record and, for the sake of accuracy, new edits can't ignore them. You are right to revert any that do. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for the undoing of any commentary mentioning Jude Laws affair? The comments made are factual and backed up by multiple reliable sources (his own admissions and apology as cited by the BBC). I would think this is an important aspect of his "Personal life" and better explains his separation from Fiancé Miller? Is there some valid reason it is edited within minutes every time a reference to this incident is mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.141.162 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 

I don't know why anyone else removed it, but as for myself, it isn't very encyclopedic as content, and takes the form more of tabloid. I don't recall a featured or good article including content that says one celebrity apologized to another celebrity. There is no mandate for Wikipedia to explain a break-up, any more than there a mandate for Wikipedia to explain why he didn't marry the mother of his new baby. It's gossip. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I actually came to the article specifically looking to remember what happened with that scandal/affair.  If anyone has the info and can add it again, it seemed to be a fairly large news story and as noted below, death details are on wikipedia as well.  Jairuscobb (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Understood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.56.199 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 
The affair is listed under Sienna Miller's page, why not Jude Law's?  It doesn't make sense...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.160.114 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 

In 2001, he was starred as "Vassili Zaitsev"  in "Enemy at the Gate" directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.72.31.131 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 

Yes, he did. I will add it now. It is worth mentioning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A law student (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to CarbonZeroPlanet.org they are Rafferty Jellicoe Law (some furthur digging suggested that there is a third middle name - Frost), Iris Tallulah Elizabeth Law and Rudy Indiana Otis Law. Link 1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.228 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 

Thanks for bringing the issue to the talk page. Are you sure of this link? Trying to verify I received: "You searched for jude law No occurrences found". But, it may not be a reliable source, as defined, anyhow. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If it isn't too much trouble type "Rafferty Jellicoe Frost Iris Tallulah Elizabeth" into Google. The first link (CarbonZeroPlanet.org Projects: Tree Tags) should verify. Also ancestry.co.uk verify's Rafferty's name, for the most part -- he is listed as Rafferty Jellicoe F Law.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.228 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 

Interesting result with the tree tags: certainly a new angle I hadn't considered! Thanks for that. Not sufficient for WP:RS and WP:BLP though, and the other site is by payment only. We're not there yet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jude Law is jewish. Sure it can be everything from here [[5]] or here Jude but it is obvious. --DerAkademiker (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is obvious" still needs a source, otherwise it's WP:NOR, and not allowed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"occupation: alyssa's lover" what on earth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.196.142.142 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 

Hey there @Nikkimaria, apologies for using the dailymail as a source for that one passage - totally forgot about its unreliability consensus. That being said, I did find some more reliable sources regarding Law having resided in Highgate (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). However, I don't want to assume that Law still lives there, although I feel that it could be worthwhile including the last notable place he lived in. Is there a way I could possibly write something regarding this? Would it be irrelevant? Thank you. B3251 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi B3251, I'm not sure what you mean by "notable" in this context - could you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @Nikkimaria, I meant 'notable' per se as in The Grove, Highgate from this source by John Rentoul of The Independent (considered reliable), or if that doesn't work, just Highgate itself. I hope that helps, as I'd like to include what is at least his last publicly known residence.
My end goal is a possible GAN, but not quite there yet. :P B3251 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I think that'd be fine with the improved sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how I'd write it; can I just write that he has lived there? Or should I just write it as if he still does live there B3251 (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Would suggest {{as of}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I just made an addition using the more reliable sources. I didn't imply that he currently lives there, but it may be kinda wonky. I wasn't sure where to/how to add {{as of}} given the dates of the articles so I ended up not doing that, but if you'd like to give it a check and see if I'm on the right track or if there's any bits that could be improved, that would be great. Thank you :). B3251 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

