Jump to content

Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

HeathBABY

I removed the link to HeathBABY as this seems like a simple fansite. If this were his official site or something like that, I think it would belong in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, why pick that one site? --Ricky81682 01:52, Nov 22, 2004

Controversial

How is Heath Ledger "best known" for his part in Brokeback Mountain. Unless he is retiring from acting and isn't recognized by his previous films I think its questionable as to whether he is "best known" for anything at this point. Maybe this is his first leading role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.59.4 (talk • contribs)

Certainly not his first leading role (see "Ned Kelly"), and hopefully far from his last. He may be "best known" for this role at the moment - because it's just been released in the US and not even released in his home country yet - but that's a very current view which is inherently obsolescent (unless he were to fall under a bus tomorrow). We need a much longer view of the guy, as with any biography. I suggest it be removed. JackofOz 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the Controversial tag, since the "best known" phrase which the unsigned person above disagreed with has been removed. Wasn't exactly a controversy to begin with anyway. --Xyzzyplugh 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you can change it back again.

Edits by User:202.6.138.33

Hi, I thought it would be fair to add that ledger denies that he spit at journalists. I added that to the relationship with the press section, with a link to a news site, and added the site in the references section. Is this an acceptable reference?

I deleted the bit about the lynching because it was pretty much ignored by practically all the major media, so I don't think it effected his relationship with it. Also, I don't think historians' information on lynching is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.138.33 (talk • contribs)

--

hi... about the passage "These statements have been roundly disputed by archivists and historians, who allege that the last extra-legal public hanging in West Virginia occurred in 1931.[2]"....... --that is obviously a foolish statement and a foolish inclusion in the wiki because the word "lynching" does not mean "hanging". a lynching was any illegal murder/execution by mobs, usually murderous racist mobs. anyone who knows anything about the jim crow era (which probably excludes most of young america) would know that lynchings also included burnings and other killings, not just hanging.128.119.237.89 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A few days ago I removed a batch of links from several related artciles linking to vote for heath (oscar for heath) as I though them inappropiate under WP:NOT soapbox. I see it's been put back in, and rather than playing Hokey-cokey have moved discusssion here. I believe links to general fan sites are discouraged, unless the fan site is istelf either notable or the offical one. vote for heath comes across as too soapbox (the domain name enforces that view), I have no knowledge about heathbaby (see above) as that's also listed as "fan site". So, the two fan sites links, in, out, or shake them all about? MartinRe 10:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

the "vote for heath" should probably go, but the fan site is quite large, and generates massive hits, so i think it's fairly notabe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.138.33 (talk • contribs)

the Dark Knight

Perhaps some of the comments Ledger made about how he would portray the character of the Joker in "The Dark Knight" should be briefly mentioned on this page.66.24.229.233 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Filmography: Dirt Music?

Why is Dirt Music, the novel by Tim Winton, listed under Ledger's filmography for 2008? IMDB says nothing of it, and neither does the Wikipedia entry for the novel itself. I think this information needs to be verified somehow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.178.110 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Creative Commons picture

If someone needs a photo of Ledger I found one here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/howie_berlin/102081411/ --Heida Maria 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't accept CC-BY-ND-NC photos. miranda 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Joker" image...

According to recent discussion in the Dark Knight Talk Page, there is evidence to suggest reasonable doubt as to the validity of the site where the image was taken, and thusly the authenticity of the image itself. Until we receive a confirmation from Warner Brothers, the blackout policy that prevents "ibelieveinharveydenttoo" from being contributed to Wiki applies here as well. Brokenwit 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brokebackmountainheathledger.jpg

Image:Brokebackmountainheathledger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

how is it determined that his character in "Monster's Ball" was gay when he has sex with a prostitute in the beginning ? that would at least make him bi-sexual wouldn't it?Donald628 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Requests for edits Please put here.

could you please add a photo of Heath as a child? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.30 (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • To make sure that the admins have an easy time updating the page as more news of the circumstances of his death come in could people please put theeir requests in here. thank you. Blenky119 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please let us know whether users should routinely or formally mark their edits with correct information as per policy of quoting manages upwards protection / verification of NPOV history requests (categories and linked stories on any page for listing templates pending consideration and deliberation). Thanks. --71.133.74.137 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Marking paragraphs about whether or not users should source links (internal, external) might warrant some careful expansion for article speculation / tagging, possibly when adding. Can someone who knows please comment on whether informational changes can (or should) state citations, articles (clearly modified, or not, as such), topics, or assertions. Thanks --Kevinmooney (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well users can consider some arguments for neither/either managing posts with no listed (NPOV or otherwise) considerations, or bringing some removals or edits forward from stated/cited unnecessary interests here. Regarding "whether or not users should source links (internal, external)" is not relevant to the discussion surrounding sourcing links and stating citations? What do you think? --71.133.74.137 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Lets not get carried away here. In certain situations, pages can't be considered whether users should be sourcing either links (not external/internal as stated above) or secondary items such as paragraphs. Tagging and unnecessary stating citations for listing templates can speculate on possibly when adding or even whether informal links can be removed or are relevant to this topic. --76.90.64.226 (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can somebody please change the date of death in the bio? His birthday date is the date it was in AUstrlaia when he was born. But the date in Australia when he died was already 23 January 2008, not 22 January. Isn't it tragic enough that his life was cut short wihtout cutting it short by an extra day?? In real terms he lived from 4 April 1979 to 23 January 2008. Setris78 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    The date of death is considered to be relative to where he was in the world. John Lennon's death is considered to have occured on 08-12-80 despite it being the 9th in Liverpool, because he was in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.179.52 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done - also changed centered to centred for Aus spelling. •Florrie•leave a note• 06:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "cause of death" sentence - which I fact tagged yesterday - is expanding without citations being added. I'm refraining from deleting it, but is there a compelling argument against striking the entire sentence (which is temporal and speculative anyway) until someone can provide sources to go with these assertions? Townlake (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done You have better refrain than I do, I took it out. Sentence read: Early reports state that it appears that Ledger may have died from an unnatural cause such as an accidental overdose of prescription medications, or of natural causes such as pneumonia or heart attack. Basically, early reports say they don't know how he died which is already stated (with citations) in the previous sentence without the air of speculation. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I beleive i just read news report which changes much information cited in this article. In this news article, it has been claimed that his body was warm at the time the medics arrived there. Which should be added immediatley. Please read this article, the address is pasted below. 4:02 January,28,2008

