![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Entertainment/Detail?contentId=5695576&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=7.1.1 EsocksLAMB ( talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I spent a good deal of time a few weeks ago seeking out citations for unsourced text and getting all of the references that had been haphazardly entered here into a consistent format, using the "cite" templates that predominated. When I finished, the whole article was consistently using the templates, and there was an exchange here on talk about citation format. I see that since then another 25+ citations were added without the cite template formats - this is inconsistent and something needs to be fixed. (There are at least 50 - twice as many - already in the cite format.) If there is a citation format already in place, proposing a change in format is fine here on Talk, but just adding new cites in a different format than has been established leaves something of a mess to be cleaned up. I'm willing to work on changing the smaller number of new ones to the cite template, and I hope others will help out in that task, but there needs to be some agreement about this going forward. I prefer the templates for their consistency in the way the references display, and the increased likelihood that all of the relevant fields, such as access date, are included. And now from a practical point of view, it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense for someone to have to go through the article and change over 50 citations to a different format, for no clear advantage that I can see. To be upfront about it, I'm not really willing to put that kind of work into undoing all of the work I did previously, but maybe someone else is, if we reach consensus on making that wholesale change. See talk archive for an exchange about citation style between Miranda and me that no one raised any objection to, and see WP:CITE for the need for consistency. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) (ec) NYScholar, that is your opinion and your preference but obviously the wikipedia community has differing views on the subject. What works well for you might be disruptive to someone who needs consistent formatting as they are visually impaired so use an interpretive device. Also your system can be seen, by me at least, as quite hard to sort through as it's not standardized to either of the standard formats i regularly encounter on wikipedia. Benji boi 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Well, I'm certainly not inexperienced nor did I suggest that templates are required. I specifically said that the goal is consistency of style within an article, not across the encyclopedia, and I'm quite aware that different groups of editors use different styles to achieve the same consistent results. My experience has been that a much more serious problem with free-style referencing than commas is that there's no consistency in order of words or inclusion of required data. Not saying yours are entered inconsistently as I haven't looked, but a big advantage of the templates is that it doesn't matter what order you add the fields - they are adjusted accordingly and are therefore consistent within the article - and the template form serves as a reminder to include them all. I don't in fact use the physical templates - I know the fields and include them all manually, but I don't worry about whether I've punctuated or ordered them properly because that's automated, which actually saves, not wastes, a lot of time. And use of the cite format makes it easier to check other peoples' citations. That's my preference, and all I am raising here is that we ought to come to an agreement about what style will be used - as of a few weeks ago it was consistent, and now it is not at all, and you mentioned upstream that you preferred a different style and were using it. I'm not sure who you think should now or later go in to fix the rest and bring them in line with your preferred style, but seeing as there are over 50 in the cite format and 28 in various freestyle formats (at last count earlier today), logic would suggest that it's easier to convert the few than the many. Which is why I raised this. of course I don't think this is nearly as important as getting the facts straight, using good writing, and keeping the vandalism away, but before it gets completely out of hand I think this should be considered. Not everyone has internalized the rules of referencing, as anyone who reads student papers knows, and so it seems to me that any help that can be offered in the form of templates for this is positive. An aside - semi-protection from new and IP editors seems appropriate for now, but I very much doubt we'll add full protection to this article as it's very rarely done, and correctly so. Tvoz | talk 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the "refs" format that I have used for sources that I have added to this article is consistent. Others may not be. The citations templates are a mixed lot, with variations among them. Some used "work", some used "publisher" [interchangeably instead of "publication" or "journal" (which pertains to periodical titles such as those of newspapers)], resulting in problematic punctuation in linked titles of newspapers, e.g.,; I tried to regularize some of them, but I have not got time to do that with all of them. Given the large number of source citations that I formatted for this article, which are all correctly ordered and punctuated (up until "Retrieved" etc.), I prefer continuing with them; I will not convert them all to citation templates that I do not prefer to use (espec. since others could easily introduce further errors in them via deletions, reversions, etc., which occur often in this article). The coding is essential for repeated citations: "ref name=..." does not require use of quotation marks before the short name inserted and does not require any space before the "/". I've already provided [Wikipedia link to Wikipedia's own] clearcut explanation of how to construct a "ref" note format in Wikipedia: it is very simple to do and the note takes up far less space than a template does (as mentioned in material at Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [If someone else is going to change all the notes in this article to one consistent template citation format, down the road, after all that work is done, if that one consistent template citation format is this article's "prevailing format," then the rest of us would have to follow it. But with the "ref" format I've used, I'd just point out, "if it ain't broke" it doesn't need to be "fixed." That format is correct and exists throughout many Wikipedia articles without any contention at all. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [added bracketed info about one problem throughout current citation templates in this article; there are other inconsistencies; choice of wrong templates given type of publication, for example. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
P's changes are losing all the quotation marks around titles (proper punctuation of article titles); all the italics around titles of newspapers ("publications", not "publishers"); and presenting dates of publication within parentheses in odd places at times; I've asked for greater care if one is going to convert these source citations in the notes to "citation templates"; there are multiple citation templates to choose from that match different types of sources, and one must choose the ones properly so that the punctuation of titles of articles and titles of works in which they are published (publications) is accurate. Right now, the way P. is making these changes is erroneous. -- NYScholar ( talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am actually a professional bibliographer and academic professor who teaches the subject of research writing; I see no value when not using a consistent APA or ACS or MLA or Harvard referencing format in using templates that use last name, first name if one is not creating an alphabetized list of references (a "bibliography"). The purpose of last name first is for alphabetizing. If one chooses an "author" field in a citation template and just inserts the normal order of the author's name or authors' names after the = sign, then it will post properly, first name, then middle initial, then last name. One does not need to use the "first" and "last" name fields; even the citation templates have this option (see this article where such features in citation templates result in normal order). -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments are about improving this article by correcting errors currently still in the citation template formats (which are still inconsistent); some use "author =", which posts properly (first name, initial [if any], then last name); some use "first name =" and then "last name =" which posts in reverse order. "Staff writer" uses "author =" and so on. I tried to regularize (make consistent) but ran into a problem w/ a missing code; so I'm leaving it to others to regularize and make consistent the use of citation templates throughout (since that format is what has been chosen [thus far due to deletions of my citations formatting]. The editors who introduced the errors into the templates need to correct their errors, which are resulting in inconsistencies. Dates of publication must match actual dates of publication; dates of access must match actual dates of access; if you reverse the numbers, they will post incorrectly and confuse us all. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Last night I went through for several hours and converted the citation templates in several ways, namely:
The citation templates are not perfect, and are ambiguous of what to do with, for example, multiple authors (surname first, or what?). However, I think it's better to use the citation templates than not, because one day in the future the developers may decide to code in some functionality that takes the fields from the citation templates and allows people to choose a preferred referencing format in their preferences, and automatically reorganise the information in the template according to those preferences (kind of like how [[June 12]], [[2004]] automatically reorganises itself to "[[June 12|12 June]] [[2004]]" when I'm viewing it). - Mark 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. I have, however, found further inconsistencies and also one template that was embedded and not in vertical manner (which I fixed). The "column" or "section" is not supposed to come before the title of the publication (newspaper); it follows the date, with the page no. following that (in standard bibliog. format). Using "work" field for section (column) is incorrect. The "Late Edition" for one NYT ref. citation was incorrectly placed as well: that belongs at the end of a ref. citation in note (I placed it after a page ref.) It is generally no longer nec. to use "p." or "pp." in giving page refs.; also, since one is citing the online version of the newspaper, giving the page ref. is misleading. (I know that I am using the online version of the NYT for that citation, even though I have the paper copy of the NYT in most cases; don't recall if I have the NYT for Jan. 22 somewhere.) When the citation templates are imperfect (which they are), one has to make adjustments manually. It is not possible to render punctuation correctly with these templates in the case of author and coauthors. The templates create a semicolon where there is in most citation style formats a comma and they place a period after an author's name or authors' names, when there would normally be a comma. I have not found a way to fix that problem and that is one reason that I prefer to make the citations manually rather than with the templates. But I have worked with the templates currently in the article anyway (despite my own preferences). -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the proper authorities going to investigate the doctor(s) who prescribed the medications? ASSUMING that Ledger was upfront about his medical history with him/her/them, this might also be a case of malpractice. -- Northridge ( talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the sources already cited in the article; this talk page is for discussing making improvements to the article only, not for discussing the subject: see talk page header (tags at top) for further guidance. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
His first name is simply Heath, not Heathcliff. This mistake seems to have started (and spread) because of the story about Wuthering Heights etc. "Inspired by" doesn't mean having that name on your birth certificate or passport.
Ledger himself said in a Vanity Fair article that Heath wasn't short for Heathcliff:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2000/08/heath200008?currentPage=4
"Finally sitting down to a plate of meat loaf and potatoes—his curls blowing in the rising wind—he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath. But I do have an older sister named Kathy,” he says. “Well, Kate.”
In addition, his family's obituary notice, published in an Australian newspaper, read Heath Andrew and not Heathcliff Andrew.