He also appear in the 2004 film: Lemony Snicker’s A series of Unfortunate Events 104.136.231.178 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He doesn’t seem to have a major role in the film, as he is just credited as being the narrator. I wouldn’t add it to this article because this more focuses on roles which he is known for, but feel free to add it to his credits list if it’s not already there. B3251 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jude Law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: B3251 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: Adri-at-BYU (talk · contribs) 21:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll begin reviewing today and plan to have my notes up by the end of the day Friday. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions! Adri-at-BYU (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, please let me know when updated! [[User:|B3251]] (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@B3251:: Looks great, comments are all done and I'm sticking it on hold! So sorry it took me longer than planned. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns! I'll keep a close eye to make sure I respond quickly. Adri-at-BYU (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


### Review
Please take a look at 1a, 1b, and 2d


#### 1. Well-written
a. Y(addressed) Clear and concise prose

Consider removing "while Caine played the role originated by Olivier" from the second paragraph of the 2000-2008 section. the sentence has a lot of info in it and taking out this extra info could make it easier processing.
Under Activism, adjust to say "Law, representing PETA, wrote a letter..." The source says he was representing PETA not PETA was representing him.
Under Afghanistan peace efforts, clarify whether the second paragraph is referring to a new documentary or The Day After Peace one. (maybe add in the name)
Under Family and relationships, add a comma and they "Law and co-star Sienna Miller began a relationship, and they became engaged in 2004." or "Law and co-star Sienna Miller began a relationship; they became engaged in 2004."
b. Y(addressed) MoS compliance

Early work and breakthrough section, consider removing "magnetic" from the third paragraph. I think "swimming star" covers it


#### 2. Verifiable with no original research
a. Y List of references 
b. Y Sources cited inline

Realtime movie section third reference, the archived link doesn't seem to pull up the right thing, here's the non-archived version at least https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-exquisite-art-of-mobbing-jude-law-pxgn7jxl87l
c. Y No original research
d. Y(addressed) No copyright violations or plagiarism

2000-2008 section, try to find the information on The Holiday from elsewhere. The interview is good but the channel doesn't appear to be the originator of the content


#### 3. Broad in its coverage
a. Y Addresses main aspects of the topic
b. Y Focused on topic without unnecessary detail.


#### 4. Neutral
Y Gives due weight to viewpoints presented about  Law among various sources


#### 5. Stable
Y Not under any edit wars or dispute (not counting title change discussion because it won't affect the content of the article)


#### 6. Illustrated by media
a. Y all images have proper copyright statues attached
b. Y images are all relevant and short captions give good context
Adri-at-BYU (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adri-at-BYU Thank you for the review, I have finished making all necessary changes. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the interview or transcripts elsewhere for 2d, so I removed information regarding it and used a newspaper source to cite his role in the movie instead. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@B3251: Great work, I'll go pass it now!

B3251, LunaEclipse, there's a few pieces of odd sourcing in this article. Why is the Peace One Day homepage cited? The archive link shows it makes no mention of Law or Afghanistan. The citation to Encyclopedia Brittanica is tertiary and should probably be removed if the information can be found in other (secondary) sources, which it looks like it can. Is the Sragow source from the Knoxville News-Sentinel or the Baltimore Sun? Sallypotter.com does not appear to be a reliable source. The YoungZuluWarriors source appears dead, even in the Archive link. Is WWD a reliable source (this one may just be my ignorance on fashion)? Why is the article title "Law becomes dad for fourth time" given in italics? Etc. There are other smaller issues I haven't mentioned, and possibly some bigger issues I missed. Please address these sourcing problems so that the DYK can go ahead. If they're not fixed, it'll probably have to be delayed/pulled. Otherwise, thanks to you both for your work on this article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ganesha811, I apologize for the issues. Must've been oversighted during the GAR. I'll make fixes soon. B3251(talk) 23:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: All issues mentioned have been fixed. I'll look through the article again to see if anything else needs to be addressed. B3251(talk) 21:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, take a look. There's also a lot of source formatting inconsistency - for instance, I saw Washington Post, The Washington Post, and Washington Post given in various places. Not a huge deal, but worth fixing. Ref 3 (Actor's studio) is a bare ref and should be converted into an actual citation template. Etc etc. Not all GA reviewers require it (and Adri didn't in this case), but if you ever want to take the article to FA, you'll certainly want to get all that done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

... 2A00:23C6:1484:9401:A480:F382:A3F6:B5AD (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)