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23124067-661,00. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenstud (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. That warm body rumor was started by a tabloid. Any other news source are using their same words and citing them.  Chantessy  18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to have the Box Office Gross of each of his films be the Worldwide Gross. As an Australian Actor, many of his films, such as Ned Kelly, were almost exclusively shown here in Australia. Saying that Ned Kelly only gross $60K is a little misleading and very US centered. --61.69.1.74 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the Ned Kelly (2003 film) article, the worldwide gross was $6,371,899. It doesn't say if that is US dollars or AUD. As an Australian article/film, it should be in AUD. I also wondered about the figures in Heath's film table here - except for the one film marked as AUD and on in pounds, are the other figures in US$? •Florrie•leave a note• 12:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a huge increase in some takings for worldwide. I thought it a bit odd that Ned Kelly was so low. Thanks for pointing out that little insularity. For ease, I've quoted US$ except where there was no (apparent) release in the US as for Blackrock. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be beneficail to post some of the quotes that have so far appeared in the promo. Or maybe provide a link to the promo video that shows this? Thanks Frankenstud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenstud (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NNDB

In the External Links section the URL for "Heath Ledger at Notable Names Database" contains an "|" in it.

DanielRJ (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) DanielRJ (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Death

Ledger found DEAD in his apartment.

Do you people have nothing better to do than race to be the first to edit an article the minute something happens?

CNN had this on about 5 minutes ago. I see the article has already been fixed.

Tragic, indeed.65.255.147.8 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No details have been released aside from the cause of death, listed as "Martin Luther King Day."

More refs [1] [2] -- Chuq (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about heroin, glad someone took that out. Talon 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone fix the current para, it's copied directly from the source. I don't know how we could change it or if it's appropriate to directly quote it (i.e., with quotation marks) but someone fix it. 152.33.93.141 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (User:Thorns among our leaves, not logged in)

Channel 7 Australia said he was surrounded by pills and he was found in his apartment by his housekeeper 3.30pm New York Time.

Could whoever locked this pay attention to what was locked in - bottom section, just says "gay guy". 64.231.133.245 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

on the news it said sleeping pills


Couldn't find any article that stated that he was found in the nude, dead. Might want to edit this out when possible

On the news just now it said the police are suspecting drug related death. Is this relevant for ledger fans to know if they are on wikipedia??.

PROTECT NOW!!!

Come on admins, semi-protect this page from all editing as vandals have been posting pornographic pictures here amongst other things. Don't disappoint us. The great kawa (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard operational procedures, a giant picture of a penis slips in at least once a year from a frontpage linked story. If you're not disappointed withe admins yet, you're utterly new... 67.101.123.88 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
They actually got here relatively quickly. The great kawa (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is weird, is it semi- or full-protected? I can't edit and my account is sure as hell not less than four days old! :( --Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's mentioned further down the page that it's now full-protected. Never mind. --Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How did they get that image up anyway? I'm looking at the article history, and it's not anywhere there. Did they mess up a template or something?
Yes, the recent death template, and the guy put his edit summary as "Text formatting" so as not to raise suspicion. Quite ingenious, really! Nach0king (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ledger found DEAD in his apartment.

The story Wikipedia has regarding Heath Ledger's death is grossly misquoted from the New York Times. The quote is as follows:

"At 3:31 p.m., a masseuse arrived at Apartment 5A in the building, at 421 Broome Street in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger, the police said. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of Mr. Ledger’s bedroom. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed, with pills scattered around his body. They shook him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities."

No mention of a dildo or viagra

[3] Ronabop (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The locked version of the quote is different from the actual version, which reads:
At 3:31 p.m., a masseuse arrived at Apartment 5A in the building, at 421 Broome Street in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger, the police said. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of Mr. Ledger’s bedroom. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed. They shook him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities.
The police said they did not suspect foul play. Officials said pills were found near the body.
- Photouploaded (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


news is saying they were sleeping pills

Post Chronicle has a decent report here: (unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212126134.shtml Smokefan2007 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've upgraded the semi-protection to full protection. The details can get hashed out here in the Talk space rather than 8,000 edits/reverts in a 10 minute period. When people can agree on the relevant details and stop reverting the mention of his death as "vandalism", then it'll get unprotected. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus spoketh the Tyrants.
Please fix the NYT quote, it's not exact. Photouploaded (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There will be time to add that. --IceHunter (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's already there, it's quoted incorrectly, and it should be fixed. Photouploaded (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be a long night for editors. Mr. Ledger's death shocked me, even though I haven't seen him in any films I think and I looked forward to his role as Joker. Rest in peace. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct NYT quote for admin to fix

"At 3:31 p.m., a masseuse arrived at Apartment 5A in the building for an appointment with Mr. Ledger, the police said. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of Mr. Ledger’s bedroom. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger unconscious. They shook him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities. The police said they did not suspect foul play and said they found pills near body."

nothing about "naked". PLease replace the quote that is there with the correct one. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times has changed their quote ... no better than us, I guess. Tvoz |talk 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the quote directly from the NYT page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup I see - the earlier version at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/actor-heath-ledger-is-found-dead/ had no "naked". Tvoz |talk 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But the 5:28 NYT version says: At 3:31 p.m., a masseuse arrived at Apartment 5A in the building, at 421 Broome Street in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger, the police said. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of the bedroom Mr. Ledger was in. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed, with pills scattered around his body. They shook him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities.

The police said they did not suspect foul play. Officials said they believed Ms. Olsen, 21, was in California and said it was not clear how long or why Mr. Ledger had been in her apartment.