Based on these things, I think it should be corrected in Wikipedia. 220.101.78.25 ( talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What actual formal "memorial service" (on the same order of those in Los Angeles, after the body was shipped there, where the parents and a limited number of close friends held their first memorial service prior to the one w/ Cruise et al.) taking place in New York?. Could you please cite a quotation from a source indicating what you are referring to? (See editing summary and change in article. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
People have been deleting sources that I used to document statements, and that is leading to confusions. Also, please stop deleting properly-documented (reliably and verifiably-sourced information) from the article. I see some attempt here to suppress information that makes Ledger's death more comprehensible in terms of "accident"; for example, the already-confirmed information that he was suffering from a respiratory ailment (cold or worse), which may explain why cold medication substances would have been found in his system along with sleep aids, etc. People seem to be tilting the article away toward the direction of addiction vs. accident, violating neutral point of view. Please allow dev. of well-documented information about subject (that he was very well liked and respected among his peers, colleagues, and fans) and please stop deleting the sources documenting such information in the article. The attempt to suppress the popularity and the widespread sadness at his death and that the subject was not feeling well due to having a cold or a more serious respiratory illness prior to his death is also not in keeping with neutral point of view. These phenomena are especially well documented in source after source. It violates both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:AGF to delete this material. Such material has been developed in the article in good faith. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above characterization of the following passage (and the sources that document its accuracy and pertinence) is false and misleading: (1) the statement summarizes the content of the article (3 sections of it at least); (2) the statement defines a phenomenon (the response to the subject's death) that is not only striking, but well sourced with reliable third-party sources (not original research and not the opinion of this or any other Wikipedia editor); (3) it is not describing Wikipedia editors' points of view, but rather documenting points of view that are actual on the subject: [see:
WP:POV and (pertinent guidance when the subject was still alive):
WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [It is not acceptable to delete well-sourced material just because it is positive any more than it is acceptable to delete well-sourced material about well-known
public figures just because it is negative. --
NYScholar (
talk)
04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I started a thread relating to a "Star of David" being located on Ledger's casket during his transit from the medical examiner's office to the Manhattan Funeral home. I even sourced CNN video footage. All of that has been deleted. The fact that he or his family had a religious preference is being suppressed by certain anti-religion fanatics who are deleting passages they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.143.12 ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
<< His untimely and unexpected loss resulted in expressions of grief and sadness from his family, friends, colleagues, and fans, interest in the public media, and heightened concerns about "the abuse of prescription medications." [1] [2] [3]
>>
:[I don't know why only the notes (1,2) from an earlier part of this talk page are showing up: something to do w/ prev. nn. section above in talk page disc. I may remove that section for time being, since that disc. is pretty much over now, and since I originated it; the note citations appear in preview mode or in section mode only right now in this sec. --
NYScholar (
talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)] [--
NYScholar (
talk)
07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, whoever has been deleting the sourced statements and their sources is also creating subsequent problems in later note citations. See the current version (red missing notes).
The quoted passage was added to the lead due to the previous template requesting further dev. of the lead. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style on leads. Paragraphs in the lead are supposed to refer to the content of the article (and the sources cited in the article to support its content). The statement that I added quoted above and repeatedly deleted from this article with unpleasant characterizations of it is warranted, given actual responses to Ledger's death, not just by members of his family and friends who knew him personally, but also by strangers who simply knew him through seeing his work in films or television and also his fans. The statements that document the enormous outpouring of public sadness about his loss (at least a hundred thousand comments in one location on the internet multiplied by several such sites) is a phenomenon that Wikipedia would consider "notable" and noteworthy enough to be discussed in this article. The source provided later documenting the point in relation to this matter has been deleted wholesale. That is careless editing at the least and wholly disrespectful, given the editing summaries and earlier explanations that I have clearly already made about the above passage (and earlier versions of it, also deleted wholesale with unpleasant editing summary remarks). WP:AGF. I will be restoring missing citations if the users who took them out and made these errors do not correct their own errors. WP:AGF -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As a separate point from NYScholar's: I do think that the article would benefit from a sentence or two about his place in New York life and the spontaneous response that New Yorkers had upon learning of the death. Ledger was a well-known figure in NYC and Brooklyn, often reported on in local media, and news of his death traveled quickly and resulted in large gatherings of fans outside of the Soho apartment, the Brooklyn residence, and eventually at the funeral home. This was widely reported and is clearly a part of the story - it was a significant public display that should be included here, at least as notable as the Prime Minister's statement. See for example this article - and there are other sources. Tvoz | talk 06:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that at some stage in the last month, the article was changed over to using US English spellings for words. This was in violation of the Manual Of Style, which says to keep the existing variety of English in an article unless there are strong national ties which warrant changing it to another form.
For the purposes of information and to save other people doing the digging through the history I did, the Australian English words "behaviour", "apologise" and "threatres" were used in the article from early 2006 onwards. Quite a long while later on, a stray "rumor" went into the article and stayed there until quite recently, along with the Australian English words. - Mark 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I encountered it for the first time--after Ledger's death on Jan. 22, 2008, this article has not been written predominantly in Australian English (which I am not familiar with), perhaps due to the greater involvement in its writing and editing by a variety of non-Australian English Wikipedians. Since his death, the article has taken on far greater than local (Australian) relevance. There is no rule in Wikipedia that a person's nationality governs the version of English used in the article about him or her. Please scroll up to earlier discussion and links provided. Thanks. (One should keep in mind that all quotations of Australian or other versions of English would be rendered as they are published in sources and certainly not altered. The writing of the article can, however, be in American English without any violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style--see earlier links. There is no Wikipedia requirement that this article be written in Autralian English and cultural biases of English versions is warned against in Wikipedia. Its English version needs to be wholly consistent (consistency of English version is a requirement in Wikipedia). [One has to keep in mind also that many native English speakers are not familiar enough with Australian English to use it in their own writing and editing; e.g., "centred" and "rumoured" are not familiar to many who use American English, whereas "centered" and "rumored" are; cf. honor and honour, as well, which also creates contentious debate in Wikipedia. One will need to look at the currently-prevailing version of English used in the article (not in quotations). what version makes most sense for this article now (since the subject's death), and try to maintain its usage consistently throughout the article. (Quotations from sources published in America that are in American English cannot be changed to some other version of English.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent. With all due respect to all editors either is fine but strong arguments can be made for both US and Aussie English. Personally I suggest a truce for now as this article will be heavily edited for several months. He was notably covered by the press while alive and those same outlets will cover many aspects of the death inquiry, movies he's in that are being released and news of his child, etc. Eventually it would be nice to agree that one or the other makes more sense. Benji boi 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I really look forward to the time when this calms down and we can start eliminating redundant citations. I don't think it's necessary to have two citations in the lede "proving" he died, and two more giving the cause of death, all four attached to the same sentence. Pairadox ( talk) 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not why each citation is there. Please read the sources and view the video that I cited earlier so that you know what they contribute to the article in way of documentation of statements. (Please don't harrass me on my talk page; I'm going to bed. Please don't add anything else to my talk page, as already requested. Make comments about improving an article here. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've repeatedly tagged to lede for improvement as it's too short. As there are some quite active editors please consider tackling this challenge (hint: it might help curb some vandalism too). See WP:LEDE for guidelines, essentially the lede (the intro part above the table of contents) should serve as an accurate overview of the article's contents and therefore of the subject itself. Benji boi 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
<<
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
>>
[To Benjiboi] The current lede is fine. I have no objection to it being expanded with encyclopaedic material but do object to it being tagged as being deficient in its current form. [To NYScholar], this is quite unsuitable. — Moondyne 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability should be addressed better. A second sentence should be inserted that he was consider a promising young actor with leading man potential or similar. Something that hints why he is a notable actor. Benji boi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"His death brought tributes from the Prime Minister of Australia, Warner Brothers, other Hollywood celebrities, and his fans worldwide." is not notable or needed. Instead remarking that his death was seen as tragic for a promising career would be better. Benji boi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would break out Brokeback Mountain into it's own sentence and mention his awards won, several that don't seem to be in the article yet as well as his Oscar nomination. Benji boi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I made some other additions to other parts, more minor typo. corrs., etc., but I still don't feel that I "own" this article. I'd be happy if others would work on the citations format; e.g., it's correct to have a comma after the author's or authors' names in normal order (first name, last name) in notes citations, as opposed to bibiog. refs. list (which is alphabetized). Unfortunately, the citation templates do not result in proper punctuation for notes and lead to inconsistencies. I originate citations in normal language w/o templates so as to control punctuation: name of author (first name, last name), title of article or book (in quotation marks or italics; if link given, end q. mark should post prior to symbol for link), title of work (newspaper, book, website, etc.) in italics, date of publication (wikified link), date accessed. I've been following "Retrieved on..." separated by period bec. so many of the other citations originated w/ templates have that format. In my own notes, I generally have a comma and then "accessed" and just the date (Wikified); no "on" is really nec. But I've deferred to the prevailing format already in this article ("Retrieved on...."). In the EL sec. I used the "Accessed" format bec. I originated the dates accessed. (I just don't prefer the word "Retrieved," which I find uglier than "Accessed.") -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Law enforcement officials confirm that the Drug Enforcement Administration has launched an investigation into how Ledger obtained the multiple prescription drugs that led to his accidental overdose. Reference here: Feds Involved in Investigating Heath's Death Tubesurfer ( talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In NY (ET) U.S., it is currently the subject of Larry King Live, a source (transcript when available) to be added to this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the DEA has an ongoing study of oxycondone-related deaths. [2] Chantessy 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a recent report here [3] on the service and funeral if an editor would like to work it in. Note that a cremation took place at Fremantle, not a burial at Karrakatta. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) And another ref [4] from The West Australian. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I read another article (cited recently), which may also already been in this article (please see the source about Williams attending funeral), in which it stated that cremation might occur prior to burial; it is possible to have both. [There could still be a graveside ceremony at the family plot cemetery with a marker next to his grandparents' graves (some time later).] But I'll check that source you cite in a moment. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I've checked it and see what you are referring to. I'll leave it to others to update the refs. to funeral and to make the corrections. It could be stated that the plans as originally reported changed. The funeral memorial service occurred earlier and differently than otherwise reported and that part of article needs revision based on this more current source. Thanks again. (updated after consulted article cited.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Added it [8]; hadn't realized that the other one had expired on Feb. 8, 2008; renewed vandalism. -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [added the link to req. -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, to those who did not notice earlier requests about not posting comments and requests about editing this article in my talk page: Please do not post requests about editing this article in my user talk page. Discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, so that other people can participate in the discussion too. If one wants help with providing additional source citations, please ask for it here. If the statements are not verifiable with source citations to reliable third-party published sources (not gossip and not fansites), the statements need to be deleted. (Please see the tagged template notices.) Thanks. I'm logging out of Wikipedia for the rest of the night and will not see responses posted here. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. There are some fact tags at the Heath Ledger article, are you able to fix that up? He was a lovely fellow, we should make the article as good as possible. Regards, cygnis insignis 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was not logged on to Wikipedia and just saw this message. Sorry that I cannot be of further help with this request. I have already spent way too much time documenting that article and attempting to make it "as good as possible." I am only checking into Wikipedia sporadically to check my very limited watch list (from which I have already deleted Heath Ledger and Talk:Heath Ledger. (See "busy" template and previous messages). Some time ago, I added the "fact" (missing citations) tags to items that were inserted by others without any sources cited to verify them. I don't know where the others got the material or if it is accurate. I suggest that you look at the editing history to find who added the statements originally and contact them on their talk pages. If one cannot verify the information claimed in the statements with reliable third-party published sources (creating citations for them in the currently-prevailing format [citation templates]), one should delete it entirely until one can. I will be archiving my talk page page on Monday, as stated above. Please see my "N.B." and ask for help on the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. (I am logging out of Wikipedia to have dinner and to continue doing other pressing non-Wikipedia related projects, etc.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [(Moved here.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would expand the movies discussion as that is what he's most known for. Each of the movies before Brokeback Mountain can point out what character, anything notable and what, if any awards. Benji boi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to quote corny journalism as 'fact'? Here's a less emotive report, if it must be included at all. [9] It was a wake, on Cottesloe beach, in warm weather - it was bound to end up in the water. • Florrie• leave a note• 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reworded the bit about his funeral. It seemed to imply that two of Ledger's grandparents are buried in the family plot at Fremantle Cemetery when in fact the plot in question is at Karrakatta. But we don't know they've actually done anything at Karrakatta, so it's a bit speculative. - Mark 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ledger's ashes will be interred in a family plot at the cemetery, next to those of two of his grandparents.
