Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cause of Death

Resolved.

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)

Some of the changes that new eds. made to this sec. were not properly documented; statements all need source citations in prevailing format of article. I tried to correct this problem. See above discussion. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally looks good. Only minor issue I can see is I don't think we need the [of prescription drugs] tag in the LA Times citation. The text of the article leaves no doubt that prescription medications were the issue. Townlake (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ that; I put it in before I made the subsequent revisions (working v. quickly, as must log out v. soon to leave for an app't.). --NYScholar (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict when I tried to update. I can just grab it later if you don't get to it, no emergency. Townlake (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did try to fix it; but there are a lot of editing conflicts I'm also running into due to reversions by some new eds. --NYScholar (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cit[ation] format

Resolved.

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)

I appreciate all the work that you did do earlier (see archived talk re: waiting until some time passes to make the citations format fully consistent); but a lot of subsequent editors came into this article, leaving statements with no sources at all, or confusing how to do templates. The templates themselves are not very useful for notes citations (which abound in this article now) becuase they introduce non-standard punctuation errors that Wikipedia itself acknowledges. The templates are merely one possible option but not consistently recommended in Wikipedia, which offers several possible options. I myself do not use the templates because of the punctuation inconsistencies for footnotes/endnotes ("in-line citations") vs. the way an alphabetized list of references (standard bibliography) is formatted (last name first). Also, this is an article about a figure in the world of the arts (drama, movies, entertainment, film), and a humanities format is preferred for such a subject. See e.g., MLA Style Manual for such a format, which is referred to as a possibility in the WP:CITE, and other places re: to reference style formats suggested for notes. Discipline of the subject also pertains here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources has other useful links. I haven't the time to convert all the notes to templates (which I hate using). Where there were correctly formatted templates for corrent sources provided earlier by others, I tried to keep them; but if there were already errors in them, I tried to correct them or put my own added notes in standard format (except for the way "Retrieved on" is used in this article; I prefer comma "accessed" and then date, which is simpler and more-closely humanities footnote/endnot punctuation format. --NYScholar (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also spent a great deal of my own time providing notes citations subsequent to the earlier editors' work on this article, making corrections, etc. --NYScholar (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIT has most of the templates. I would heartily recommend doing a citation overhaul as time allows as this bio will continue to have activity for the next few years at least so good writing and reffing will keep much of teh non-vandalism nonsense at bay. Benjiboi 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NYS, basically, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style to which cites are formatted. Some teachers prefer MLA, while others prefer a different style (persay APA, Turabian, etc.) In this case, I think we should leave the style as it is (subsequent editors may or may not take a vote). Thanks for your concern. miranda 20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (in my own view), Wikipedia's own Manual of Style links lead to all kinds of inconsistent policies, guidelines, commentaries, etc.: e.g., see the links in Wikipedia:Footnotes to related policies and guidelines and related "recommendations" (not policies or guidelines). Editors have to choose from a whole host of (inconsistent and inconsistently punctuating) options, which lead to inconsistencies when many different editors add sources to an article over extended periods of time. At the moment, there is no single prevailing citation format used in this article, due to a variety of hands involved in formatting the citations. As suggested some time ago (archived) an overhaul of the citations might wait until the article revising settles down (down the road). Right now, a lot of new and/or inexperienced users seem to be entering the article. See the semi-protection template and possible need for full protection if any (further) vandalism or possibly too much ill-conceived editing occurs. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See espec. Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting citation styles for more recent (and "simpler") <ref>/</ref> format suggestions. --NYScholar (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See also the distinction between footnotes and bibliographical references (reference list) in earlier part Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citation templates. Templates are better used for a references list as opposed to footnotes; some of these distinctions also pertain to individual editorial preferences as well as to disciplines of subjects of articles, etc. No consensus about the citations format yet in this article? (Note that "use of templates" is "not required" in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, in my own experience and from my own viewpoint, use of Wikipedia's citation templates is an absurd waste of time and space, when it is far easier and far more in keeping with standard punctuation of notes/endnotes and bibliographical reference lists style formats to enter the proper information between the "ref" codes. --NYScholar (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the cite template. Much easier to use, a quick cut and paste and entry of information. Also outputs dates in ISO format so no conflict with international/US date styles in article body. If the one template is used on the article, it will still be consistent. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:09, 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. Benjiboi 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am referencing more than my "own opinion" (by the way): Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes.

(ec) And this article already had a mixture of formats when I first encountered it a few days ago, with the matter, by consensus, deferred to later; see also Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates--an unresolved situation at the current time. --NYScholar (talk) 22:19, 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)

Tvoz: I was not referring to you specifically but rather in general. Re: citation templates and who will fix them: if citation templates are to be used in this article, I will not be the one to make those conversions. As far as the "ref" format that I have used throughout: the items are all in proper order, properly punctuated. The only diff. from what I generally format is that I deferred to "Retrieved on" with a period before it, when, in note format, a comma and "accessed" and date is fine (and consistently used in other articles that I work on). I have a true dislike of the citation templates for the reasons that I've given already here and elsewhere and do not use them if at all possible. If they actually are used consistently in an article that I encounter, I defer to them. But I generally avoid working on such articles' documentation (so much do I dislike them). --NYScholar (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW: the "ref" format in notes initiated by other editors have errors: last name first, dates following authors' names, in at least one instance of a citation template, for some reason there is a date in parentheses in another order (don't know why); because there are more than one citaiton template to choose from (as the guidelines I've already cited point out), people accidentally may mix them up and that results in inconsistencies. From the perspective of many Wikipedia editors trained in advanced humanistic scholarship (like me), the citation templates are not only arcane but lack appreciation of standard scholarly protocols. (See my current talk page for related articles/discussion.) No time to deal with this anymore, I'm afraid. Logging out (I say again, and am doing.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another way to go is to just fix an error if you see one, rather than write about it here. Or at least give a hint so someone else can do it. But never mind. The first part of your first sentence confirms what I was saying - free-styling leads to errors. You're right that people might use the wrong cite template, but that can be easily fixed. As for the templates themselves - I have no doubt that they don't all respect all scholarly conventions, but from my experience scholars in the real world generally agree that consistency within a document is more important than strict adherence to a protocol, especially if the protocol presents problems for a given situation. So it seems several folks have said here they prefer the cite templates, one prefers free-styling - I'm interested to hear what others think about this not-very-important housekeeping matter and we can move on. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 7 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)]