Several minor differences throughout, but a quote is a quote. Tvoz |talk 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Semi-protection I don't see why this isn't semi-protected. I want to fix the article (as you can see, there is no {{refs}} section, and the {{cquote}} is broken), but I can't because I'm not an admin. Was semi-protection not enough? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't. Semi-protection led to masses of "legitimate" editors all trying to "help". This should let things calm down while a few people can go through and sort out the worst of the mess. I imagine it will be back to semi-protect before too long. Any outstanding "errors" can be mentioned here and will be incorporated into the article (I'm talking about formatting and misspellings, people, not about your personal choice of wording). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Use {{editprotected}}. John Reaves 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Full protection is fine for the next 24-48 hours, but not the next week. We need to re-evaluate the protection on this in 24 hours and consider downgrading to sprotect.↔NMajdan•talk 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be manageable in a few more hours. Everyking (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good practice. Times like this are when an article is most likely to need significant editing as the story develops. And protecting it for a week is downright ridiculous...-Elmer Clark (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I see it's been downgraded to semi-protection, which, while not ideal, is reasonable. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not as if this was the "first choice". The first choice was semi-protection. That didn't work, plain and simple. Granted, the penis image didn't help things. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The penis image, however, was on {{Recent death}}, and only transcluded here (and a bunch of other articles). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The "rapid-fire" nature of edits to this article made it difficult to troubleshoot that. Add that to people who were reverting ANY mention of his death, and well... you can see how semi-protection wasn't working. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apartment owner

According to the NYTimes the apartment that Ledger was found dead in was not his but Mary-Kate Olsen's and she did not know why he was there. Unless I am wrong, I think the death section of this wiki page needs corrected. Dkocan (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's mentioned in the current version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if TMZ is credible or not, but they are reporting it was not her apartment. Roneman90 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


There are conflicting stories about where exactly he was found. This TMZ article states he was NOT found at Mary-Kate Olsen's apartment, perhaps location should be left out until it is announced through "official" sources. http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/22/not-mary-kates-apt --EffinBoy (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: It was confirmed that it was NOT her apartment, on Fox News.

Please update the page to reflect that it was his apartment. It seems the New York Times is the only outlet that maintained it was M.K. Olsen's apartment. FluxFuser (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The Age is saying that it is her apartment too...Shniken1 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Passed away"

{{editprotected}}

I would argue that the status of his role in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus should be "Died during filming" rather than "Passed away during filming" per Wikipedia:Words to avoid Thayvian (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

agree Tvoz |talk 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Change was applied in this edit Thayvian (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That's just stupid. "Died" is descriptive. "Returned to God" has overtly religious overturns and is unnecessary. Jparenti (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

copyvio

This extensive use of a news article does not fall under fair use:

Sewell Chan of The New York Times writes:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)

I disagree, first of all, the section is nowhere near the full length of the NYT article and limited to "facts". The NYT article seems to have relied strongly on police sources anyway. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say this is a meaty part of the article (the "what happened"), and as such using more than a few sentences is not fair use. It doesn't matter if it is sourced from elsewhere - what matters is the use of the material as written by the reporter. This is a meaty part of the article - indicating substantial use - and that fails fair use. Reword into own words. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument is moot, the article no longer uses the NYT quotation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
True. I removed it. Tvoz reintroduced it but I removed it again. I cannot remove it a third time due to 3RRR so I'll just have to tag the section if it is brought back. (Not sure of a better remedy) Guroadrunner (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[ec] Because this same editor took it out - that's hardly consensus. I think it belongs in. Discussion? Tvoz |talk 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can assert fair use under the methods used by Wikipedia and U.S. Copyright Law as seen here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html please give your rationale. I believe it fails fair use due to the substantial direct quote of the material as used in the Wikipedia page. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Not necessary to get officious - just pointing out that this was originally added by someone - not by me - without even attributing it as a direct quote from Sewell Chan in the text, which I corrected, so I am familiar with plagiarism and copyright. I think a properly attributed quote like this, at the time it was entered, was covered under fair use- this is an educational use. I agree, though, that rewriting with references is always the better way to go. And since there was a discussion underway in the minutes surrounding your removal, I think you should have waited for some agreement to your position. I'm not re-adding it, in any case. Tvoz |talk 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I only saw the diff and thought you had re-added the whole thing, so I unfairly blamed you. Guroadrunner (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, frankly, I don't even know what I added or re-added -I just know that I didn't post the quote in the first place, but did add the Chan attribution to the text that was there and put the whole thing in quote marks which it didn't have. There were so many edit conflicts that I lost track! My intention was to re-add the quote, though, so your comment was not wrong. In any case, no problem. But the larger point, I think, now is that the Chan piece is still changing in substantive ways, which certainly makes including the quote problematic, and speaks to why we should wait rather than rush in with quotes minutes after a news source posts them. And better yet, wait for multiple sources. But - we do disagree about whether this would have beeen fair use. Cheers Tvoz |talk 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of fair use, this is an entirely unnecessary quote. We wouldn't usually allow this much inane detail and I see no reason to make this article the exception. John Reaves 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WOW...Did That Just...? What The...? Okay...

So, I went on MSN.comand found out that this Heath Ledger dude is dead, right? So I thought "He sounds familiar, but I don't know just quite where from. Hey, I'll go to good ol' Wikipedia!" And so I Googled Heath Ledger's name, and clicked on the link (after double-checking); when the article opened, a HUGE picture of...*cough* well, you know...*cough cough* a ding-a-ling...showed up...all over the page.

I think it's gone now...but I was hoping this can somehow be prevented from happening again.

--Shania92 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not without fundamentally changing the nature of Wikipedia. The general consensus seems to be that the open nature of the 'pedia is important enough that the "inconvenience" of a few people unexpectedly seeing a penis now and again is a small price to pay. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The picture was added to the recent death template which has now been fully protected.↔NMajdan•talk 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Such templates should not be left unprotected in the first place. I hope this will be a lesson to somebody. Everyking (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Such templates, just as ALL articles and templates, should be left unprotected as much as possible. Protection is not a panacea. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
High-visibility maintenance templates are routinely fully protected as editing one may adversely affect thousands of articles. Nakon 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nakon is right; furthermore, templates like that would not benefit from open editing anyway, because they are "done". If they really need to be changed, the changes can and should be deliberated on beforehand. Everyking (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Every template in the article is now full protected via cascading protection at User:John Reaves/temporary. John Reaves 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to admit that was hilarious. Roneman90 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was :D A "ding-a-ling" - lololol! <snigger> C 1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apartment Owner

I'm watching Fox News right now <It's about 4:03 PM CST> and about ten or fifteen minutes ago they said that they confirmed the apartment did NOT belong to Mary-Kate Olsen.