Every parameter on the template has an explanation (see Template:Infobox actor). That "Children" parameter is meant for children that are notable on their own right and not because of who their parents are. The parameter is not made for a number ("one daughter" with...). There are numerous examples, like Angelina Jolie, her children are far more notable than Matilda Ledger, and yet, because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, they are not mentioned on her infobox (see also Brad Pitt). Another example would be Jon Voight, he has two notable children, therefore it's ok to mention them in the infobox. I really don't see why i'm being reverted, just read the description and check out other big actors articles.-- Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly in the "don't mention her by name" camp here. No-one is arguing that her name isn't verifiable or that she hasn't been widely named in the tabloid media, but I do believe that minors who are non-notable in their own right deserve to have some privacy and protection. WP in not a tabloid newspaper and we shouldn't use standards there (which effectively is just "newsworthiness") as justification for our own standards. Per also Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. On the weekend there was a story about a fake death-threat against one of the Pitt-Jolie children. I would hate that we contribute in anyway in exposing another innocent for no good reason. As for speculation about future notability, that is crystal ballery and poor justification for the here and now. — Moondyne 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Her name is not currently in the infobox; previously, after the name was deleted earlier, I added "children" parameter: "one daughter (with Williams)"; that was more recently deleted and the section regarded this matter posted here by another user. Her name was mentioned explicitly in the article long before I began editing it (probably prior to Ledger's death, when WP:BLP strictly applied. Her name is used in public statements by Ledger's father and by Williams, which are cited in the sources for this article, and the name is given over and over in source citations used in the article, including by her late father in his interviews (citable and cited sources).
To imply that this Wikipedia article might "contribute in anyway [sic] in exposing another innocent for no good reason" by virtue of the mentioning of her name already in the many sources cited in the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core policy in editing articles in Wikipedia, as is WP:V#Sources: verifiability. There are repeated references to the name of the daughter (some quoting Ledger) in the article. This section applies only to including the parameter of "children" in the infobox (scroll up); the same parameter already exists in infoboxes of many celebrated people ("celebrities", public figures, in their Wikipedia articles. The article is not a "news" article; it is a biographical article about a recently-deceased celebrity actor, and it is common for the existence and the names of children to be in such biographical articles. See other articles: e.g., John Lennon, whose infobox is a musician box and longer than HL's and does not include his children's names, at least one of whom is an already-notable musician in his own right. It may be because there is so much else in the John Lennon infobox that such information about (notable) children is omitted from it (I haven't time to examine that article further to read its talk page) and also bec. "children" may not be a parameter used in musicians' inboxes (I don't know, I haven't time to check), though it is definitely a parameter used in writers' infoboxes Template: Infobox writer (as mentioned above), and many musicians and actors are also writers; John Lennon was a noted writer of lyrics and also an actor in films, and Heath Ledger was also involved in producing music videos and short films, though I don't know what his involvement was in the "writing" or composition of them (if any). Perhaps others want to look into finding sources that are citable for adding such matters. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering he was only 28 when he died and it being such a mysterious death I think its noteworthy to have extra attention toward it. Anytime someone young dies it is a big, big story. So I think its more relevant to have more attention placed toward it. Maybe in a few years someone can scale things back. - Airtuna08 ( talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please leave the photo credit to Howie_Berlin. According to the e-mail that I received from Mr. Berlin giving Wikipedia the rights to use the photo, he wants to be attributed for his work. This e-mail is in the OTRS queue as well. Thanks. miranda 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(Unident) Precisely. Not to mention complications arising from clauses attached through non-transparent means such as private communication. Dr.K. ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry about opening this can of worms. First, the license says CC-BY-SA, he will be attributed according to the pic. page according to the arguments above and not by my suggestion. Second, I am not getting or searching for any more freely licensed photos for this project anymore. Sorry. :-) miranda 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[Moved here from my talk page; it concerns editing article's images. See also editing history. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, we place images in the section for which they are relevant not to somehow avoid cutting into text, which, depending on user's preferences can vary greatly as some, including non-registered readers, minimize image size and others increase from there. Ergo we place images as if we were editing a featured article. Benji boi 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation, which I just noticed. In this case, the image does relate to both the previous section (see the title of the Wiki "news" template: "Memorial service" etc.) and the "Memorial tributes" section. I really don't see how placing the image two lines up is in any way contrary to Wikipedia MOS; I've seen many Wikipedia articles where the image is just above the heading so that it can post directly opposite the text. I may try to reduce the size of the caption (which I was last one to edit some time ago); shortening it is a plausible way to reduce the size of the image overall (the space it takes up). The MOS also suggests that the image size be parallel to that of the section. In this case it is too long and cuts into the next sec. (to which it is not relevant). [This exchange is relevant to the article talk page: Talk:Heath Ledger. -- NYScholar ( talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [I've just copied and moved it here.] -- NYScholar ( talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on domestic partnership, the term "domestic partner(s) in the Wikipedia Infobox actor used in this article does not refer only to "legal" domestic partnerships (only one kind of "domestic partnerships") as claimed in the editing summary visible here: Diffs. There is no limitation to the "legal" meaning of the term in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and it is used in many other infoboxes for actors. Williams and Ledger were engaged to be married, according to many cited sources, and they were " domestic partners" in the general-usage sense while they lived together in New York City, in the United States, where most states do not have a "legal" definition of the kind claimed in that editing history summary. See the article domestic partner. That change needs to be reverted; see Michelle Williams. There is no consensus for deleting the information from the infobox. There has been earlier debate about this matter; see the archived talk pages. In the state of New York, where Ledger and Williams lived together, "domestic partner" has a general meaning, not only a legal one. Please do not impose original research on the article. I've already linked to Domestic partnership in an earlier editing history summary. Please don't keep deleting correct information in the infobox actor for Heath Ledger Ledger. It is parallel to the infobox for Michelle Williams. Please see the parameter in Template:Infobox actor for "domestic partner(s)". Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Insert the names of the actor's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. ...
The parameter info is incorrect in this case; in New York City, Domestic Partner is a legally recognized class that confers specific rights and responsibilities. See Domestic partnerships in the United States#New York City for specifics. Pairadox ( talk) 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation is not consistent with the intention of the parameter in the infobox actor and violates WP:NOR. Williams is described throughout most news articles as Ledger's ex-fiancée and the "romantic relationship" is the one referred to in the infobox actor's parameter usage: it is a general usage of the term, not a legal usage of the term. Your original research is not pertinent to the intended use of the parameter (as it is defined) and your continual reverting of the information has no precedent in Infobox actor; please cite Wikipedia policy not original research. The citation of Template:Infobox actor is the pertinent citation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Insert the names of the actor's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. Use the format:
FirstName Surname (Year–Year) ... Note: If still together, use "present" in place of the end year (
). (source:
Template:Infobox actor)
(The continual reversions are verging on violating WP:3RR.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Other recent reversions of properly-documented third-party published source information, with proper citations, are also not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not reverting the reversions so as not to be accused of violations of WP:3RR. But I object to the continual reversions of the information that I have supplied properly. The deleted information is not "rumor" as claimed in the editing history summaries; it is based on and quotes family members in third party published sources, in that case The New York Post. Much of the information in this article comes from tabliod newspapers published in Australia and elsewhere. It is hypocritical to claim that recent additions are "rumor," when they are not. The information is repeated throughout many other third-party published sources as based on ["a statement"] (public statement issued by) the cited primary source, Ledger's father, Kim Ledger, who is hardly participating in rumor-mongering, as implied in that editing summary. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been retracted in several newpapers and magazines that there were not pills "strewn about the room" in which he was found. The police report itself states that there were several pill bottles on the nightstand. Please correct this as it really makes it look worse than it is and it is irresposible to repeat something that was in in the tabloids. While I understand that Wiki can be inaccurate, this statement is just wrong. I can't give you the names of the correct reporting services unfortunately, but I believe The New York Times corrected their statement about the condiftion of the room and several others as well. Thx so much for this page by the way. Good job! Barb 3-15-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, March 15, 2008 (UTC)
Opps, did I miss something? when I went back to the page, the text above was gone. Maybe I was looking at a chached page? Sorry..Barb —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, March 15, 2008 (UTC); 11:33, March 15, 2008 (UTC)
[Please sign comments using four tildes: scroll up to top of page for guidelines. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[I've added the templates & reconstructed info. from editing hist. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This article still needs more work in my view; it is still too dependent on rumors and tabloid journalism sources. Its sources are in many cases tabloid newspapers that rely on anonymous sources in their reporting and that convey unsupported rumors.
Frequently, when one tries to update this article with reliable third-party published sources, the updated information is being deleted with what appear to me to be explanations that are not supported by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines for editing. The current infobox template is an example; one cannot just make up one's own rules and regulations; the descriptions in the template box for the parameters are explicit. There is no requirement for "legal" meaning of " Domestic partnership" ("domestic partner(s)") in the parameter of that infobox: Template:Infobox actor; it makes clear that the parameter refers to "romantic relationships" in a more general sense. The same editor keeps removing the information about Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger being "domestic partners" (in the meaning defined by the parameter in the Infobox template: Template: Infobox actor) and trying to impose a "legal" meaning on it every time another editor tries to restore it. That violates the definition in the parameter for Infobox actor. There is no consensus for that reversion. This correction is still needed. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [The references to "legal" definitions of Domestic partnership or "domestic partners" in New York City pertain to employers' granting of benefits to those filing for them--not pertinent to the usage of "domestic partner(s)" in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and the references to them in relation to Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams are pure speculation based on original research not permissible in Wikipedia articles. For those truly interested in what constitutes the meaning of the term in various geographical "jurisdictions", one can do one's own reading; e.g., Human Rights Issues: Domestic Partnerships. That is not relevant to the definition of the parameter in Template:Infobox actor. For readers of this article, given the content of the article and its references to Michelle Williams, including her in the infobox is not only accurate and not only in keeping with Wikipedia's own definition of the parameter in the infobox actor, but it is also helpful.