Another inconsistency that citation templates introduce is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style asks for titles of articles (news, others) to be punctuated within quotation marks, with the symbol for the ext. link to follow the closing quotation mark; whereas in some of these citation templates, the opposite occurs, which is a problem and a conflict w/ other Wikipedia requirements (punctuation of titles). --NYScholar (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. First of all, the cite format is part of the ref format, and also uses the ref name format. It doesn't matter if the ref name is in quotes or not - makes no difference in the display which is what we're most concerned about, not the syntax of the code. Nor does the space before the slash matter. That's not what I mean by consistency. The edit before your first edit here had 56 refs using cite format and 9 not using it - so I would call that "prevailing format". You (not single-handedly) upped the number of non-cite format entries, so now the article is more inconsistent and needs to be fixed at some point one way or the other - not the end of the world, but all I've been trying to do is get some agreement on how to go forward and I'm sure there will be editors willing to backtrack and correct the format decided to be errant. If we use the cite format templates, and some citations end up incorrectly punctuated, we can fix them - but we'll all be working from agreement on a consistent form of footnotes. You know, I edit a lot of articles and have never had this kind of contention over a simple matter like reference format - although there have certainly been other disputes. This discussion is getting less productive, in my opinion, so I think we can end the back and forth and see if anyone else has a point of view on this or else just move on. Tvoz |talk 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the first 2 notes to inconsistent templates have introduced new typographical errors and insconsistencies in the notes format; to the editor who did that: please restore the correct order and date link format (see edit history). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a helpful note - could you please provide diffs if you see a problem but aren't willing to fix it, so someone else doesn't have to research it? Tvoz |talk 03:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the errors introduced, I restored the at-least corr. format of previous reference formats that editor P. had changed to wrong templates. The fields are incorrect and placement and P are both also incorrect. Where are quotation marks for titles, e.g.; the edit introduced double set of brackets, etc. Please proofread. And please consult all the different types of citation templates and pick the appropriate ones if you or others are converting all the citations to consistent citation style formats for notes (not ref. list that is alphabetized). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained specific diffs.; please read the earlier comments. Look at editing differences. Also, there are currently far more notes beginning first name, last name, then title (within q. marks), then title of work/publication (in italics), then date (normal order) and then a period and "Retrieved on", than there are other orders (last name, first name, followed by date). There is nothing incorrect about the notes 1 and 2 and others that I introduced into this article with angle bracketed "ref" "/ref" format. In contrast, those templates are inconsistent, often don't match the type of publication being cited, and those templates have been introducing multiple typographical errors. --NYScholar (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

to Pairadox: Please read the talk page discussions; you are engaging in changes that are introducing multiple typographical errors in the note citations. ---NYScholar (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have read the talk page discussions. Condensing it all, you basically don't like the citation templates and everybody else says to use them. Pairadox (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox - FYI: "Cite news" will automatically give the title of the article in quotation marks without typing the quote marks in. I think we want to use "news" for any newspaper or magazine article, and save "web" for websites. Also, for all cite templates I believe you can omit any field that has no data in it (like co-author) to make it less cumbersome. As for inconsistencies between the cite formats, my feeling is that the first thing to do is get them all into cite format and then fine tune it if an incorrect template was used - often all that's needed is a change in the header from "cite web" to "cite news" or the like and the item will display properly. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm generally reluctant to use citenews unless it is from a print edition, but I can see that using it here might remove one of the objections NYS has to it. I'll try to remember to remove all of the unused fields. Pairadox (talk) 05:17, 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)

Titles of films are italicized, but they are not in this article's use of templates. --NYScholar (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take your concerns to the template talk pages. This is taking up way too much space here when it's not really about the article at all. Oh, and would you take the time to spell out some of the abbreviations you use, since not all editors have your qualifications? I doubt that things like "tc" are clear to everyone. Testicular Cancer? Total Cholesterol? Trinity Cross? Pairadox (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cool it? [I find that suggestion ridiculous.] Thanks. "tc"=typographical correction(s)"; such an edit is marked "minor" in my editing summaries (when alone, or w/ other such minor changes), and it's explained on my talk page in the section called "N.B." (Nota Bene meaning "Note Well." Please try to focus on correcting the typographical errors that you are introducing into the notes. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NYS, I reiterate what Pairadox has said. This is not the place for discussions about your views on what you think are deficiencies of the cite templates. Take it to Template talk:Cite or Template talk:Ref or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This page is for discussing the improvement of this articles content, of which I've removed a whole pile of clutter and unencyclopaedic opinion. —Moondyne 15:45, 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)

Templates add needless code and clutter to the article, so I would just suggest to add the citations manually as has been done manually in Toronto Raptors and Tourette syndrome. Aaron Bowen (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I had already manually used the "ref" format w/o citation templates for new source that I added and corrections of those in templates, but all my changes have been reverted. Today I just corrected the inconsistencies within the templates and have left them as is otherwise. But the mixture of first name, last name order (author = ) and last name, first name order had created further inconsistencies, which I have just eliminated by making them all conform to first name, last name by consistently using "author =." (I agree w/ Aaron Bowen's general comment otherwise but have deferred to the citation templates, under protest [see earlier].) --NYScholar (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Last night I went through for several hours and converted the citation templates in several ways, namely:

• Turned them all into vertical format, which helps to separate them from the source of the article and makes it easier to edit them;
• Converted a lot of {{cite web}} templates into {{cite news}}. Cite news is (apparently) specifically for any news source, whether it is online or not. The blogs on newspaper web sites are a bit of a grey area, as are magazines like Us Weekly and People Magazine.
• Moved the names of newspapers to the "publisher" field, from "work". The documentation of the cite news template has traditionally been ambiguous on which of these two fields should be used for the name of a newspaper. The documentation now suggests using "work" for it, but by placing the newspaper name under "Publisher", it allows us to use "work" for "the name of a column or subpart of an issue", which I used for column/section names as well as the name of the website if the article was never published as part of the print edition of the newspaper.

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)

All those Box Office Mojo references in the filmography table are horizontal, rather than vertical, format. I left them as they were because the cite template uses the "|" character in the same place that the table markup does, and I thought it might confuse people. That was another point I had meant to write in my post above.

I wasn't sure what to do about the page number for the newspapers that I found. In some cases where they were published in the print editions, they were given slightly different titles. One the one hand, I like having URLs to online articles where possible, but I feel it's important to give the information about the print edition article in case the URL goes dead and someone wants to consult the article.

As for the punctuation surrounding authors and co-authors in the citation templates, that sounds like the sort of thing that can be readily fixed by leaving a complaint/note on the template's talk page. I would edit the template, but it uses pretty complicated boolean stuff that I don't care to learn. - Mark 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's Doctor(s)

Resolved.

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)

Quotation: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heath Ledger article. ... This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. (added bold and italics for convenience of ref.) Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath/Heathcliff

Resolved.

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)

Agreed and well done. I suspected that was the case but couldn't find anything. I knew his father briefly many years ago and he just didn't seem the type to call his kid Heathcliff. —Moondyne 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also glad this has been corrected. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Memorial services

Resolved.