We already got that. Roneman90 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, because Fox News is the best source EVER. EsocksLAMB (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

drug related?

has it been confirmed or did they just find pills and assume? what is going on here. why add it to a drug related death category if it has not been confirmed?

The article has been removed from the category pending verification. Nakon 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nudity

Why are there persistent removals of the fact that he was found nude? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states he was found nude? Nakon 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it once, because at the time it was only reported in one source which had a bunch of information that was not consistant with the majority of news reports. And I figured it would be better to be safe and go with a lack of information than to go back and correct misinformation. Counselorharry1 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Counselorharry1

NYPD and all major news networks have confirmed that he was found facing down and nude. Please refer to any news source (CNN, MSNBC, ETC.). They have all cited the NYPD. Viperbui (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from the "initial blog post on Mr. Ledger’s death" on nytimes.com. It was last updated at 6:45 PM EST. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/actor-heath-ledger-is-found-dead/index.html?ref=movies

The same paragraph is also present at the following link. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/heath_ledger/index.html

"At 3:31 p.m., according to the police, a masseuse arrived at the fourth-floor apartment of the building, at 421 Broome Street, between Crosby and Lafayette Streets in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of the bedroom Mr. Ledger was in. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed, with sleeping pills — both prescription medication and nonprescription — on a night table. They moved his body to the floor and attempted to revive him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities."

The following link (article) does not mention the nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/movies/23cnd-ledger.html?ex=1358744400&en=cbb47a73f08726f5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

To me it looks like a police source has given information to the New York Times that he was naked. Why should we believe all of the other information but not the part about him being naked? Reliefappearance (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He was found in bed, why do you need to explicitly state what most would assume anyway? MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't (and I have not made that edit personally) but I don't think the edits should be undone either. Why undo it? Explain that to me. Reliefappearance (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"The massage therapist and a housekeeper found his naked body in the bed at about 3:30 p.m."--Svetovid (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would "most assume" that being in bed implies nudity? Does no one wear pajamas on your planet? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this important? If it's sensationalism we want, we could even put it in bold print. He was found naked in his bed. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

Suicide mean there was intent to kill oneself, but as far as we know it was an accident, so that should probably be removed. Roneman90 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, it has already been taken care ofRoneman90 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Better take another look at an msnbc report. Mønobi 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It says suicide or accident. Could be either one, and until an autopsy report comes out to verify which it was, I think it is better left off the article. Roneman90 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's keep this sort of information out of the article until it has been confirmed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest I see is that the autopsy results will be delayed 10 to 14 days. Just noting for the sake of noting. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Full protection for extended period of time is not acceptable

{{editprotected}} East718 made it clear with this edit that protection was only intended to be for a very brief time ("10 minutes") to deal with vandalism. However, with this edit, Nakon made it seem like the protection will be in place much longer. Please consider undoing Nakon's edit and assuring us non-admins that we will be able to edit this article again shortly. Mike R (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already reduced the protection. Nakon 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike R (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

More protection needed

Can someone semi-protect A Knight's Tale (film) too please? --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone already nabbed it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's unbelievable how fast this is all moving. Thanks.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Name

The nytimes article specified his full name as "Heathcliff", so I have added it to the intro of the article along with the reference to back it up. -- Chuq (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to reference his name. It was already known by many that his first name was Heathcliff. Besides, there are many articles, websites etc. all over the world which state his name is Heathcliff, you don't need to reference it to NY Times. Although I think it is good that you added his full name. -- apple10 ((talk)) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (AEST)
Fair enough - I just thought I would mention it here since just before I did the edit above, someone else added it and it was removed straight away. -- Chuq (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Posthumous appearance"

In the line for Dark Knight, the "other notes" says posthumous appearance. Is that really neccessary? Does it even matter that the film is coming out after he died? Unless he died in production, I don't see the point or value of that entry. It's not like Brandon Lee dying during The Crow and them creating footage of him. The movie is in the can already, has been for months. Howa0082 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It goes without saying that it's a posthumous appearance. I don't have an objections to it being removed, however, I would wait until the fervor has subsided a bit before removing it. Inevitably, someone will think it belongs there and re-add it. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, maybe put "died before release", or something like that. Roneman90 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How can one have a "posthumous appearance" anyway?.. His ghost appears on film?? It doesn't make sense as a concept. Even Brandon Lee's post-death "appearances" were made from images recorded when he was alive. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.234.86 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
wikt:posthumous. His appearance in the film would most definitely be considered as "taking place after one's death". EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...even released after death or "died before release" seems odd to me. Anyone can see the dates and figure out he died before it was released. Plus, it's not like no one won't know he died before it was released. It's being covered everywhere and no doubt it will be discussed when the movie is finally released. I just had a look at Brandon Lee's page and it makes no mention of his death in relation to the release of The Crow in his filmography. Less is more in my opinion. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't opposing its removal, I was just providing the link to Wiktionary. :) I do think that there's no point mentioning it; Lee's appearance was more discussion worthy, due to the trickery needed to complete it, but near as I can tell, Ledger was already done with the movie by the time he died. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I say keep it. Its obvious now, but in the future people won't necessarily know the two happened in that sequence and its a pain to compare dates, so why not leave it? There's no real reason to remove it, and its interesting to note that the role many people are saying may be his most memorable came out after he died. And Anon, the concept is not flawed because it isn't a posthumus production, its a posthumus appearance. He didn't MAKE the movie after he died, he just appeared in it, since the release date was his first appearance. Nerrolken (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with EVula. Since the movie is being published after his death, it is a posthumous appearance. Meaning the public first view the film after the actor has died. BTW I'm impressed with how fast this has been updated, vandalized, protected, unprotected, and corrected. Heh. I never thought I'd see a wiki article work so fast. I guess I just don't normally check out "relevant" topics. I tend to view backwater articles more than anything, and they take months to update sometimes.Gopher65 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That kind of thing will be in the biography prose, though. If you're looking at a highlight of his career, you want to see Oscars and nominations and BAFTA awards, not "died before release". It's not a very good highlight to say that he died. Howa0082 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On this issue, I've created the category Category:Actors with posthumous work MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "posthumous release" works better and is more correct in what you were going for. These people didn't film after they were dead, their work was merely shown after that time. Like a snuff film! Howa0082 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, in case someone includes Casper the friendly ghost lol. Feel free to open a discussion on the cat page. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "posthumous release" is acceptable along with an explanation of it in the article. No doubt it's in there as his last completed film and there will be a big send up about it once it is released. People were making a huge deal about it when he was cast so, I think it will be one of those common knowledge type of things. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pnuemonia?!