It is absurd to keep deleting Michelle Williams' name from "domestic partner(s)" in the Infobox, citing non-pertinent information about "domestic partnerships" in New York City (or elsewhere). Most news accounts (including those published in Australia in March 2008) refer to Williams as Ledger's "partner" or former "partner" or former fiancée based on the knowledge that they had a daughter together and were in a committed relationship for approx. three years and lived together both in New York City and wherever they went during the period of 2005 to 2007 (two years). That is documented by the reliable third-party sources in the article. It is not speculation.
We do not know what their legal arrangements were while they had a domicile together in New York City. We do not know the arrangements on their legal papers concerning their townhouse (in which Williams was living prior to Ledger's moving from there into Manhattan); to do "original research" about these matters or to claim that one knows otherwise without giving reliable third-party sources actually pertaining to Ledger and Williams is out of bounds in this article and violates WP:LOP. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
See opposition to an attempt to change the meaning of the parameter in the talk page of Template:Infobox actor Domestic Partner, posted by an editor of this article, relating to the editing dispute re: Infoboxes of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams deriving from this article. See also: WP:AGF. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Note well (to prevent further confusion and further insertions of false information): The birth name of the subject is "Heath Andrew Ledger"; as well documented in this article's reliable sources and legal documents cited in it; it is not and never was "Heathcliff". See current note 18, e.g. -- NYScholar ( talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Another name regularly used for him was Heathcliff (perhaps his full birth first name?) Anyway this should be mentioned in the article and explained in the article, i.e. is it a birth name or what? Perhaps the character Heathcliff was just an inspiration for his being given the name Heath. Either way the other name is used in some reliable sources, such as [10] and should be mentioned/explained. I can't do the type of refs mentioned on the article, I kept trying to copy the others but it just came out as jibberish, or I would add it myself. Merkin's mum 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
From the horses mouth: Per Vanity Fair interview: "... he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath.” he says." — Moondyne click! 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Has been deleted. See archived discussions and WP:LOP for editing policies and guidelines as well as the template messages at the top of this page. Please don't reinsert such content. Notable content and reliable third-party published sources documenting it are necessary throughout Wikipedia articles: see espec. WP:CITE for related links pertaining to reliable sources. See also: WP:BLP regarding living persons who are subjects of articles in Wikipedia or who are mentioned in articles about dead persons in Wikipedia. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a fansite; please also see WP:EL. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not keep adding that source to the EL sec.; doing so violates WP:EL. It is already being used as a source (twice) in the text. See current note citation 3. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a Request Persian version of Heath ledger has been Featured Article I request from Administrators that add {{ Link FA}} Thank you Ladsgroup ( talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article in Persian Wikipedia has been selected as Featured article. Please one of the admins add the {{Link FA|fa}} to interwikis. -- Kaaveh ( talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Links to Michelle Williams currently lead to disambiguation page for Michelle Williams (actress) and Michelle Williams (singer). Can someone repair these as edits seem to be protected? Somerut ( talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Hi, please amend the wikilink for Michelle Williams in the section Heath Ledger#Effects of work on health: sleep disturbances to point to Michelle Williams (actress)? Thank you! Banje boi 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I realise that this article has endured frequent bouts of vandalism and needs to be protected. But for how long and at what cost and under what rationale? Obviously the theory is that the vandals need a cooling-off period. But who's to say how long this period should be or if it is even effective against determined and resolute vandals prepared for the long haul. Is there any plan in place to allow some edting in the near future? Dr.K. ( talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently learned that heath's mom was a race car driver. Does anyone know what type of racing she was into wheter it was single seater / open wheel racing or other types of racing? I think this may further enlighten the article regarding Heath's early life.
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this part of the "biography" not "rumors?" (Yet it has been left in the article, whereas the more recent information has been deleted):
In September, 2007, Williams' father, Larry Williams, confirmed to Sydney's Daily Telegraph that Ledger and Williams had ended their relationship. [1] Subsequently, Ledger was reportedly "seeing" or "dating" supermodels Helena Christensen and Gemma Ward and former child-star Mary-Kate Olsen. [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support votes needed by Registered members of Wikiquote for Heath Ledger to reach Quote of the Day for 18 July 2008. This is the release date in the USA for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight (film). The quote was made just before his death as he reflected on how he would wish to be remembered when he did die. Support votes with a score of between 1 and 5 will help it to be considered for usage as Quote of the Day located here at Wikiquote: [ [12]]
When I die, my money's not gonna come with me. My movies will live on for people to judge what I was as a person. I just want to stay curious. ~ Interview for London's Sunday Telegraph magazine, November 2007 [13]
Boylo ( talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Only a few more votes are needed for Heath's quote to appear on the frontpage of Wikiquote on the day of the release of The Dark Knight so get your vote in now before its too late.
Ranking system:
4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. 3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used. 2 : Good - some desire to see it used. 1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used. 0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.
Boylo ( talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
With support it made Wikiquote of the day for July 18, 2008 : Wikiquote of the Day Boylo ( talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an extra space (line) between the sections "Memorial tributes" and "Controversy over will" which has needed deletion since this article was fully protected. Could an administrator remove it? Thank you for this assistance. -- NYScholar ( talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also: titles of films are not italicized until they are "published"; completed and released and/or screened publicly; some of the titles in the article need to have quotation marks around them, not italics; The Dark Knight has already been screened (is, in effect, published; its release date is mid-July); Gilliam's film, however, is not expected to be released until 2009; it is still a work in preparation and thus "/" are used for its title. Please make such corrections in the lead and throughout the article's text and, if applicable, the filmography, if possible. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ledger's death affected the marketing campaign for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight[10][5] and also both the production and marketing of Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and both directors intend their films to celebrate and pay tribute to Ledger's work in them.[10][8][9][57] Although Gilliam temporarily suspended production on the latter film,[9] he expressed determination to "salvage" it, perhaps using computer-generated imagery (CGI), and plans to dedicate it to the memory of Heath Ledger.[116][82] In February 2008 actors Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell signed on to take over Ledger's role, becoming multiple incarnations of his character, Tony, transformed in the "magical" world of the film, in part as a "tribute" to Ledger.[117][118][119][115]
Should the "tribute" be changed to just plain tribute? As it stands it seems sceptical/ironic. Should Wikipedia pass judgement over the sincerity of the named actors? --Reidar Chr. L. Guttormsen (couldnt remember my username) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.48.48 ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
These are direct quotations; the phrases come from the source cited in the first note citation: "tribute" is from the title of the source and "magical" is from the text of the source; these are not so-called scare quotes; please examine the source before removing direct quotations from it. that it doesn't "look quite right" is not a reason to remove properly-used quotation marks from a source that is being used to document a statement. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The exact phrase from the source cited is "memorial tribute"; I added memorial before tribute. The quotations are properly punctuated now. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The quotation marks were not being used to "emphasize" anything; they are direct quotations from the source as per WP:MOS. Please see the difference between direct quotation punctuation and so-called scare quotes, which these are not. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Today I thought of another way to present these quotations, extending one so that the confusion of those posting above might be eliminated entirely. Hope this suffices. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
With the debut of The Dark Knight there will be renewed attention on Heath, his amazing talent, and of course the cause of his death. It's so very important that people learn that drugs don't have to interact to cause harm and loss of life. But this tragic accident can help save the 4,000 people who die each week due to adverse drug effects. We never hear about most of them, only the celebrities in the public eye, like Heath. In the section on Heath Ledger's death we would like to post a medical informatics graphic, with corresponding text, that reveals the causative factors underlying Heath's tragic death from the additive toxicities of the medications he was on. Our medical informatics software (www.pharmasurveyor.com) generated this graphic from data licensed from First Data Bank, used by over half of American hospitals in their clinical systems and pharmacies. Also, the Stanford University Professor of Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology, Dr. Terrence Blaschke, who was interviewed by Newsweek following Heath's death, is a member of PharmaSURVEYOR's medical advisory board. The medical informatics graphic we have in mind can be seen at www.heathledgerdrugs.com .