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)

You're qualifying the service as "formal" and adding in the bit about it being "on the same order" as Los Angeles - neither was said in the edit. There were reports (such as this one and this one) that there would be a private memorial service at the funeral home in NY, but on closer inspection what is further reported is that there was a private viewing in New York ([1], but it is not clear if that included a private memorial service for the family or not. Tvoz |talk 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading the sentence (which I wrote) in any case. The family went home to Austral. after the services in Los Angeles in which some of them had participated. It is a narrative point. A private viewing is not a memorial service as the other services were. There was no memorial service in NYC that I have seen documented in the sources in the article following the sentence and that wasn't what the sentence meant anyway. In terms of narrative time, they left L.A. after the 2 memorial services there; that's what the sources that I provided state. --NYScholar (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was mistaken when I added "New York" to the first sentence. The sources I had read said there would be a private memorial service in NY. It was so reported on radio/tv as well. However, apparently those reports were erroneous as in the end there was a private viewing in NY - yes, I know that is something different - and no reports of a memorial service actually happening. I didn't misread the sentence - I was quoting your comment above regarding "formal" and "on the same order as LA" which I had not alleged. Tvoz |talk 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pertinent well-sourced material and its sources

Resolved.

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)

You need to be clear about what statements you are talking about here - please supply diffs. If its this, then be assured that such POV nonsense will be quickly reverted. This is an encyclopaedia and commentary such as that has no home here. Of course the death of anyone is sad, but we generally don't need to record such even if it is cited. —Moondyne 06:18, 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)

the passage

<< 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."

Notes

>>

:[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)

I already fixed the red citations - that happened when someone removed the anchors and didn't check to see if there were subsequent references using them. Tvoz |talk 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See also some discussion of the phenomenon that passage refers to in the following FAQGO news post by Mary Noah, "Heath Ledger Found Dead in SoHo, Manhattan", FAQGO (news blog), January 22, 2008. (Update.) --NYScholar (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hmmm. See for comparison Matthew Shepard, James Dean, John Lennon and River Phoenix (and many others). The outpouring for Shepard alone was just as "striking," if not more so given the complete anonymity prior to his death, yet there's no mention of "expressions of grief and sadness from his family, friends, colleagues" or complete strangers in the lead. Pairadox (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the others, but I know that the Lennon article does talk about the gathering of fans outside the Dakota and the worldwide response. May be in a "tributes" section - I don't recall now - but I've worked a lot on that article and am sure that it's there. I don't think I'd put it in the lede, but I do think something should be in the article about Ledger as a New Yorker and New York's reaction - see below. Tvoz |talk 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I specified in the lead in my post, and no, it's not in the Lennon lead. Pairadox (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I should have been clearer: I was talking about whether it should be in the article (as I said, I also wouldn't put it in the lede), as further discussed below. I do think it belongs in the article itself, as it is in Lennon. Tvoz |talk 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

These other deaths precede the tremendous burgeoning of technological communications, with peer-to-peer communications; blogs; online news sites; online fansites; and so on; the phenomena relating to these deaths thus differ. Lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize what is found in the content of the sections of the article. This article's lead currently does not do that. (What is in the lead paragraph for one dead celebrity is not necessarily a model for what is in the lead for another dead celebrity, since contexts of these different subjects differ (contexts involving cultural, historical, notability, quality of work, past, present and future longevity of notability, and so on). The neutral general sentence that I had composed (scroll up) is an attempt to rectify such omissions from the lead, in keeping with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style on leads. --NYScholar (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ledger as a New Yorker and reaction to his death

Resolved.

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)

A head of state acknowledging an actor's contributions to society strikes me more notable than fans making a pilgrimage to his apartment to leave a trinket-y memorial. That said, if you can add this aspect of the story to the article in a way where long-term notability is supported, I won't argue with it. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cripes. When did the Prime Minister become head of state? --Pete (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian English

Resolved.

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)

I am unsure if you are arguing for or against the use of Australian English here. Many (read non-American) readers are more familiar with non-American versions of English. Who is to say their needs are less important? My understanding of the policy is that as this article initially used Australian English, and as it is of a person who is an Australian and clearly identified himself as being Australian, then that's the style we should use. I'm sorry that you're unfamiliar with "centred" and "rumoured". Others will say the exact opposite. —Moondyne 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I myself am not unfamiliar with "centred" and "rumoured" (that's why I know that they--originating in British English--are alternate spellings of the American "centered" and "rumored"). But many other Americans who read English Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with British and Australian varieties of English. (American English users outnumber Australian and British English users worldwide, according to statistics provided in some Wikipedia article on the subject.) Earlier I argued against cultural bias in choice of Australian English based simply on one's own being Australian or the birthplace of the subject; the subject lived in New York at the time of his death, worked all over the world, and, though he was a "Western Australian son," he was at the time of his death known internationally and more a "citizen of the world" perhaps by virtue of his celebrity as a Hollywood film actor. Please scroll up for links that I've already given to Wikipedia:Manual of Style warnings against cultural biases in choice of English varieties. Overall, however, I would argue for consistency which the largest number of English Wikipedia readers and editors are able to maintain and that is not necessarily Australian or British English (are there differences?). --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to my own last question (in parentheses), I am providing a link to the Wikipedia article Australian English, because it mentions when (1788) Australian English began to diverge from British English, both of which differ from American English. (Just for people's information in making decisions about which version of English to use in Heath Ledger.) [Cultural biases are caught up in choices of versions of English and, in editing an article, one wants to try to overcome one's own cultural biases (to maintain Neutral point of view) and to provide what is most understandable for most English-Wikipedia readers.] --NYScholar (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to assume that the national origin of a subject dictates the variety of English used in an article about him (in this case). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style; in this case, the subject has transcended his native origins in notability. (If he were "an Australian actor" and never made a film in Hollywood [or other films that gained international attention], it is not likely that he would considered as notable a subject in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Per MOS: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". The creators of the policy took the view that by cultural bias was avoided by ignoring issues such as where most readers of Wikipedia live. —Moondyne 07:39, 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. Benjiboi 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I had avoided digging deeper into all this but now to see about improving the lede i see that Ledger was Australian-based until 2005 so agree that Aussie English is likely the best call but also encourage this issue to be back-burnered as this article is so busy that edit-flips on such an issue should be treated as minor for now. Benjiboi 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of citations

Resolved.

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 think it will be a while before the article is calm and agree with NYScholar in that generally too many cites is not that pressing of an issue. Having multiple cites also helps give balance and more verifiability. Once the article does calm down it may may sense to look at cleaning up towards a GA status and FA consideration. Benjiboi 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix Lede please

Resolved.

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. Benjiboi 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I had attempted to do that and was attacked for doing so, despite the neutrality and full-sourced nature of the addition (see the passage quoted above deleted by others): The lead guidance says:

<<

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.