According to TMZ.com, they are claiming Heath had Pnumonia at time of death.

TMZ also stated he was in Mary-Kate's apartment. Until I hear an official report, I don't think it should be included in the article. Roneman90 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would hold off on including anything from TMZ unless it is verified elsewhere. Nakon 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Age are reporting this too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shniken1 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Try to sign your posts. Also, the only official information surrounding his death is that he is in fact dead, and pills were found surrounding his body. Until an NYPD official or coroner says otherwise, I think it is premature to conclude anything else could have lead to his death. Roneman90 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did not die in olsen-twin's apt

According to NY times, he didn't die in olsen-twin's apt. The statement was retracted/reversed. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/actor-heath-ledger-is-found-dead/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.133.201 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed. Thank you for pointing it out, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

what two police?

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Roneman90 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
someone had an edit where they reference "two Police" I took out the edit at first then changed it back because I didn't research the topic. then someone else came and removed the two but left police capitalized. Reliefappearance (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is what the police believe here period? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news organ. That the police did not think foul play was involved and have not ruled (accidental) suicide is fodder for Wikinews and rumor blogs, not an encyclopedia. --Rcshowman (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not fodder at this point because it's the only official news as of yet. As soon as more concrete info is found out, we can lose the "police think" bit. What investigators think or conclude at this point is all we can go on without just saying that he died. I understand what you mean though, I always find it off putting when I read that "police think...", sort of makes it seem like they're guessing. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point: "it's the only official news as of yet." The info in the 'Death' section is bits of news, not appropriate matter for an encyclopedia article. The floor of his apartment, the manner in which he was found, and the reactions of various folks tenuously related to the subject are details that would have trouble passing muster elsewhere. ----Rcshowman (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that will have to do for now. Since legitimate news outlets are also using that wording and we use those sources, it will have to do for now. After an official cause of death is released, all those things will be changed to reflect a more appropriate and encyclopedic tone. Like it or not, this is a "live edit' encyclopedic and always a work in progress. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I've added a Release section at The Dark Knight (film) with some coverage about how his death will affect the film. I don't know if there's anything that can be incorporated in the actor's article, but feel free to replicate any information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reactions from death?

Should there be a piece about the reactions from his death? Michelle Williams said she was "devastated", his family said they were "cut up" and even our Prime Minister has even released a statement. If that's not good enough for a small part about reactions, then I don't know what is.[4] Raven. 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I am leaning towards it being unnecessary. Maybe a little snippet within the article, but not another section. Roneman90 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I meant lol. Raven. 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see that Michelle Williams reaction is noteworthy and worth including, but Kevin Rudd? He's a notable person, but not in the context of Heath Ledger. I vote to remove the Rudd reference. --150.101.146.56 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Afterall, this is an article about Heath Ledger, not anyone else. And we need to keep to facts versus opinion. It is hard to lose someone but reactions do not contribute to the facts in this article. Viperbui (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Irwin has a whole sub-section about the rection from his death. I just posted 2 sentences, one from the mother of his child and the other from the Prime Minister of his own country. Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson and other well-known actors have all released statements, but then it would drawl on if all of their opinions were added. Raven. 03:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Steve Irwin has been dead for over a year; Ledger died yesterday. There's been a lot more time for reactions to Irwin's death. --DearPrudence (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable reactions should absolutely be included. They can go in a separate subarticle if we have a lot of them. Everyking (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm guessing my add to the page about Kevin Rudd's and Michelle Williams' reactions are gonna stay there, but now, should it stay like that or should we add other "notable" celebrites/peoples reactions and make it into a subsection? This is a list of people who have released statements.

I personally feel that it should stay the way it is, but I am just bringing up the suggestion as other people may feel that it should change. Raven. 07:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole reactions section should be removed or truncated to remove direct quotes, at least until the short run press cycle has concluded. The fact that people are rationalizing Michelle Williams getting on a plane to New York as "notable" basically indicates the bar's been set so low for inclusion in this eulogy section that anyone could step over it. This is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Townlake (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


I just found this article in reaction to his death by the westboro baptist church.. Should this be included in? Link:http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080122_heath-ledger-brokeback-mountain.pdf

Deavenger —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No. We've already been around the block on this issue - see the WBC discussion on this page, there's a clear consensus to exclude for lack of encyclopedic value. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not accidental overdose?

Are you sure about the police ruling out an accidental overdose? I don't really know much about this as I only just found out about it on the radio about an hour ago (I heard the name of the person who died but it was muffled by someone who was talking to me, I thought they said that Keith Richards had died! so I went on Wikipedia to check), but I'm pretty sure that I heard the radio announcer saying that Heath's cause of death was unknown but it was suspected as being a drug over-dose. From the looks of it (under the death heading of the Heath Ledger Wikipedia page) it seem all very well referenced and such, so I'm probaly wrong, but you know, just checkin'. Pitty about his death though. 28 though, jeez that's just too young.--Maceo (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The police do not suspect foul play but have not ruled out suicide. According to reports there will be an autopsy tomorrow. Reliefappearance (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How does an autopsy prove if it was suicide or accidental? A level of drugs in the blood or however they find out he died isn't going to prove his intentions. Siouxsie18 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important for an encyclopedia article not to speculate on cause of death until the official report comes in. For all we know it could have been a blood clot. Waiting on this will save re-editing.3Tigers (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In a recent interview (according to Headline News) Heath claimed that ehw as taking Ambien becuase he was getting very little sleep, due to his immersion in the 'Joker' character's psychopathic personality. The sleeping pills found beside him were reportedly otc. Because of his deep immersion in the character, it could possibly be a suicide, considering the frame of mind he would have had from tryinn to relate to the fucked-up character. He also could have just tried to take more pills becuase the prescription wasn't working well enough. More speculation is that he could have been drinking, which can lead to accidental overdoses when used in combination with sleeping aids.

This is jsut speculation on my part. I don't beleive ANYTHING about the pills or a suicide or an overdose should be included. The death is hardly 7 hours old, if that. Let the poor man rest. This is a wikipedia article. We rely on facts, NOT speculation. So, until there is an autopsy, I think that all editing should be locked.