We'd like some feedback on this idea and suggestions of how to do it in accordance with written and unwritten Wikipedia policy and conventions. ErickVonS ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Banjeboi. I see that there are two related articles to adverse drug reactions ( Adverse_drug_reaction and Adverse_effect_(medicine)). I will look into adding our content there and then return here to provide a link back to those sections. Btw, are you the main editor of the Heath Ledger article? ErickVonS ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
For consistency of the format in the EL sec., one should use the actual title of the webpage, which is "Celebrity Drug Cocktail - Heath Ledger" and perhaps add the annotation "Speculative chart of side effects and interactions of Ledger's prescription drugs", but only include that link if it is in keeping with WP:EL, which refers to WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources (which still pertains to an article about a recently-deceased person in which other living persons are named and to what might be considered "controversial" material in such an article). I think more discussion of the nature of the source of this link (is it self-published, third-party published, how "reliable" is it); I haven't checked it out yet, but, as I will not be able to do so further, perhaps others will weigh in on the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of including it. It does not seem particular "encyclopedic" to me, but rather tabloid-like in its focus and it might appear to be sensationalistic. The site is called "heathledgerdrugs.com", and it appears to be self-published by the person listed on the home page of the sponsor of this page: Pharmasurveyor.com. What is the actual expertise of the person listed who created this site and is it considered a "reliable" link to include according to WP:EL, or not? I think it looks rather dubious, and, as I say, sensationalistic and not "encyclopedic" for an article about a recently-deceased celebrity that should be presenting reliable material about him. This does not appear to be an actual "scientific" site, with widespread recognition, or a mainstream medical site; it appears to be more like fansites than the kind of links and sources in keeping with WP:V. Are the claims presented in it verifiable and cited by other verifiable third-party (respectable) "mainstream" publications? [See also: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.] (I think that this site may have already been rejected as an EL or source in the past, in the winter of 2008.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Entertainment/Detail?contentId=5695576&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=7.1.1 EsocksLAMB ( talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I spent a good deal of time a few weeks ago seeking out citations for unsourced text and getting all of the references that had been haphazardly entered here into a consistent format, using the "cite" templates that predominated. When I finished, the whole article was consistently using the templates, and there was an exchange here on talk about citation format. I see that since then another 25+ citations were added without the cite template formats - this is inconsistent and something needs to be fixed. (There are at least 50 - twice as many - already in the cite format.) If there is a citation format already in place, proposing a change in format is fine here on Talk, but just adding new cites in a different format than has been established leaves something of a mess to be cleaned up. I'm willing to work on changing the smaller number of new ones to the cite template, and I hope others will help out in that task, but there needs to be some agreement about this going forward. I prefer the templates for their consistency in the way the references display, and the increased likelihood that all of the relevant fields, such as access date, are included. And now from a practical point of view, it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense for someone to have to go through the article and change over 50 citations to a different format, for no clear advantage that I can see. To be upfront about it, I'm not really willing to put that kind of work into undoing all of the work I did previously, but maybe someone else is, if we reach consensus on making that wholesale change. See talk archive for an exchange about citation style between Miranda and me that no one raised any objection to, and see WP:CITE for the need for consistency. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) (ec) NYScholar, that is your opinion and your preference but obviously the wikipedia community has differing views on the subject. What works well for you might be disruptive to someone who needs consistent formatting as they are visually impaired so use an interpretive device. Also your system can be seen, by me at least, as quite hard to sort through as it's not standardized to either of the standard formats i regularly encounter on wikipedia. Benji boi 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Well, I'm certainly not inexperienced nor did I suggest that templates are required. I specifically said that the goal is consistency of style within an article, not across the encyclopedia, and I'm quite aware that different groups of editors use different styles to achieve the same consistent results. My experience has been that a much more serious problem with free-style referencing than commas is that there's no consistency in order of words or inclusion of required data. Not saying yours are entered inconsistently as I haven't looked, but a big advantage of the templates is that it doesn't matter what order you add the fields - they are adjusted accordingly and are therefore consistent within the article - and the template form serves as a reminder to include them all. I don't in fact use the physical templates - I know the fields and include them all manually, but I don't worry about whether I've punctuated or ordered them properly because that's automated, which actually saves, not wastes, a lot of time. And use of the cite format makes it easier to check other peoples' citations. That's my preference, and all I am raising here is that we ought to come to an agreement about what style will be used - as of a few weeks ago it was consistent, and now it is not at all, and you mentioned upstream that you preferred a different style and were using it. I'm not sure who you think should now or later go in to fix the rest and bring them in line with your preferred style, but seeing as there are over 50 in the cite format and 28 in various freestyle formats (at last count earlier today), logic would suggest that it's easier to convert the few than the many. Which is why I raised this. of course I don't think this is nearly as important as getting the facts straight, using good writing, and keeping the vandalism away, but before it gets completely out of hand I think this should be considered. Not everyone has internalized the rules of referencing, as anyone who reads student papers knows, and so it seems to me that any help that can be offered in the form of templates for this is positive. An aside - semi-protection from new and IP editors seems appropriate for now, but I very much doubt we'll add full protection to this article as it's very rarely done, and correctly so. Tvoz | talk 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the "refs" format that I have used for sources that I have added to this article is consistent. Others may not be. The citations templates are a mixed lot, with variations among them. Some used "work", some used "publisher" [interchangeably instead of "publication" or "journal" (which pertains to periodical titles such as those of newspapers)], resulting in problematic punctuation in linked titles of newspapers, e.g.,; I tried to regularize some of them, but I have not got time to do that with all of them. Given the large number of source citations that I formatted for this article, which are all correctly ordered and punctuated (up until "Retrieved" etc.), I prefer continuing with them; I will not convert them all to citation templates that I do not prefer to use (espec. since others could easily introduce further errors in them via deletions, reversions, etc., which occur often in this article). The coding is essential for repeated citations: "ref name=..." does not require use of quotation marks before the short name inserted and does not require any space before the "/". I've already provided [Wikipedia link to Wikipedia's own] clearcut explanation of how to construct a "ref" note format in Wikipedia: it is very simple to do and the note takes up far less space than a template does (as mentioned in material at Wikipedia:Footnotes. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [If someone else is going to change all the notes in this article to one consistent template citation format, down the road, after all that work is done, if that one consistent template citation format is this article's "prevailing format," then the rest of us would have to follow it. But with the "ref" format I've used, I'd just point out, "if it ain't broke" it doesn't need to be "fixed." That format is correct and exists throughout many Wikipedia articles without any contention at all. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [added bracketed info about one problem throughout current citation templates in this article; there are other inconsistencies; choice of wrong templates given type of publication, for example. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
P's changes are losing all the quotation marks around titles (proper punctuation of article titles); all the italics around titles of newspapers ("publications", not "publishers"); and presenting dates of publication within parentheses in odd places at times; I've asked for greater care if one is going to convert these source citations in the notes to "citation templates"; there are multiple citation templates to choose from that match different types of sources, and one must choose the ones properly so that the punctuation of titles of articles and titles of works in which they are published (publications) is accurate. Right now, the way P. is making these changes is erroneous. -- NYScholar ( talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am actually a professional bibliographer and academic professor who teaches the subject of research writing; I see no value when not using a consistent APA or ACS or MLA or Harvard referencing format in using templates that use last name, first name if one is not creating an alphabetized list of references (a "bibliography"). The purpose of last name first is for alphabetizing. If one chooses an "author" field in a citation template and just inserts the normal order of the author's name or authors' names after the = sign, then it will post properly, first name, then middle initial, then last name. One does not need to use the "first" and "last" name fields; even the citation templates have this option (see this article where such features in citation templates result in normal order). -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments are about improving this article by correcting errors currently still in the citation template formats (which are still inconsistent); some use "author =", which posts properly (first name, initial [if any], then last name); some use "first name =" and then "last name =" which posts in reverse order. "Staff writer" uses "author =" and so on. I tried to regularize (make consistent) but ran into a problem w/ a missing code; so I'm leaving it to others to regularize and make consistent the use of citation templates throughout (since that format is what has been chosen [thus far due to deletions of my citations formatting]. The editors who introduced the errors into the templates need to correct their errors, which are resulting in inconsistencies. Dates of publication must match actual dates of publication; dates of access must match actual dates of access; if you reverse the numbers, they will post incorrectly and confuse us all. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Last night I went through for several hours and converted the citation templates in several ways, namely:
The citation templates are not perfect, and are ambiguous of what to do with, for example, multiple authors (surname first, or what?). However, I think it's better to use the citation templates than not, because one day in the future the developers may decide to code in some functionality that takes the fields from the citation templates and allows people to choose a preferred referencing format in their preferences, and automatically reorganise the information in the template according to those preferences (kind of like how [[June 12]], [[2004]] automatically reorganises itself to "[[June 12|12 June]] [[2004]]" when I'm viewing it). - Mark 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. I have, however, found further inconsistencies and also one template that was embedded and not in vertical manner (which I fixed). The "column" or "section" is not supposed to come before the title of the publication (newspaper); it follows the date, with the page no. following that (in standard bibliog. format). Using "work" field for section (column) is incorrect. The "Late Edition" for one NYT ref. citation was incorrectly placed as well: that belongs at the end of a ref. citation in note (I placed it after a page ref.) It is generally no longer nec. to use "p." or "pp." in giving page refs.; also, since one is citing the online version of the newspaper, giving the page ref. is misleading. (I know that I am using the online version of the NYT for that citation, even though I have the paper copy of the NYT in most cases; don't recall if I have the NYT for Jan. 22 somewhere.) When the citation templates are imperfect (which they are), one has to make adjustments manually. It is not possible to render punctuation correctly with these templates in the case of author and coauthors. The templates create a semicolon where there is in most citation style formats a comma and they place a period after an author's name or authors' names, when there would normally be a comma. I have not found a way to fix that problem and that is one reason that I prefer to make the citations manually rather than with the templates. But I have worked with the templates currently in the article anyway (despite my own preferences). -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the proper authorities going to investigate the doctor(s) who prescribed the medications? ASSUMING that Ledger was upfront about his medical history with him/her/them, this might also be a case of malpractice. -- Northridge ( talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the sources already cited in the article; this talk page is for discussing making improvements to the article only, not for discussing the subject: see talk page header (tags at top) for further guidance. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
His first name is simply Heath, not Heathcliff. This mistake seems to have started (and spread) because of the story about Wuthering Heights etc. "Inspired by" doesn't mean having that name on your birth certificate or passport.
Ledger himself said in a Vanity Fair article that Heath wasn't short for Heathcliff:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2000/08/heath200008?currentPage=4
"Finally sitting down to a plate of meat loaf and potatoes—his curls blowing in the rising wind—he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath. But I do have an older sister named Kathy,” he says. “Well, Kate.”
In addition, his family's obituary notice, published in an Australian newspaper, read Heath Andrew and not Heathcliff Andrew.