>>

The sentence that I added meets those guidelines; it is supported by the sources cited in the notes citations following it and it is a summary of sections already developed in this article. It extends the lead to summarize those sections ("Death" incl. [now] "Memorial tributes" and their sources). --NYScholar (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, one is not required to write 4 paragraphs; leads are 1-4 paragraphs in length, following that passage guideline. --NYScholar (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is all that I am developing of the lead. It is a waste of my time to provide material when it is reverted with unnecessarily unpleasant comments in editing summaries and elsewhere. The earlier parts of the article can be developed further by others in the lead. I'm logging out of Wikipedia for tonight (at least and probably through the weekend and some of next week) so I have no time to work on this article anymore. --NYScholar (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)

The subsequent version (with a few slight differences in wording to respond to comments on it) was this: #the passage, and it is not "quite unsuitable" as stated above: Diffs. I would appreciate it if the above user (Moondyne) (and some others) would stop these ridiculous personal attacks based on one sentence since revised in "Diffs" linked. WP:AGF. And please respect my multiple requests on my own talk page that you stop posting comments about me, my talk page, and this article on my talk page. To continue doing so has now become disrespectful harrassment. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Where? That's absolute nonsense. —Moondyne 11:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely, the lede is quite a mess. It should be cleaned up first then lengthened. See Robert De Niro for a taste, it's more clear and to the point. Ledger's could parallel this with a third paragraph just about his premature death minus the salaciousness. Benjiboi 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal is a featured article and an more parallel example. Benjiboi 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no "salaciousness" in the language of the lead. I've added the citations to the material that other people added to the lead, and I've added the sentence relating to the public discussion of a general problem that his death has led to, also with the source citations. (Material was added with no citations. Coding of subsequent citations can be streamlined later. I've included full templates in case deletions are done that would create problems in the rest of the article (as has happened before. I do not object to this dev. of the lead, but if it is going to be developed it should reflect the whole article, not just some parts of it. To select only some parts to summarize leads to lack of neutrality and conflicts with the actual sources already used throughout the article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not object to the deviation of the lead? Pairadox (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What does the lead deviate from? Dr.K. (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede notes 1

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.Benjiboi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede notes 2

"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. Benjiboi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your point about not including the tributes. Reactions to his death coming from the Australian PM and others carry information about and establish Heath's notability and importance in the world stage. Mentioning how tragic his death was as well as his promising career is also a good idea. I also strongly agree with your proposal to establish a separate mention for his role in Brokeback Mountain. Something along the lines of James Dean's article lead where East of Eden and other milestone films are highlighted, not simply mentioned in a colourless array of films. Also the immediate family's reaction should better be left for the main body of the article since it does not help establish his notability. Dr.K. (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presently the first paragraph is looking better but the second needs work. With all respect much of the tributes and info should be noted in the article as appropriate but the lede should be saved for the truly notable bits. If some foundation or award is created in his honor that may make sense but lots of famous people die and politicians pay respects so maybe not that in the lede. Benjiboi 11:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not very sorry to see the tributes go from the lead. It now possesses some of the elements I discussed above and the inclusion of separate sentences for his performance in specific milestone films resembles the stucture of the James Dean lead. Your ideas helped structure and improve the lead. Not bad. Kudos. Dr.K. (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain is covered well, but I would like to see more discussion of at least one more important film in the lead. Maybe a critical analysis of his last role as the Joker and the psychological impact of the role on him. Dr.K. (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede notes 3

Resolved

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. Benjiboi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

done. Benjiboi 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I second the resolution. Dr.K. (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other revisions

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)

DEA Involvement in Heath's Death

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)

Thanks. I have tried to incorporate the source in already-existing sentence in text. --NYScholar (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the article from ABC World News about the DEA investigation. Basically it has everything that's already been reported in the past month except for this bit: According to the medical examiner's office, Ledger took "prescribed therapeutic doses ... or less" of each medication he ingested. However, the medications were not meant to be taken together. The cumulative effect was that the actor's brain stem function that controls breathing was impaired and Ledger "fell asleep and never woke up." and some other information, as well.  Chantessy  02:09, 7 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)

Funeral

Resolved.

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)

See Kim Ledger's comment to the press in the article cited above: "The funeral will be very, very private. There will only be 10 people there, immediate family and nobody else." That reference is to a different funeral, possibly at the family burial site referred to in the article Heath Ledger(?) "His family and Williams left by a side entrance ahead of his private funeral service at Fremantle Cemetery, where it is understood a cremation took place." (The "cremation" and the "burial" of the ashes can be at two different locations. The 600 people attended a memorial funeral service; the other "funeral" service that Kim Ledger refers to is a different one; we'll have to wait and see what the sources state later. --NYScholar (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [See conn. in article now. --NYScholar (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

Here is the EL for Freemantle Cemetery, with photographs. --NYScholar (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fremantle Cemetery. —Moondyne 11:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is yet another ref [5] - why not, there are only seven so far for this para - "immediate family". The 500 guests were at Penrhos, not at Fremantle cemetery. They left Penrhos by a side door. The family members travelled to Fremantle in four cars.[6] The wake was/is being held at the Indiana Tea House in Cottesloe.[7] There are three separate locations involved - memorial service at Penrhos (Como), funeral service and cremation at Fremantle and wake at Cottesloe. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Renewed req. for semi-protection

Resolved.

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)]

For everyone's ease of reference: The request was declined. Townlake (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: It has been semi-protected apparently since the above comments: Feb. 10, 2008 until Feb. 17, 2008.Log: Heath Ledger. --NYScholar (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified statements, statements missing source citations

Resolved.

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)

See previous sec.: copy of "Request" and my resp. to it

Request

Resolved.

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)]

[Logged in today to archive my current talk page (as per plan stated there); saw your edits; added one other in same vein--a missing citation to verify a statement of "fact" (though I don't know how reliable that IMDb site actually is; the material about dating etc. is similar in NNDB, which is not considered reliable enough to use as a source citation in Wikipedia. Also left a copy of your message to me in current talk page after archiving earlier material. Will archive it later.]

[That whole personal life section used to have a "missing citations" template on it, but someone else removed it. I had intended it to apply to the first sentence too. --NYScholar (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)]

Article suggestion

Resolved.

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. Benjiboi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify I would expand on notable movie roles only not all of them and in doing so help illuminate how he developed as an actor. Benjiboi 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The wake

Resolved.