Just my opinion...EsocksLAMB (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't lock Wikipedia articles as a matter of policy unless there is extreme, uncontrollable vandalism. But we do have a Verifiability policy and any editor can and should eliminate lines that are not properly verifiable. Tempshill (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


There's no proof the Ambien caused his death. When/If there is go ahead and put it in the article. Assuming he OD'ed on Ambien because he took 2 a several weeks ago is speculative and doesn't belong. Am I wrong here? I don't think so. Reliefappearance (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is speculation and shouldn't be in. But I disagree with your removal of what the police spokesman said - that is the verifiable statement, and just as valid as the statement by the family. It doesn't say there is a conclusion reached, it merely states what the police said. In other words - we include that the police report that they did not find any illegal drugs - we also should report that they found no obvious signs of suicide (like a note). The police statement is the police statement.Tvoz |talk 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I will just take out the part about illegal drugs. You are right why mention there were no illegal drugs. Why would anyone assume there were in the first place? Reliefappearance (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's more balanced, but I don't see why we don't just include what the police spokesman said about the event, which is widely reported. Tvoz |talk 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The police spokeperson's statement seems relevant for the time being; either way, this is rather temporal and will surely be superceded by ongoing events. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the nature of the information contained in an encyclopedia strive for timeless relevance rather than temporal? Temporal relevance is the purview of current events and the news. --Rcshowman (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was the official police statement after his death - that is not going to change, and that is what we are citing, not that it is the definitive explanation of the circumstances surrounding his death. If the true story ends up being different, we'll include that and make a determination then about whether the police report should remain. At least that's how I see it. Tvoz |talk 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That assumes that articles are timeless; this one is currently very much temporal. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Parnassus status

This will become clear in the coming days, but for now I changed the line "He was filming The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus at the time of his death" to "The film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, in which he had been cast, was in production at the time of his death." The Parnassus article's talk page notes that it's not clear whether he had been actually filming, whether he had started his parts or finished them or right in the middle or what. Tempshill (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Define "Forum"

Pardon my ignorance; I don't have a college degree. The top of this page reads "This is not a forum for general discussion of the recent death of Heath Ledger...." If all of these recent posts are not a "forum for general discussion," what are they? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, or vandalize anything. It's a simple question. NBK1122 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An example of something not needed here would be "Favorite Ledger Movie". That is a forum. This is an area to discuss how to make the actual article about Heath Ledger better. Roneman90 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A forum for general discussion of his death would be a comment like "I doubt he committed suicide, because he has a little child" . Acceptable commentary here would be "The New York Times says that the police didn't see any obvious signs of suicide - maybe we should include that." We should only be discussing how to improve the article, not speculating or analyzing the event ourselves. Tvoz |talk 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some posts here which are off topic and could be removed. But Tvoz explaination is correct. We should only be discussing what should go in the article (i.e. how to imrpvoe the article), not personal opinions nor even unverified details which are available in non reliable sources. If you are unsure if something counts as a RS then you're welcome to mention it here but generally there's no point in saying 'I read this in source XYZ which is not a reliable source' Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from "death" section.

The stuff about the rumours in Mary Kate Olsen's apartment with pearls and pills spilled all over the bed. The Mary Kate stuff is incorrect, and the pills and pearls sounds like crap. Even if it isn't, it doesn't sound very encylcopedic. Raven. 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever added a link to "WikiNews" restored the misinformation; I have deleted the link to that extremely-misleading feature (which is fully protected and cannot be corrected currently). --NYScholar (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Naked in Bed

Why does it seem so relevant that everyone know he was found NAKED in bed? A significant number of people ARE naked when in bed. 99.248.53.179 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just stating the facts. Raven. 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the naked in bed shows that it may not be a suicide? While i don't know that much about suicides, most people you'd assume would be dressed beforehand.
What does it matter what it does or does not "show?" Facts are facts. I'm not going to add it but I will surely not undo it if sourced. Reliefappearance (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And if we get a source stating the length of his toe-nails at time of death, you'll alow that inclusion as well, presumably? Can we please try and stick to relevant information concerning this event, and most importantly, why don't we all wait a few days until the coroner's report so we have all the facts and can write something accurate? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No original research. You're going to have to cite your sources on his toenail length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.62.86 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It definitely does matter why the fact is mentioned. Irrelevant facts should generally not be in an article Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the news reports mention that he was naked. If they find it significant, why shouldn't we? 211.31.98.156 Murrawhip (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I think its just done for tintillation. 99.248.53.179 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It simply paints a more accurate picture of the scene. It is not irrelevant. If he were wearing a clown costume, I imagine you would think that would be relevant. The fact that he was naked is similar. I think some people have a deeper problem with unadorned human body, and are only able to imagine it as something sexual when it is unclothed. Because of that they think mentioning nudity is somehow trying to make the article salacious. 75.37.144.221 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If he were found in a clown suit that would be remarkable and therefore it would make sense to include it. Likewise if he were found naked in the middle of Central Park, that would be remarkable and newsworthy. As it is, there's nothing especially remarkable about being naked in one's own bed. If that detail happens to be inside a quoted article, there's no reason to actively omit it, but there is no reason to actively make note of it either.Garbled Reverie (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This didn't happen yet.

On January 23, Ledger's father Kim Ledger, mother Sally Ledger-Bell and sister Katie Ledger appeared outside Ledger's mother's house in Applecross at 10.50am, when Mr Ledger read a short statement to the media. "We, Heath's family, confirm the very tragic, untimely and accidental passing of our dearly loved son, brother and doting father of Matilda, who was found in a peaceful sleep in his New York apartment by his housekeeper at 3.30pm (New York Time)," he said. "We would like to thank our friends and everyone around the world for their kind wishes at this time. Heath has touched so many people on so many different levels during his short life, but few had the pleasure to truly know him. He was a down-to-earth, generous, kind-hearted, life-loving and unselfish individual who was an extreme inspiration to many. Please now respect our family's need to grieve and come to terms with our loss privately."[1]