Based on these things, I think it should be corrected in Wikipedia. 220.101.78.25 ( talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What actual formal "memorial service" (on the same order of those in Los Angeles, after the body was shipped there, where the parents and a limited number of close friends held their first memorial service prior to the one w/ Cruise et al.) taking place in New York?. Could you please cite a quotation from a source indicating what you are referring to? (See editing summary and change in article. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
People have been deleting sources that I used to document statements, and that is leading to confusions. Also, please stop deleting properly-documented (reliably and verifiably-sourced information) from the article. I see some attempt here to suppress information that makes Ledger's death more comprehensible in terms of "accident"; for example, the already-confirmed information that he was suffering from a respiratory ailment (cold or worse), which may explain why cold medication substances would have been found in his system along with sleep aids, etc. People seem to be tilting the article away toward the direction of addiction vs. accident, violating neutral point of view. Please allow dev. of well-documented information about subject (that he was very well liked and respected among his peers, colleagues, and fans) and please stop deleting the sources documenting such information in the article. The attempt to suppress the popularity and the widespread sadness at his death and that the subject was not feeling well due to having a cold or a more serious respiratory illness prior to his death is also not in keeping with neutral point of view. These phenomena are especially well documented in source after source. It violates both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:AGF to delete this material. Such material has been developed in the article in good faith. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above characterization of the following passage (and the sources that document its accuracy and pertinence) is false and misleading: (1) the statement summarizes the content of the article (3 sections of it at least); (2) the statement defines a phenomenon (the response to the subject's death) that is not only striking, but well sourced with reliable third-party sources (not original research and not the opinion of this or any other Wikipedia editor); (3) it is not describing Wikipedia editors' points of view, but rather documenting points of view that are actual on the subject: [see:
WP:POV and (pertinent guidance when the subject was still alive):
WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [It is not acceptable to delete well-sourced material just because it is positive any more than it is acceptable to delete well-sourced material about well-known
public figures just because it is negative. --
NYScholar (
talk)
04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I started a thread relating to a "Star of David" being located on Ledger's casket during his transit from the medical examiner's office to the Manhattan Funeral home. I even sourced CNN video footage. All of that has been deleted. The fact that he or his family had a religious preference is being suppressed by certain anti-religion fanatics who are deleting passages they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.143.12 ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
<< His untimely and unexpected loss resulted in expressions of grief and sadness from his family, friends, colleagues, and fans, interest in the public media, and heightened concerns about "the abuse of prescription medications." [1] [2] [3]
>>
:[I don't know why only the notes (1,2) from an earlier part of this talk page are showing up: something to do w/ prev. nn. section above in talk page disc. I may remove that section for time being, since that disc. is pretty much over now, and since I originated it; the note citations appear in preview mode or in section mode only right now in this sec. --
NYScholar (
talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)] [--
NYScholar (
talk)
07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, whoever has been deleting the sourced statements and their sources is also creating subsequent problems in later note citations. See the current version (red missing notes).
The quoted passage was added to the lead due to the previous template requesting further dev. of the lead. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style on leads. Paragraphs in the lead are supposed to refer to the content of the article (and the sources cited in the article to support its content). The statement that I added quoted above and repeatedly deleted from this article with unpleasant characterizations of it is warranted, given actual responses to Ledger's death, not just by members of his family and friends who knew him personally, but also by strangers who simply knew him through seeing his work in films or television and also his fans. The statements that document the enormous outpouring of public sadness about his loss (at least a hundred thousand comments in one location on the internet multiplied by several such sites) is a phenomenon that Wikipedia would consider "notable" and noteworthy enough to be discussed in this article. The source provided later documenting the point in relation to this matter has been deleted wholesale. That is careless editing at the least and wholly disrespectful, given the editing summaries and earlier explanations that I have clearly already made about the above passage (and earlier versions of it, also deleted wholesale with unpleasant editing summary remarks). WP:AGF. I will be restoring missing citations if the users who took them out and made these errors do not correct their own errors. WP:AGF -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As a separate point from NYScholar's: I do think that the article would benefit from a sentence or two about his place in New York life and the spontaneous response that New Yorkers had upon learning of the death. Ledger was a well-known figure in NYC and Brooklyn, often reported on in local media, and news of his death traveled quickly and resulted in large gatherings of fans outside of the Soho apartment, the Brooklyn residence, and eventually at the funeral home. This was widely reported and is clearly a part of the story - it was a significant public display that should be included here, at least as notable as the Prime Minister's statement. See for example this article - and there are other sources. Tvoz | talk 06:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that at some stage in the last month, the article was changed over to using US English spellings for words. This was in violation of the Manual Of Style, which says to keep the existing variety of English in an article unless there are strong national ties which warrant changing it to another form.
For the purposes of information and to save other people doing the digging through the history I did, the Australian English words "behaviour", "apologise" and "threatres" were used in the article from early 2006 onwards. Quite a long while later on, a stray "rumor" went into the article and stayed there until quite recently, along with the Australian English words. - Mark 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I encountered it for the first time--after Ledger's death on Jan. 22, 2008, this article has not been written predominantly in Australian English (which I am not familiar with), perhaps due to the greater involvement in its writing and editing by a variety of non-Australian English Wikipedians. Since his death, the article has taken on far greater than local (Australian) relevance. There is no rule in Wikipedia that a person's nationality governs the version of English used in the article about him or her. Please scroll up to earlier discussion and links provided. Thanks. (One should keep in mind that all quotations of Australian or other versions of English would be rendered as they are published in sources and certainly not altered. The writing of the article can, however, be in American English without any violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style--see earlier links. There is no Wikipedia requirement that this article be written in Autralian English and cultural biases of English versions is warned against in Wikipedia. Its English version needs to be wholly consistent (consistency of English version is a requirement in Wikipedia). [One has to keep in mind also that many native English speakers are not familiar enough with Australian English to use it in their own writing and editing; e.g., "centred" and "rumoured" are not familiar to many who use American English, whereas "centered" and "rumored" are; cf. honor and honour, as well, which also creates contentious debate in Wikipedia. One will need to look at the currently-prevailing version of English used in the article (not in quotations). what version makes most sense for this article now (since the subject's death), and try to maintain its usage consistently throughout the article. (Quotations from sources published in America that are in American English cannot be changed to some other version of English.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Outdent. With all due respect to all editors either is fine but strong arguments can be made for both US and Aussie English. Personally I suggest a truce for now as this article will be heavily edited for several months. He was notably covered by the press while alive and those same outlets will cover many aspects of the death inquiry, movies he's in that are being released and news of his child, etc. Eventually it would be nice to agree that one or the other makes more sense. Benji boi 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I really look forward to the time when this calms down and we can start eliminating redundant citations. I don't think it's necessary to have two citations in the lede "proving" he died, and two more giving the cause of death, all four attached to the same sentence. Pairadox ( talk) 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not why each citation is there. Please read the sources and view the video that I cited earlier so that you know what they contribute to the article in way of documentation of statements. (Please don't harrass me on my talk page; I'm going to bed. Please don't add anything else to my talk page, as already requested. Make comments about improving an article here. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've repeatedly tagged to lede for improvement as it's too short. As there are some quite active editors please consider tackling this challenge (hint: it might help curb some vandalism too). See WP:LEDE for guidelines, essentially the lede (the intro part above the table of contents) should serve as an accurate overview of the article's contents and therefore of the subject itself. Benji boi 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
<<
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
>>
[To Benjiboi] The current lede is fine. I have no objection to it being expanded with encyclopaedic material but do object to it being tagged as being deficient in its current form. [To NYScholar], this is quite unsuitable. — Moondyne 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability should be addressed better. A second sentence should be inserted that he was consider a promising young actor with leading man potential or similar. Something that hints why he is a notable actor. Benji boi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"His death brought tributes from the Prime Minister of Australia, Warner Brothers, other Hollywood celebrities, and his fans worldwide." is not notable or needed. Instead remarking that his death was seen as tragic for a promising career would be better. Benji boi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would break out Brokeback Mountain into it's own sentence and mention his awards won, several that don't seem to be in the article yet as well as his Oscar nomination. Benji boi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I made some other additions to other parts, more minor typo. corrs., etc., but I still don't feel that I "own" this article. I'd be happy if others would work on the citations format; e.g., it's correct to have a comma after the author's or authors' names in normal order (first name, last name) in notes citations, as opposed to bibiog. refs. list (which is alphabetized). Unfortunately, the citation templates do not result in proper punctuation for notes and lead to inconsistencies. I originate citations in normal language w/o templates so as to control punctuation: name of author (first name, last name), title of article or book (in quotation marks or italics; if link given, end q. mark should post prior to symbol for link), title of work (newspaper, book, website, etc.) in italics, date of publication (wikified link), date accessed. I've been following "Retrieved on..." separated by period bec. so many of the other citations originated w/ templates have that format. In my own notes, I generally have a comma and then "accessed" and just the date (Wikified); no "on" is really nec. But I've deferred to the prevailing format already in this article ("Retrieved on...."). In the EL sec. I used the "Accessed" format bec. I originated the dates accessed. (I just don't prefer the word "Retrieved," which I find uglier than "Accessed.") -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Law enforcement officials confirm that the Drug Enforcement Administration has launched an investigation into how Ledger obtained the multiple prescription drugs that led to his accidental overdose. Reference here: Feds Involved in Investigating Heath's Death Tubesurfer ( talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In NY (ET) U.S., it is currently the subject of Larry King Live, a source (transcript when available) to be added to this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the DEA has an ongoing study of oxycondone-related deaths. [2] Chantessy 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a recent report here [3] on the service and funeral if an editor would like to work it in. Note that a cremation took place at Fremantle, not a burial at Karrakatta. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) And another ref [4] from The West Australian. • Florrie• leave a note• 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I read another article (cited recently), which may also already been in this article (please see the source about Williams attending funeral), in which it stated that cremation might occur prior to burial; it is possible to have both. [There could still be a graveside ceremony at the family plot cemetery with a marker next to his grandparents' graves (some time later).] But I'll check that source you cite in a moment. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I've checked it and see what you are referring to. I'll leave it to others to update the refs. to funeral and to make the corrections. It could be stated that the plans as originally reported changed. The funeral memorial service occurred earlier and differently than otherwise reported and that part of article needs revision based on this more current source. Thanks again. (updated after consulted article cited.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Added it [8]; hadn't realized that the other one had expired on Feb. 8, 2008; renewed vandalism. -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [added the link to req. -- NYScholar ( talk) 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, to those who did not notice earlier requests about not posting comments and requests about editing this article in my talk page: Please do not post requests about editing this article in my user talk page. Discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, so that other people can participate in the discussion too. If one wants help with providing additional source citations, please ask for it here. If the statements are not verifiable with source citations to reliable third-party published sources (not gossip and not fansites), the statements need to be deleted. (Please see the tagged template notices.) Thanks. I'm logging out of Wikipedia for the rest of the night and will not see responses posted here. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. There are some fact tags at the Heath Ledger article, are you able to fix that up? He was a lovely fellow, we should make the article as good as possible. Regards, cygnis insignis 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was not logged on to Wikipedia and just saw this message. Sorry that I cannot be of further help with this request. I have already spent way too much time documenting that article and attempting to make it "as good as possible." I am only checking into Wikipedia sporadically to check my very limited watch list (from which I have already deleted Heath Ledger and Talk:Heath Ledger. (See "busy" template and previous messages). Some time ago, I added the "fact" (missing citations) tags to items that were inserted by others without any sources cited to verify them. I don't know where the others got the material or if it is accurate. I suggest that you look at the editing history to find who added the statements originally and contact them on their talk pages. If one cannot verify the information claimed in the statements with reliable third-party published sources (creating citations for them in the currently-prevailing format [citation templates]), one should delete it entirely until one can. I will be archiving my talk page page on Monday, as stated above. Please see my "N.B." and ask for help on the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. (I am logging out of Wikipedia to have dinner and to continue doing other pressing non-Wikipedia related projects, etc.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [(Moved here.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would expand the movies discussion as that is what he's most known for. Each of the movies before Brokeback Mountain can point out what character, anything notable and what, if any awards. Benji boi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to quote corny journalism as 'fact'? Here's a less emotive report, if it must be included at all. [9] It was a wake, on Cottesloe beach, in warm weather - it was bound to end up in the water. • Florrie• leave a note• 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reworded the bit about his funeral. It seemed to imply that two of Ledger's grandparents are buried in the family plot at Fremantle Cemetery when in fact the plot in question is at Karrakatta. But we don't know they've actually done anything at Karrakatta, so it's a bit speculative. - Mark 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ledger's ashes will be interred in a family plot at the cemetery, next to those of two of his grandparents.