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)

If anything, that source is more "emotive" and it corroborates the source already cited: its lead reads: "After a tragic, tear-stained day of reflection and regret, Heath Ledger's wake turned into the sort of party he would have loved." Both sources are very similar in tone. --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [added q. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

I didn't say it was perfect, only less emotive. There's no mention of "washing away pain" or whatever the phrase was. "A party he would have loved" is a huge difference. If you don't want to remove the trite "washing away" reference, I'm happy to do so. If you insist on including the wake in the article, a statement that it took place is surely enough. I'd much rather plain facts than some journo's squirm-inducing embellishments. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV on it, not mine. I see no "less" emotiveness (emotion) in "tragic, tear-stained day of ... regret" than the other. They are very similar and from very similar sources, news items posted on the web from a site cited over and over again throughout this article. Perhaps you need to reconsider the source of your objections: I don't think it's the article(s). --NYScholar (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The source of my objections? For pity's sake! But if you are going to get personal with me, have you any idea how totally frustrating it is dealing with your objections? Over and over and over? And over. Maybe it's time you took a break. As for article statements, I'll go for fact over frilly, every time. There was a wake. Enough. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I see nothing "personal" in my comment to you above, I see no "frilly" characteristic in these articles. It is a fact that people have "emotions" and reporting on their expression of them is no less "factual" than reporting on "unemotional" reactions. The policy in Wikipedia is WP:V not "fact"; I suggest that you compare the policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and WP:V as well as the related comments pertaining to living persons (all of whom were on that beach, some of whom are mentioned by name in this article on HL) as it pertains to WP:BLP#Well known public figures; I see no problem in citing this report which extends the section beyond the memorial service and cre[m]ation to what came later as part of the Ledger "Memorial tributes"; I also think that the material is reliably sourced and verifiable (corroborated by 2 third-party published sources, with authors' names), and that both articles are sources for the statement. If your objection is to the "facts" that are being reported in the article that is not to say that those facts are not facts. They may not be facts that you want to read about, but perhaps others do. I found the reports interesting.

Also, Ledger's ashes are being interred in the family plot (mentioned earlier--the other cemetery deleted [appears to have been wrongly identified]) next to the graves of his grandparents. I haven't time now to add the source, but it is in Google "News" for Heath Ledger. --NYScholar (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [updated in brackets; added the ref. and the info. to the art. --NYScholar (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

No, the earlier reports weren't wrong (and going on your comment below, truth doesn't matter anyway, right?) There are Ledger grandparents in various forms at Karrakatta. Memorial rose garden etc. I've not yet seen any report that says Heath's ashes will be spread/buried in part or in full at Fremantle. The ashes may not be left at either cemetery, they may be spread elsewhere and a memorial placed at Karrakatta (or Freo). Wikipedia isn't a news service and it isn't a crystal ball, so we'll have to wait for confirmation (if that ever happens). •Florrie•leave a note• 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "fact" you intend "objectivity", "objectivity" is also not Wikipedia core policy; it is "verifiability" and "neutral point of view": "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Please see links in WP:POL. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 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)

Please read the actual sources cited. The source that I quoted states Fremantle Cemetery is whre those particular two grandparents have ashes buried (there are more than one set of grandparents); earlier sources specified a family plot with two grandparents already interred there (no mention of ashes) at Karrakatta; the sources seem contradictory; we can't depend on original research; what we state has to be supported by the sources. Since the sources don't agree at this time, we might need either to make that clear, or to omit the statement; "verifiabiility" and "not truth" is Wikipedia core policy as stated above. The source cited is quoted accurately. --NYScholar (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The source coded as "swim1" in ref name= ("Entertainment:Top Stories: Star Swim at Heath Ledger's Funeral: Ledger wake Held in Perth" [will need to change "Stars" to "Star" and add subtitle in a moment]) by 2 authors named Michelle Cazzulino and Stephen Corby" mentions only Freemantle Cemetery by name prior to the sentence:

Ledger's ashes will be interred in a family plot at the cemetery, next to those of two of his grandparents.

"the cemetery" in that sentence in this particular article refers back to ref. in previous paragraph (at 3 lines up) to "Fremantle Cemetery" in "Following the service, 10 family members were given a poliice escort to Fremantle Cemetery for the cremation." [added bold so both qs. will show up better.]

Now that report may be inaccurate; but it is a third-party published report from a reliable source, and we don't have anything other than earlier reports of grandparents in a family plot in Karrakatta Cemetery [which were published prior to mention of cremation and Fremantle] to contradict it (yet). There may be more than one family plot; more than one cemetery; more than two grandparents buried, though all that speculation is unlikely. If and when we have access to updated information we can post it; right now, this is what we have. Again, one can simply delete the ref. to burial at this point. (See current event template, partly incorporated in the recent death template.) When reliable verifiable sources for current-event information changes, updates can be made. --NYScholar (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply deleted the added direct ref. to the place (name of cemetery) of burial; since that appears to be in dispute given the contradictions in sources cited in the article. (The original ellipsis [three dots] that I had supplied are for that part of the sentence in the source: "at the cemetery" (referring in that source back to Fremantle Cemetery). --NYScholar (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this link is of use - it says he was cremated at Fremantle Cemetery and is from the cemetery's own records. If you compare with this, it would seem he has not been interred in a plot at this stage. Orderinchaos 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Children parameter

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)

It's one of those things I guess. I was just checking Arnold Schwarzenneger's infobox and the Governor's infobox apparently doesn't have this restriction. I don't quite understand the arcane rule for the actor infobox that states that children have to be notable. I know this is not the place to discuss it but what if an actor had notable and non-notable children? Including the notable children only would be misleading. And why doesn't the infobox designer do us all a favour and put notable children in the field instead of just children, illogical as it may be, at least it would guide the infobox editor without the hapless guy having to read the manual for every entry they may wish to modify. Anyway this being one of these things please do what you may. I have no clue why we wouldn't want to account for an actor's famous children and not the not so famous, not to mention the different treatment for the governor's infobox, but so be it. Dr.K. (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way I commend you for your flawless etiquette. Dr.K. (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, Template:Infobox Musical artist doesn't mention children at all. I think this is because infoboxes are meant to consistently summarize these artists lives, and a list of names (like in the case of Justin Chambers) is not really useful. Thanks for the compliment by the way (*hug!*) --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thank you for all your effort and your clarification. The compliment was well deserved. And (for the first time ever) return hug. Take care. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Nearly every biographical and news source cited in this article stresses the surviving two-year-old child of the late Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams (the identity of her mother [as cross-linked] also related to her notability). This is the infobox of a recently-deceased actor. The reverting of the information does not acknowledge the notability of the child as rendered by the many, many third-party published sources citing her as a survivor of the late subject, including all the obituaries cited and citable. As time goes on, as has been pointed out in previous discussion, one expects that the child will still be notable due to continuing interest in her future welfare and life as a result of the fact that her father died so young, when she was only two. (That is, she will continue to be to some degree in "the public eye"). There are references to her in the public statements made by Ledger's immediate family members (e.g., his father) and by Williams, all cited in the sources noted in this article: the quotations were deleted but they appear in the sources when accessed.
• (ec) The examples (both neg. and pos.) given above are different due to the unusual circumstances of Ledger's premature accidental death and the frequent mention of the child in almost every article about him since he had her and since he died. I think that a little leaway in this instance of the infobox for this now dead actor makes greater sense than omitting the information that he had a daughter (with Williams), since she comes up so frequently in the sources cited in the article and it is helpful for readers of the lead and infobox to see that right at the start of the article.
• (ec) Sometimes common sense needs to prevail in deciding what and who are "notable" enough for mention in an infobox. To me the child seems notable for more reasons than that Ledger was her father; she is notable also because Michelle Williams is her mother, and because her father died when she was very young, rendering her a frequent subject in sources; those aspects of her notability are the subject of numerous reliable third-party sources cited in this article (and many more that would be redundant to cite), including the public statements issued by various parties after the subject's death. For similar infoboxes that do list children and their number (and the other parent if there is more than one spouse or partner listed), see Template:Infobox writer. Moreover, in addition to being an "actor" by profession, Ledger had other real-life roles when he was still a living person, and, to him, "father" was notable enough to mention in his published interviews during Williams' pregnancy and after the birth of Matilda Rose Ledger, who is mentioned by name (Matilda, Matilda Rose) frequently in such sources and in those published after his death.
• (ec) With regard to WP:BLP (see template tag at top)--a possible rationale for the diff. between children included in infoboxes of other living persons--writers, politicians, other public figures: In my view, it does no harm to list her existence as "daughter (with Williams)" in the infobox or throughout the article (current version): there is no violation of WP:BLP due to the use of reliable third-party published sources documenting her (current and likely future) notability. It would seem that a rationale for not including the names of all the (living) children of all actors is a presumed potential violation of WP:BLP; for this subject (Heath Ledger) and this daughter, I do not see any violation of WP:BLP, since she is mentioned (by name as well as by relationship) throughout the article already as well. If she is notable enough to mention in the article, she is notable enough to list in the infobox (in my view). --NYScholar (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I was replying to the previous thread and as I was submitting the edit I got hit with this avalanche of information. Good points though. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not the reason why non notable names are not added, but because infoboxes are meant to be a summary of notable information regarding the person. Why is there not a height or weight parameter? because this information is not that relevant to the subject's own notability.