WTF? It is now 11:53 PM January 22nd. 74.173.84.148 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian time, not US time. miranda 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Eastern Standard Time I'm guessing. Even though I'm from Adelaide, I'm pretty sure all the major news stations are that are reporting are in Sydney, Melbourne (all in eastern Australia). Raven. 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Western Daylight Saving Time (UTC+9, or AWST+1). —Moondyne 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops. lol Raven. 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well that was easily explained. Sorry, I was robo-tripping when I noticed that. 74.173.84.148 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Olsen connection

CNN is reporting that the Olsen connection is false. It is probably worth noting this as a false rumor, since it was published (by CNN, among other outlets). 23skidoo (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was mistakenly published and later retracted. I don't see why we need to purposely include false information in the article. Nakon 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
TMZ was the originator of this, and other false rumours about Mr. Ledger's death. I think anything only verifiable by TMZ.Com should NOT be considered verifiable for Wikipedia purposes. Hrhadam (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
TMZ was not "the originator of this". The Olsen assertion was made by an NYPD spokesperson and reported by numerous outlets including the NYTimes blog. The NYPD later retracted that claim. Mike R (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It actually was a mistake, corrected within an hour of its reporting, and should not be in the article - it has no weight. Tvoz |talk 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was watching the BBC and they reported that after the housekeeper, was alerted by the massage therapist (who was let in by the housekeeper, despite not able to get him to answer the door, and set up the massage table (by prior appointment to relieve stress) but when she shook Ledger realized that something was wrong), panicked and used Ledger's mobile phone and call the last number on it which happen to be Mary-Kate Olsen's number. Mary-Kate told her that she would call an friend/bodyguard (sorry can't remember which) nearby the area who is also a paramedic to go and check up on him immediately. The housekeeper then calling back telling her that because he was very cold and that she dialed 911. There was a number of calls between them during this time and it was not sure why it was so. Topsaint (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore my insert above. It was obvious that it had been sorted out in the article to satisfactory level. My bad ;-) Topsaint (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New Article about Olsen phone calls and timeline for update Here is a new article about the timeline (updated!), maybe it is interesting http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/297307 Luzymae talk 14:42, 25 January 2008 (CET)

Westboro Baptist Church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although it was just recently added, I'm actually inclined to remove the bit about the Westboro Baptist Church announcing plans to picket the funeral. Regardless of whether it's true or not... I suppose I'll go for a "one of these doesn't belong" comparison: in the event of a celebrity's death, who should be quoted regarding the incident? (a) The local law enforcement authorities, (b) the family, and/or (c) Fred Phelps? Surely a lot of people will say a lot of things; not everything Phelps says is automagically relevant in all situations. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This POS should not be named in any of these postings. Why is this relevant to Heath's death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.196.87 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. Bigots and hate sites like Phelps' don't need encouragement from WP and are not automatically notable just because they want to be. Statements from them have little relevance here. —Moondyne 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - regardless of anyone's feelings about Phelps' world view, his opinion of Brokeback Mountain is a few steps off the reservation here. Arguably, the actual picket at the funeral would be worthy of inclusion here, but not a mere announcement that a future protest of minor consequence is currently in the planning stages. Strong remove. Townlake (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - picket activities announced by the WBC are not notable. Tempshill (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Adding my voice just to discourage any quibbles about consensus.3Tigers (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and the pdf "flyer" that had been included last night as a so-called citation was not at all a reliable or verifiable source - it was a pdf file that anyone could have conjured up out of thin air. If and when this happens, and if and when reliable sources write about it, and if and when it rises to notability, then we might include a mention of it. Although personally my bar is pretty high about this one. Tvoz |talk 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
While I agree entirely with having the pdf not included, the pdf does come from their official website. In my experience that would confirm enough that they are going to at least attempt to. I know this may not be relevant, but I thought I'd clear that fact up. --Svippong 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it probably shouldn't go up, even if it goes ahead and a few reliable sources write about it. If, for example, they managed to eek a response out of the family then perhaps it would be enough but if not, this at most will probably belong in the Westboro church or related articles but not here. Most likely, it will be a minor thing, is the funeral even going to be in the US? Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Not notable. Bwilder1998 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed about the picketing, but I think it is considerably notable that he became a target for their hate-group to be added, especially since it's something that has stretched from print-media to radio, and now his friends have become targets of the group. Perhaps a brief edit stating that the group did in fact attack him following his death, but leave the picketing of memorial services out until Westboro Baptist Church implement. --Yaboii 100 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand about not giving the group power, as I personally despise them, but we can't ignore notable information just to take a stand - if we were to do that on Wikipedia articles, we should be deleting all references to the WBC on all related articles, and delete the article dedicated to them, too. Ledger passed, as all people do at some point, but not all people's deaths are followed up by such international attention - and most do not become the target of picketing and campaiging. When Steve Irwin passed and animal rights organizations attacked him, aspects of this were included in his article, despite the fact that some people believe PETA to be eco-terrorists. I think it is understandable to not want to give this group media attention, but we can't revert and delete information referencing them just because we don't like them. --Yaboii 100 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is your sources are minor and this gives tremendous undue weight to this group. I'm sure there are thousands of people phoning in their opinions about Heath Ledger to call-in radio stations - why are you singling out the WBC for a large section in this article? It might be correct to mention a protest at the funeral by the WBC if one occurred and was covered in the mainstream press. Beyond that, there is no reason in policy or commonsense to include the WBC in this article. Your material might be appropriate in the WBC article, although your sources are not solid at the moment - they are primary sources and might be challenged. Gwernol 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of people are phoning in their condolences, not to bark hatred slurs and to inform people that Ledger is burning in Hell. I understand the sources are weaker than others, but I do have an issue with the concept being discussed above, that because nobody actually likes the WBC we shouldn't include them in the article because it gives them "power", when I think we should include their stupid opinon, not because I like them, but because it's having a fair impact on Ledger's family and fanbase and it's pretty notable information regarding Ledger's post-death biography. Do you think if someone were to write a book about Ledger, that the WBC's outrageous allegations about him burning in Hell for doing Brokeback Mountain and their attempts to picket his memorial services wouldn't be included? They would! --Yaboii 100 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If the WBC's anti-Ledger campaign crosses over into the mainstream media, I agree that the issue should be reconsidered. You're absolutely correct that antipathy toward the WBC isn't reason to exclude... but interesting-ness and the notability appropriate for inclusion here are two different concepts. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some google search results where a number of mainstream media publications have addressed the WBC's anti-Ledger campaign, and other articles are making mention of the groups attack on Ledger's friends, most predominantly Elissa Sursara, who has clashed with the group before when she criticized their church. Google Search Results for Query: Westboro Baptist Church, Heath Ledger. Do you think those are enough to go on? They're fairly well known sites. --Theguywiththeinfo (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] It is already included in Westboro Baptist Church and perhaps it could be expanded there - it is about them, not about Ledger, and I think does not belong in his bio. Tvoz |talk 08:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the campaign in an "anti-Ledger" campaign, I don't understand why you think "it's not about Ledger"? --Theguywiththeinfo (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We're an encyclopaedia, not a news tabloid. A piece of news trivia does not suddenly become article-worthy just because it is reported at some "well known sites". —Moondyne 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't and wouldn't characterize it as an "anti-Ledger" campaign. It is anti-homosexuality, and it correctly isn't on that page either, nor on Brokeback Mountain. This item, if it is included anywhere, would belong only on the group's page because it is just another example of their activities. It doesn't rise to a level of notability for his bio, in my opinion - nor do the tributes that poured in from people, many far more famous that the Westboro Baptist Church, on his death. So it is not about antipathy to the group, as was suggested upstream, although I certainly do feel antipathy toward them. Tvoz |talk 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Major Australian newspapers, as well as FOX News, have now picked this up. It's into the realm of notability, and a sentence will at some point need to be added to the bio. Again, hatred of the WBC isn't a reason to exclude it. And it's simply absurd to cabin this discussion as anti-homosexuality when the vitriol is specifically being directed at Ledger for playing one of his most famous roles. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Will this be notable in ten years? Five? One? Pairadox (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point and I'm glad you brought it up. The problem is the entire death section defies that principle at this point. There's a lot of stuff in there that will need to be stripped for notability reasons eventually. The WBC protests are becoming prominent and excluding them because we don't agree with the WBC's tactics (I know I don't) is simply not what Wikipedia is about. I say one sentence for now because the notability requirements are met, and hopefully the short-term edit war over this will be brief and painless. Townlake (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I don't think I said, and certainly didn't intend to imply, that the WBC matter should be excluded because I abhor their tactics. I do, but that's not why I think it doesn't belong in this article - I don't think it rises to the level of notability for inclusion in a biography of one of their targets. This is a biography of his whole life and career, and this matter doesn't seem notable in that context for his biography. As I said, I agreed with the removal of the tributes too on notability grounds. I also agree with the comment that some of the death details need to be removed - the names of the housekeeper and masseuese and the fine details surrounding their actions seem too minute for longevity, but seeing as the story is unfolding it's probably ok to keep them for a short while. But pretty soon they should be out, I think. As for the WBC, this event is probably notable enough for their article, but I don't think this one. By the way - did they actually picket or was it just their threat? I realize I never heard any follow up on the news, but I was out of town for a few days and may have missed it. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The WBC article doesn't show any evidence they've followed up on an announced funeral picket since 2005. Pairadox (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason to leave it out of here. Tvoz |talk 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't followed or seen any news about this issue the last few days, and I'll be the last person rushing to add something to this article about WBC. I'm a little squeamish about Pairadox's apparent requirement of historic follow-through by the WBC for notability to be reached, but that's a side note - if I'm outvoted on the exclusion issue here, I'm not gonna lose any sleep. Thanks for the constructive dialogue on this all. Townlake (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to a question from Tvoz, nothing more. Pairadox (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fix it!