Every parameter on the template has an explanation (see Template:Infobox actor). That "Children" parameter is meant for children that are notable on their own right and not because of who their parents are. The parameter is not made for a number ("one daughter" with...). There are numerous examples, like Angelina Jolie, her children are far more notable than Matilda Ledger, and yet, because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, they are not mentioned on her infobox (see also Brad Pitt). Another example would be Jon Voight, he has two notable children, therefore it's ok to mention them in the infobox. I really don't see why i'm being reverted, just read the description and check out other big actors articles.-- Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly in the "don't mention her by name" camp here. No-one is arguing that her name isn't verifiable or that she hasn't been widely named in the tabloid media, but I do believe that minors who are non-notable in their own right deserve to have some privacy and protection. WP in not a tabloid newspaper and we shouldn't use standards there (which effectively is just "newsworthiness") as justification for our own standards. Per also Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. On the weekend there was a story about a fake death-threat against one of the Pitt-Jolie children. I would hate that we contribute in anyway in exposing another innocent for no good reason. As for speculation about future notability, that is crystal ballery and poor justification for the here and now. — Moondyne 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Her name is not currently in the infobox; previously, after the name was deleted earlier, I added "children" parameter: "one daughter (with Williams)"; that was more recently deleted and the section regarded this matter posted here by another user. Her name was mentioned explicitly in the article long before I began editing it (probably prior to Ledger's death, when WP:BLP strictly applied. Her name is used in public statements by Ledger's father and by Williams, which are cited in the sources for this article, and the name is given over and over in source citations used in the article, including by her late father in his interviews (citable and cited sources).
To imply that this Wikipedia article might "contribute in anyway [sic] in exposing another innocent for no good reason" by virtue of the mentioning of her name already in the many sources cited in the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core policy in editing articles in Wikipedia, as is WP:V#Sources: verifiability. There are repeated references to the name of the daughter (some quoting Ledger) in the article. This section applies only to including the parameter of "children" in the infobox (scroll up); the same parameter already exists in infoboxes of many celebrated people ("celebrities", public figures, in their Wikipedia articles. The article is not a "news" article; it is a biographical article about a recently-deceased celebrity actor, and it is common for the existence and the names of children to be in such biographical articles. See other articles: e.g., John Lennon, whose infobox is a musician box and longer than HL's and does not include his children's names, at least one of whom is an already-notable musician in his own right. It may be because there is so much else in the John Lennon infobox that such information about (notable) children is omitted from it (I haven't time to examine that article further to read its talk page) and also bec. "children" may not be a parameter used in musicians' inboxes (I don't know, I haven't time to check), though it is definitely a parameter used in writers' infoboxes Template: Infobox writer (as mentioned above), and many musicians and actors are also writers; John Lennon was a noted writer of lyrics and also an actor in films, and Heath Ledger was also involved in producing music videos and short films, though I don't know what his involvement was in the "writing" or composition of them (if any). Perhaps others want to look into finding sources that are citable for adding such matters. -- NYScholar ( talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering he was only 28 when he died and it being such a mysterious death I think its noteworthy to have extra attention toward it. Anytime someone young dies it is a big, big story. So I think its more relevant to have more attention placed toward it. Maybe in a few years someone can scale things back. - Airtuna08 ( talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please leave the photo credit to Howie_Berlin. According to the e-mail that I received from Mr. Berlin giving Wikipedia the rights to use the photo, he wants to be attributed for his work. This e-mail is in the OTRS queue as well. Thanks. miranda 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(Unident) Precisely. Not to mention complications arising from clauses attached through non-transparent means such as private communication. Dr.K. ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry about opening this can of worms. First, the license says CC-BY-SA, he will be attributed according to the pic. page according to the arguments above and not by my suggestion. Second, I am not getting or searching for any more freely licensed photos for this project anymore. Sorry. :-) miranda 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[Moved here from my talk page; it concerns editing article's images. See also editing history. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, we place images in the section for which they are relevant not to somehow avoid cutting into text, which, depending on user's preferences can vary greatly as some, including non-registered readers, minimize image size and others increase from there. Ergo we place images as if we were editing a featured article. Benji boi 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation, which I just noticed. In this case, the image does relate to both the previous section (see the title of the Wiki "news" template: "Memorial service" etc.) and the "Memorial tributes" section. I really don't see how placing the image two lines up is in any way contrary to Wikipedia MOS; I've seen many Wikipedia articles where the image is just above the heading so that it can post directly opposite the text. I may try to reduce the size of the caption (which I was last one to edit some time ago); shortening it is a plausible way to reduce the size of the image overall (the space it takes up). The MOS also suggests that the image size be parallel to that of the section. In this case it is too long and cuts into the next sec. (to which it is not relevant). [This exchange is relevant to the article talk page: Talk:Heath Ledger. -- NYScholar ( talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [I've just copied and moved it here.] -- NYScholar ( talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on domestic partnership, the term "domestic partner(s) in the Wikipedia Infobox actor used in this article does not refer only to "legal" domestic partnerships (only one kind of "domestic partnerships") as claimed in the editing summary visible here: Diffs. There is no limitation to the "legal" meaning of the term in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and it is used in many other infoboxes for actors. Williams and Ledger were engaged to be married, according to many cited sources, and they were " domestic partners" in the general-usage sense while they lived together in New York City, in the United States, where most states do not have a "legal" definition of the kind claimed in that editing history summary. See the article domestic partner. That change needs to be reverted; see Michelle Williams. There is no consensus for deleting the information from the infobox. There has been earlier debate about this matter; see the archived talk pages. In the state of New York, where Ledger and Williams lived together, "domestic partner" has a general meaning, not only a legal one. Please do not impose original research on the article. I've already linked to Domestic partnership in an earlier editing history summary. Please don't keep deleting correct information in the infobox actor for Heath Ledger Ledger. It is parallel to the infobox for Michelle Williams. Please see the parameter in Template:Infobox actor for "domestic partner(s)". Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Insert the names of the actor's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. ...
The parameter info is incorrect in this case; in New York City, Domestic Partner is a legally recognized class that confers specific rights and responsibilities. See Domestic partnerships in the United States#New York City for specifics. Pairadox ( talk) 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation is not consistent with the intention of the parameter in the infobox actor and violates WP:NOR. Williams is described throughout most news articles as Ledger's ex-fiancée and the "romantic relationship" is the one referred to in the infobox actor's parameter usage: it is a general usage of the term, not a legal usage of the term. Your original research is not pertinent to the intended use of the parameter (as it is defined) and your continual reverting of the information has no precedent in Infobox actor; please cite Wikipedia policy not original research. The citation of Template:Infobox actor is the pertinent citation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Insert the names of the actor's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. Use the format:
FirstName Surname (Year–Year) ... Note: If still together, use "present" in place of the end year (
). (source:
Template:Infobox actor)
(The continual reversions are verging on violating WP:3RR.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Other recent reversions of properly-documented third-party published source information, with proper citations, are also not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not reverting the reversions so as not to be accused of violations of WP:3RR. But I object to the continual reversions of the information that I have supplied properly. The deleted information is not "rumor" as claimed in the editing history summaries; it is based on and quotes family members in third party published sources, in that case The New York Post. Much of the information in this article comes from tabliod newspapers published in Australia and elsewhere. It is hypocritical to claim that recent additions are "rumor," when they are not. The information is repeated throughout many other third-party published sources as based on ["a statement"] (public statement issued by) the cited primary source, Ledger's father, Kim Ledger, who is hardly participating in rumor-mongering, as implied in that editing summary. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been retracted in several newpapers and magazines that there were not pills "strewn about the room" in which he was found. The police report itself states that there were several pill bottles on the nightstand. Please correct this as it really makes it look worse than it is and it is irresposible to repeat something that was in in the tabloids. While I understand that Wiki can be inaccurate, this statement is just wrong. I can't give you the names of the correct reporting services unfortunately, but I believe The New York Times corrected their statement about the condiftion of the room and several others as well. Thx so much for this page by the way. Good job! Barb 3-15-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, March 15, 2008 (UTC)
Opps, did I miss something? when I went back to the page, the text above was gone. Maybe I was looking at a chached page? Sorry..Barb —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 ( talk • contribs) 11:28, March 15, 2008 (UTC); 11:33, March 15, 2008 (UTC)
[Please sign comments using four tildes: scroll up to top of page for guidelines. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[I've added the templates & reconstructed info. from editing hist. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This article still needs more work in my view; it is still too dependent on rumors and tabloid journalism sources. Its sources are in many cases tabloid newspapers that rely on anonymous sources in their reporting and that convey unsupported rumors.
Frequently, when one tries to update this article with reliable third-party published sources, the updated information is being deleted with what appear to me to be explanations that are not supported by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines for editing. The current infobox template is an example; one cannot just make up one's own rules and regulations; the descriptions in the template box for the parameters are explicit. There is no requirement for "legal" meaning of " Domestic partnership" ("domestic partner(s)") in the parameter of that infobox: Template:Infobox actor; it makes clear that the parameter refers to "romantic relationships" in a more general sense. The same editor keeps removing the information about Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger being "domestic partners" (in the meaning defined by the parameter in the Infobox template: Template: Infobox actor) and trying to impose a "legal" meaning on it every time another editor tries to restore it. That violates the definition in the parameter for Infobox actor. There is no consensus for that reversion. This correction is still needed. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [The references to "legal" definitions of Domestic partnership or "domestic partners" in New York City pertain to employers' granting of benefits to those filing for them--not pertinent to the usage of "domestic partner(s)" in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and the references to them in relation to Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams are pure speculation based on original research not permissible in Wikipedia articles. For those truly interested in what constitutes the meaning of the term in various geographical "jurisdictions", one can do one's own reading; e.g., Human Rights Issues: Domestic Partnerships. That is not relevant to the definition of the parameter in Template:Infobox actor. For readers of this article, given the content of the article and its references to Michelle Williams, including her in the infobox is not only accurate and not only in keeping with Wikipedia's own definition of the parameter in the infobox actor, but it is also helpful.