You say that "..third-party published sources documenting her (current and likely future) notability.." what makes you so sure that she will be notable for something else than being Williams and Ledger's daughter? Being mentioned on the press does not make her notable, neither does the fact that both her parents are famous actors, Maddox Jolie-Pitt would be about 150,000 times more notable than "Matilda Ledger" if we were basing notability on a google search or magazine's covers. The fact that Ledger has died is irrelevant to Matilda's notability.

Common sense should indeed be used, but not when the template's description is so clear and when adding a number or a non notable name would only make Wikipedia a bit less uniform.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:37, 18 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)

To clarify, I acknowledge that her name is no longer in the infobox. I am suggesting that she sholdn't be named in the body also. I know that I'm likely to be in the minority here, but thats just my opinion.

NYS: Please, please, please, try to shorten your posts and keep to the point. I suspect no-one is bothered to read every word you bombard us with. You've been asked to do this numerous times before by numerous other people. Is it so difficult? —Moondyne 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what you are trying to say here NYScholar. It's simple really, the function of the "children parameter" on the Template:Infobox actor is to list notable children, not quantity (one with...) and not non-notable. Are you saying that Ledger's child is notable because of Ledger's recent death and extensive coverage?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slanted toward cause of death

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)

Seems like there's no shortage of info about his death at this time, no worries. Benjiboi 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo credit

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)

This seems odd at best but if the good folks at OTRS do indeed support such a practice then please amend the photo file page to explicitly state that and then also add hidden text for the next editors who wonder why we're making this exception. Benjiboi 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put this note. Please do not revert me. miranda 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Flickr page and the OTRS ticket, it seems to be a standard CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. The credit is given on the image description page as is standard procedure for licenses that require attribution (almost all of them), I see nothing that says we have to give credit in the article. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you wish. I don't care anymore. miranda 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of rude to remove the name if Miranda told the releaser that he would be mentioned under the picture. This Berlin guy released the picture less than a week before Ledger's death in total good faith, couldn't we ignore all rules and leave the name?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rude perhaps but less problematic for establishing precedents for whose photo's are attributed. Again, if OTRS clears such a practice it should be noted as such on the image file so we can note here in the hidden text as the issue will arise again. Benjiboi 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it can also establish a precedent for Miranda (and all those like her that contact users on Flickr) of not keeping up to her word.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing conflicting stories here. Miranda is saying "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." which suggests that that was his terms of attribution. If that were true, then we would need the credit in the caption. But Yamanbaiia is saying that Miranda told the owner that he would be attributed in the article. The email sent to OTRS doesn't include Miranda's original contact with the owner, but it also doesn't include anything by the owner saying he wants to be attributed in the article. Which is it? Mr.Z-man 19:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but if someone releases a picture under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, isn't that it? Adding more restrictions after the release simply won't fly. Does the creative commons license say that the author must be credited in the actual article or on the actual picture? If the license does not specify that the pic creator must be credited in the article, the case is closed. No subsequent communication by email or otherwise can modify the Commons license after the fact. That would be counterproductive and confusing. Dr.K. (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean can you imagine an addendum to these licenses whereby you get a clause: "GFDL or Creative Commons are in effect except as modified by the owner as per special email request"? How could you possibly implement such a thing? What if everyone else wanted to strike the same or better deals? It simply won't work. Dr.K. (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if Miranda told this guy "your name will appear under the picture", the name should appear under the picture. If this wasn't promised then there's no problem and he shouldn't be credited on the article, since like you all pointed out, he released the picture, etc.

Ps: I've seen this happen before, see Colin Firth.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The pic you quoted already has problems. Its license may not be compatible with Commons use. The additional deal may make its status even more doubtful. I agree that if Miranda promised this person something it would be nice to keep the promise. But the question still remains if such promise could or should be made and under what conditions and for what purpose. It also raises the question of users' authority to negotiate such deals. The facts of the negotiation are not clear therefore I don't have a clear picture. Dr.K. (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree here. Free is free with no strings. I'm dealing with image drama on another article and the consensus seems to be that no image is better than images with issues as we have a global audience and free images are preferred and articles are less fab but fine without images. Also we should be quite clear that is someone gives commons an image the whole world can use it for whatever without restriction; otherwise they could be directed to load it on wikipedia only. I also think we should be getting the owner of an image to do the actual uploading so issues such as this are mitigated and we might even encourage them to load other images as well. Benjiboi 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GFDL and Creative Commons etc. are sufficient in most cases. If we start attaching strings on them, the strings (conditions of use) should be clear otherwise these licenses will quickly cease to be as free as we think they are. Plus author acknowledgement should be made clear as where it is expected to appear. I thought it normally appears on the picture page. Now the possibility arises it can appear in article space. Before long article space might look like a commercial site. I can imagine corporate sponsors uploading GFDL licensed pics at Commons so that their corporate name can appear in the article. This for sure needs furher investigation. Dr.K. (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing is complex enough without further non-standard licensing clauses being appended. The {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license allows for attribution and stating that on the image page is generally sufficient. —Moondyne click here! 03:51, 23 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)