It is absurd to keep deleting Michelle Williams' name from "domestic partner(s)" in the Infobox, citing non-pertinent information about "domestic partnerships" in New York City (or elsewhere). Most news accounts (including those published in Australia in March 2008) refer to Williams as Ledger's "partner" or former "partner" or former fiancée based on the knowledge that they had a daughter together and were in a committed relationship for approx. three years and lived together both in New York City and wherever they went during the period of 2005 to 2007 (two years). That is documented by the reliable third-party sources in the article. It is not speculation.
We do not know what their legal arrangements were while they had a domicile together in New York City. We do not know the arrangements on their legal papers concerning their townhouse (in which Williams was living prior to Ledger's moving from there into Manhattan); to do "original research" about these matters or to claim that one knows otherwise without giving reliable third-party sources actually pertaining to Ledger and Williams is out of bounds in this article and violates WP:LOP. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
See opposition to an attempt to change the meaning of the parameter in the talk page of Template:Infobox actor Domestic Partner, posted by an editor of this article, relating to the editing dispute re: Infoboxes of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams deriving from this article. See also: WP:AGF. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Note well (to prevent further confusion and further insertions of false information): The birth name of the subject is "Heath Andrew Ledger"; as well documented in this article's reliable sources and legal documents cited in it; it is not and never was "Heathcliff". See current note 18, e.g. -- NYScholar ( talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Another name regularly used for him was Heathcliff (perhaps his full birth first name?) Anyway this should be mentioned in the article and explained in the article, i.e. is it a birth name or what? Perhaps the character Heathcliff was just an inspiration for his being given the name Heath. Either way the other name is used in some reliable sources, such as [10] and should be mentioned/explained. I can't do the type of refs mentioned on the article, I kept trying to copy the others but it just came out as jibberish, or I would add it myself. Merkin's mum 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
From the horses mouth: Per Vanity Fair interview: "... he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath.” he says." — Moondyne click! 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Has been deleted. See archived discussions and WP:LOP for editing policies and guidelines as well as the template messages at the top of this page. Please don't reinsert such content. Notable content and reliable third-party published sources documenting it are necessary throughout Wikipedia articles: see espec. WP:CITE for related links pertaining to reliable sources. See also: WP:BLP regarding living persons who are subjects of articles in Wikipedia or who are mentioned in articles about dead persons in Wikipedia. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a fansite; please also see WP:EL. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not keep adding that source to the EL sec.; doing so violates WP:EL. It is already being used as a source (twice) in the text. See current note citation 3. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a Request Persian version of Heath ledger has been Featured Article I request from Administrators that add {{ Link FA}} Thank you Ladsgroup ( talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article in Persian Wikipedia has been selected as Featured article. Please one of the admins add the {{Link FA|fa}} to interwikis. -- Kaaveh ( talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Links to Michelle Williams currently lead to disambiguation page for Michelle Williams (actress) and Michelle Williams (singer). Can someone repair these as edits seem to be protected? Somerut ( talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Hi, please amend the wikilink for Michelle Williams in the section Heath Ledger#Effects of work on health: sleep disturbances to point to Michelle Williams (actress)? Thank you! Banje boi 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I realise that this article has endured frequent bouts of vandalism and needs to be protected. But for how long and at what cost and under what rationale? Obviously the theory is that the vandals need a cooling-off period. But who's to say how long this period should be or if it is even effective against determined and resolute vandals prepared for the long haul. Is there any plan in place to allow some edting in the near future? Dr.K. ( talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently learned that heath's mom was a race car driver. Does anyone know what type of racing she was into wheter it was single seater / open wheel racing or other types of racing? I think this may further enlighten the article regarding Heath's early life.
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
How is this part of the "biography" not "rumors?" (Yet it has been left in the article, whereas the more recent information has been deleted):
In September, 2007, Williams' father, Larry Williams, confirmed to Sydney's Daily Telegraph that Ledger and Williams had ended their relationship. [1] Subsequently, Ledger was reportedly "seeing" or "dating" supermodels Helena Christensen and Gemma Ward and former child-star Mary-Kate Olsen. [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support votes needed by Registered members of Wikiquote for Heath Ledger to reach Quote of the Day for 18 July 2008. This is the release date in the USA for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight (film). The quote was made just before his death as he reflected on how he would wish to be remembered when he did die. Support votes with a score of between 1 and 5 will help it to be considered for usage as Quote of the Day located here at Wikiquote: [ [12]]
When I die, my money's not gonna come with me. My movies will live on for people to judge what I was as a person. I just want to stay curious. ~ Interview for London's Sunday Telegraph magazine, November 2007 [13]
Boylo ( talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Only a few more votes are needed for Heath's quote to appear on the frontpage of Wikiquote on the day of the release of The Dark Knight so get your vote in now before its too late.
Ranking system:
4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. 3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used. 2 : Good - some desire to see it used. 1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used. 0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.
Boylo ( talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
With support it made Wikiquote of the day for July 18, 2008 : Wikiquote of the Day Boylo ( talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an extra space (line) between the sections "Memorial tributes" and "Controversy over will" which has needed deletion since this article was fully protected. Could an administrator remove it? Thank you for this assistance. -- NYScholar ( talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also: titles of films are not italicized until they are "published"; completed and released and/or screened publicly; some of the titles in the article need to have quotation marks around them, not italics; The Dark Knight has already been screened (is, in effect, published; its release date is mid-July); Gilliam's film, however, is not expected to be released until 2009; it is still a work in preparation and thus "/" are used for its title. Please make such corrections in the lead and throughout the article's text and, if applicable, the filmography, if possible. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ledger's death affected the marketing campaign for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight[10][5] and also both the production and marketing of Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and both directors intend their films to celebrate and pay tribute to Ledger's work in them.[10][8][9][57] Although Gilliam temporarily suspended production on the latter film,[9] he expressed determination to "salvage" it, perhaps using computer-generated imagery (CGI), and plans to dedicate it to the memory of Heath Ledger.[116][82] In February 2008 actors Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell signed on to take over Ledger's role, becoming multiple incarnations of his character, Tony, transformed in the "magical" world of the film, in part as a "tribute" to Ledger.[117][118][119][115]
Should the "tribute" be changed to just plain tribute? As it stands it seems sceptical/ironic. Should Wikipedia pass judgement over the sincerity of the named actors? --Reidar Chr. L. Guttormsen (couldnt remember my username) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.48.48 ( talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
These are direct quotations; the phrases come from the source cited in the first note citation: "tribute" is from the title of the source and "magical" is from the text of the source; these are not so-called scare quotes; please examine the source before removing direct quotations from it. that it doesn't "look quite right" is not a reason to remove properly-used quotation marks from a source that is being used to document a statement. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The exact phrase from the source cited is "memorial tribute"; I added memorial before tribute. The quotations are properly punctuated now. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The quotation marks were not being used to "emphasize" anything; they are direct quotations from the source as per WP:MOS. Please see the difference between direct quotation punctuation and so-called scare quotes, which these are not. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Today I thought of another way to present these quotations, extending one so that the confusion of those posting above might be eliminated entirely. Hope this suffices. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
With the debut of The Dark Knight there will be renewed attention on Heath, his amazing talent, and of course the cause of his death. It's so very important that people learn that drugs don't have to interact to cause harm and loss of life. But this tragic accident can help save the 4,000 people who die each week due to adverse drug effects. We never hear about most of them, only the celebrities in the public eye, like Heath. In the section on Heath Ledger's death we would like to post a medical informatics graphic, with corresponding text, that reveals the causative factors underlying Heath's tragic death from the additive toxicities of the medications he was on. Our medical informatics software (www.pharmasurveyor.com) generated this graphic from data licensed from First Data Bank, used by over half of American hospitals in their clinical systems and pharmacies. Also, the Stanford University Professor of Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology, Dr. Terrence Blaschke, who was interviewed by Newsweek following Heath's death, is a member of PharmaSURVEYOR's medical advisory board. The medical informatics graphic we have in mind can be seen at www.heathledgerdrugs.com .
We'd like some feedback on this idea and suggestions of how to do it in accordance with written and unwritten Wikipedia policy and conventions. ErickVonS ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Banjeboi. I see that there are two related articles to adverse drug reactions ( Adverse_drug_reaction and Adverse_effect_(medicine)). I will look into adding our content there and then return here to provide a link back to those sections. Btw, are you the main editor of the Heath Ledger article? ErickVonS ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
For consistency of the format in the EL sec., one should use the actual title of the webpage, which is "Celebrity Drug Cocktail - Heath Ledger" and perhaps add the annotation "Speculative chart of side effects and interactions of Ledger's prescription drugs", but only include that link if it is in keeping with WP:EL, which refers to WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources (which still pertains to an article about a recently-deceased person in which other living persons are named and to what might be considered "controversial" material in such an article). I think more discussion of the nature of the source of this link (is it self-published, third-party published, how "reliable" is it); I haven't checked it out yet, but, as I will not be able to do so further, perhaps others will weigh in on the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of including it. It does not seem particular "encyclopedic" to me, but rather tabloid-like in its focus and it might appear to be sensationalistic. The site is called "heathledgerdrugs.com", and it appears to be self-published by the person listed on the home page of the sponsor of this page: Pharmasurveyor.com. What is the actual expertise of the person listed who created this site and is it considered a "reliable" link to include according to WP:EL, or not? I think it looks rather dubious, and, as I say, sensationalistic and not "encyclopedic" for an article about a recently-deceased celebrity that should be presenting reliable material about him. This does not appear to be an actual "scientific" site, with widespread recognition, or a mainstream medical site; it appears to be more like fansites than the kind of links and sources in keeping with WP:V. Are the claims presented in it verifiable and cited by other verifiable third-party (respectable) "mainstream" publications? [See also: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.] (I think that this site may have already been rejected as an EL or source in the past, in the winter of 2008.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)