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). - if they actually do specify terms for attribution, we have to follow them to use the picture, hence the issue. However, the email to OTRS basically just says "I changed the license on the Flickr page," nothing about special terms. Mr.Z-man 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the attribution done on the image page or on the article page? Dr.K. (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Our convention is to do it on the image page, but if the owner said to put the attribution in the article, we would have to do so. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I always thought that attribution was just that, but now I realize that the location of the attribution is a separate issue. This raises some questions regarding editors' names appearing in article space. If, for instance, a Wikipedia editor specifies similar terms then editor names might start appearing in mainspace. If it can be allowed for external contributors I don't see why this would not be allowed for Wikipedians as well. Dr.K. (talk) 04:30, 24 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)

It's not your fault Miranda in any way, shape or form. Before this case there was this precedent given by Yamanbaiia. Far from being a can of worms it helps us all understand the intricacies of licensing and thus enables us to make better future decisions. This cannot be done without analysis. You tried to help this project like we all do and you succeeded and I think everyone appreciates this greatly. That in the course of this endeavour we hit a few snags and had a discussion to resolve them is a situation repeated all over Wikipedia every moment. Keep up the good work and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding Berlin's last name to the "source" credit in the Wiki. Commons image description really should solve the problem discussed above. The credit is now attributed in the image page (click on the image to enlarge it and get to the page.) I don't think it should be nec. to put the credit in the caption as well if it is already given as attributed in the photo page itself. (Though the credit in the caption seems appropriate to me; the image page indicates that the photographer has given his permission for the photo to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons via the locked corr. link (?; can't verify that bec. it's locked; but some admins. can). --NYScholar (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

[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. Benjiboi 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)

The photo is of a memorial not his death thus putting it in the memorial section where it is now seems sensible. I've also removed the pixelizations per WP:MOS. Benjiboi 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Domestic partner(s) parameter in Infobox actor

Resolved.

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)

The parameter there states:

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. ...

--NYScholar (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Deletions of properly-documented information

Resolved.

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)

Will return to post diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are the Diffs. (I have to log out [see next sec. which I composed before logging out.]) --NYScholar (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)]

Condition of room when found

Resolved.

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)

Reading the sources given throughout this entire article makes clear what the more current official NYC and NY State offices determined. There has been repeated acts of vandalism and frequent deletion of reliable third-party published sources from this article. (It is currently still semi-protected from anonymous IP users for that reason--scroll up and see archive and talk page history.)

As editors, people need to take some time and examine the editing history to find precisely what they are referring to, and to provide links to editing differences ("diffs.") to document what they are referring to. (Please add an exact link or quotation.) Please provide the editing history links and look at the archived talk page history of this article where I recall discussion of this matter already being made. This comment does seem familiar. If you or someone else made it before, please provide a link to the archived talk page section where it's discussed already. In Wikipedia one does need to give "the names of the correct reporting services" and provide precise citations (author, title, url and/or name of work published, dates, accessdates) as per the current citation template format used in this article. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This comparison to the "diffs." shows that a later editor has corrected the problem frequently introduced throughout the history of the editing of this article (scroll through "newer edit" consecutively): (Diffs.) and (Diffs.). As requested above in this sec. of comments: Please do not introduce obsolete rumors into this article. Please review the archive of talk page discussions and the editing history. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [added another link to corr. of misinformation added by earlier edits. --NYScholar (talk) 23:20, 15 March 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)]

Current state of this article

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 actorDomestic 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)

Heathcliff

[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)

The article you mention also says Ledger's father's name is Kim Ledge and his first role was in Clwoning Around. The inspiration for his name may have been the fictional character, but his given name was Heath, not Heathcliff.•Florrie•leave a note• 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the Daily Mirror though (for what it's worth lol), and it's far from the only place that it's mentioned [11]. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=en&q=heathcliff+ledger&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn] 207 mentions on google news for Ledger + Heathcliff. It should at least be mentioned that sources say his name was inspired by the name of Heathcliff, if several WP:RS say so. Merkin's mum 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussions already have pointed out that those sources are not reliable; they have been discredited by more reliable third-party published sources citing interviews [with Heath Ledger and his family members]. [See below: I've added the interview with HL by Kevin Sessums to "Further reading" sec.] The idea that "inspiration" for Heath Ledger's name is the character Heathcliff is a discounted apocryphal (spurious, false) rumor repeated erroneously by multiple unreliable sources. Such tabloid articles and later articles (e.g., Purcell's in the Mirror and fansites citing them) are not "reliable" sources; they result in rumor-mongering garbage: see WP:RS. Please see archived discussions, and please do not reinsert such false information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)]

For related editing policy (re: the Google search), see WP:NOR, particularly WP:NOR#Reliable sources. Thank you. I've deleted the misinformation. --NYScholar (talk) 00:04, 21 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)

Added the source to "Further reading" sec. The quotation has been mentioned before (archived disc. or earlier material in article; can't remember which; please check both archived disc. and editing history if nec.). --NYScholar (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[Added bracketed comment after heading of this section; the statement that "Heathcliff" is Heath Ledger's name is incorrect and based on mistaken notions in celebrity biographies that have been posted throughout the internet. Note [18] quotes Ledger's own comment that his name is "Heath" and not "Heathcliff". See current note [18], as mentioned by editor who undid the recent false edit to the infobox by anon. IP user [when the note was still numbered 16]. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)] [Updated the note citation nos. --NYScholar (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)] [corr. of missp. --NYScholar (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)]

Unencyclopedic and improperly sourced gossip magazine-type content

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)

Timeline moved from EL sec. to source citation earlier

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)

Request

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)

Featured article

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)

Taken care of :)!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Repair links to Michelle Williams

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! Banjeboi 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When will the editing of the article resume?

Resolved. Protection level updated. Banjeboi 21:22, 10 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)

The article will remain protected until someone stops targeting it. This article is his favorite target, and he often adds libel to it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I feared. This is the first time however that I saw such a long term effect on editing. I know it must be a difficult problem, otherwise a more efficient solution would have been implemented, but is there any (proposed or existing) solution out there other than an absolute ban on editing? Dr.K. (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the long-promised Flagged revisions solution, which would allow visitors to only see the newest version of a page that has been 'flagged' (approved) by other users - if that was ever introduced, it's possible articles like this could be unprotected for editing again, as vandalism on them wouldn't show up on the 'public' version. It's not known when (or whether) that's ever going to happen, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. I don't believe it will happen because it introduces a layer on top of the basic concept of open editing for all. However the status quo is inadequate because it allows persistent vandalism to hold articles hostage and to de facto prevent open editing as well. Very unique situation. Thank you for your clarification Terraxos. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's mom

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)

Actually, that was his father. The name Kim can belong to a man or a woman. Katharineamy (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumors?

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. Subsequently, Ledger was reportedly "seeing" or "dating" supermodels Helena Christensen and Gemma Ward and former child-star Mary-Kate Olsen.

Notes

--NYScholar (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling for this content to be removed? If not, let's close this section. Banjeboi 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote "Quote of the Day" - Support Votes needed

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)

FYI the deadline is approaching so input from others on choosing a quote is welcome. Banjeboi

Votes still needed

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)

Quote of the Day

With support it made Wikiquote of the day for July 18, 2008 : Wikiquote of the Day Boylo (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! By the way that voting process was hard to understand. Banjeboi 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please correct typographical error

{{editprotected}}

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)

 Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 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)

Is there somewhere in the MoS that says this? I've not come across this request before (and I don't edit a lot of film/actor articles). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm logging out for an extended period of time, but I just saw this; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type refers to published works; one needs to consult Style guides for how to handle unpublished works; it is common in style guides pertaining to language, literature, and the media (including film/cinema) not to italicize unpublished works in the list; works in preparation (books, long works, films, etc.) are generally placed within quotation marks until after publication, indicating that they are works in preparation/in progress/in production. Unreleased films are in that category, except when already screened (hence finished, completed, published, public works). Newspapers like The New York Times have their own style manuals; in the case of the Times, it generally uses quotation marks for films and not italics (even when they are released already). Wikipedia could be clearer on this point; in all the articles on film and film professionals that I have worked on (a lot), most editors are aware enough to place titles of unreleased films/unfinished films within quotation marks; due to this oversight in Wikipedia, however (if it is an oversight; hard to tell), there are contradictory practices in punctuating titles. I always use quotation marks around unpublished works that, when published, otherwise would be rendered with italics (previously, underlined). Italics generally mean "published" or made public. Another example: Titles of Web sites are italicized when put on the Web; if just "under construction" and not yet uploaded to the Web, their titles would be within quotation marks. For more information, see, e.g., The MLA Style Manual, which has information pertaining to films and other media. --NYScholar (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NYScholar, I had read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type as well trying to find an answer for you (and forgot to come back here to post, glad I saw it pop back onto my watchlist :-). Wikipedia definitely needs to be clearer, that bit of MoS doesn't explicitly say "this is for published works", or "this isn't for unpublished works", it just says "this is for films, etc..." I also clicked on several prolific actors' pages (under the assumption that they are highly watched/edited) and the majority in my random sample had the same formatting (italics) for films "yet to be released", as far away as 2011 in some cases. I will go ahead and make the change as you've requested at this point, you make a strong case, but I would not be surprised to see it changed back/requested to be changed back by someone else. Enjoy your break, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, because it's in the lead, I'm goinig to leave it without more compelling evidence. I just clicked on 15 more random "actor/actress" pages, of similar length, including 3 FA articles, and they all are using italics for future films. It may be wrong, but it's prolifically used right now on Wikipeda, and without a guideline somewhere that explicitly states that it's wrong (our guideline is not clear, we agree on that), I don't want to abuse my admin editing privileges. Hope you understand, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand (given previous exp. w/ such discrepancies between conventional bibliographical style formats and Wikipedia's) that you will follow what the WP:MOS section(s) say (often there are even contradictions in various parts of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). In every article I've worked on over the years, I've followed scholarly conventions of "proper" punctuation of literary and media works, however. (My userboxes on my user page explain that when I encounter discrepancies in Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, I follow standard scholarly practice.) Leaving as italics now is okay w/ me; but I really do wonder what Wikipedia's editors who worked on the MOS do intend for punctuating titles of unpublished/works in preparation/unreleased films. Thanks for your attention. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about a lot of the things in the MoS, some of it rather bizarre...but that's a whole 'nuther talkpage. I appreciate your understanding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous films

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)

I agree with the above comment, and have removed the quotation marks in the last sentence. I can see why they're there (to emphasise that the words are taken from direct quotes) but I agree that it doesn't look quite right. Presumably someone was cautious about violating WP:NPOV, but I don't think there's anything non-neutral about calling something a tribute if that's exactly what it is. Terraxos (talk) 22:18, 22 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)

Heath Ledger's death and the additive drug toxicities responsible

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)

Well this article has to stay focused just on Ledger and what you're referring to may be more suitable to a related article that focuses on drug interaction using Ledger as a high-profile example. You may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk as well as they field questions like this all the time. Banjeboi 13:27, 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)

No problem. And no, I'm not the main editor here - I think NYScholar has done the most work, but anyone can edit and certainly anyone can comment here in the talk pages. Banjeboi 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stressing the comment above: "anyone can edit and certainly anyone can comment here in the talk pages" – as long as they follow the policies and guidelines in the top headings and at WP:POL, one of which is to focus in article talk pages on discussing editing the article, not on discussing the subject of the article (Heath Ledger). I am offline most of the time now, so please do not assume that I am still the "main editor" of this article; I am aware of WP:OWN and I know that I do not "own" this article. Occasionally, when I am online otherwise, I check it out of concern for accuracy of citations and proper documentation of statements (due to past vandalism and other problems), but I do not keep it on my "watch list".

In the winter of 2008, when the media reports of the heightened interest in abuse of prescription drugs as a result of Ledger's death were first coming out, there was a reliably-documented statement in this article about that, but some user or users removed it. One would have to go back to around February 2008 to examine the editing history for such past source(s) included to support the development those users later removed. (I will be offline after these comments (above and below). --NYScholar (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The death section seems to have this well covered. I would support adding a neutrally worded link in the EL section like ...

• Side effects and interactions chart of Ledger's prescription drugs

Does this seem acceptable? Banjeboi 07:41, 26 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)

That host site (see above) is speculative, not factual; it is a "Beta" site with an extensive "notice" of disclaimers that qualify its reliability and verifiability; it took a while for me to post this (and add "Speculative" above), because a link in the site (to a video) froze my computer and I had to restart my computer; so even that is not accessible (to me anyway). Any kind of speculation like this Beta site engages in is really not "encyclopedic", in my view, and I don't think it deserves linking in the EL section of this article, or as a source in this article. If the site (pharmasurveyor.com) is considered "notable" enough for an article in Wikipedia, then someone might want to create an article on it and give reliable verifiable third-party published sources for such an article. Using the web site as the only source of information about this site in such a Wikpedia article would violate Wikipedia editing policies and lead to templates like {{One source}}. --NYScholar (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, disagree that all EL's need to be named exactly as such. most sites aren't as anal retentive as we are to ensure the page is named correctly. Also disagree that notability is lacking if they don't have an article here. Sounds like the issue is already covered well in the text and this link is somewhat borderline. Should we just consider it covered already then? Banjeboi 00:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)