Can someone please fix this article, someones vandalized it and protected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.180.9 (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of Death

His date of death should actually be 23rd Jan '08, although it was the 22nd of Jan in the US where he died, it was already the 23rd Jan in Australia where he was born so the correct date of death should be that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.107.25 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to give time and date of death based on where the person died I believe... WjBscribe 10:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct the date of death would be the date in NYC. Ridernyc (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Deaths occur where they happen - obviously - and according to the time zone operating in that place at that time. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from family

The guy speaking said that Heath was selfish, not unselfish. No doubt he meant to say selfless or unselfish, but the fact remains, he said selfish.

After checking the source, I've noticed that they do indeed say unselfish in the quote. I advise another source be found, as it's incorrect. Murrawhip (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was his father Kim speaking and I also thought he mistakenly said selfish (and which of course is not what he meant to say regardless). A link to the video is here and on listening it to more closely he definitely said "unselfish". —Moondyne 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Press reception section

Can this section be looked at and improved as far as sources go? I removed a link that redirected to a blog. I will try to add cite tags rather than remove unsourced material. TIA --Tom 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you have been removing links to the NY Times' "blog". Be careful in removing a cite just because it has the word "blog" in its name. Sometimes such is acceptable. See footnote 5 here for further thoughts. Mike R (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mike, thanks for the heads up. I will try to abide to that footnote about newspaper blogs, ect. --Tom 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed it again and I reinstated it just now - City Room is a pre-publication site that is part of the New York Times - it is completely acceptable and not a blog per se. Tvoz |talk 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pills redux

MSNBC says the following: "Police on Wednesday said they found bottles of prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication in his bedroom and in the bathroom; there were still pills in the bottles." Does anyone have a reliable source that says that there were definitively sleeping pills at the bed and not just in the bathroom? Also, we could use a source regarding OTC vs. prescription. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources cited have refuted those claims. The police commissioner's statement and subsequent news reports cited clarify. Citing speculations made from unnamed anonymous sources is irresponsible. --NYScholar (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Music video

The info about Ledger's music video "death scene," while an interesting coincidence, is not relevant, not encyclopedic, and IMO rather tasteless. Editing.3Tigers (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Press reception/Public image

I'm concerned about whether this information belongs in an encyclopedia, and if so, to what degree. It seems like a cherry-picked list of Ledger's negative run-ins with the press. Most of his press relations were positive and therefore did not make the news; no reporter writes, "Ledger gave a calm and boring press conference" as a story. Focusing on the sensational makes it sound like the norm, which is untruthful.3Tigers (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing it for the sake of removing it doesn't strike me as the best option either. Do you have another alternative? If we had some more "positive" statements, I'd be all for adding them, though I must point out that I don't really see much wrong with the section as it stands. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And it is now fully cited (which it should have been all along). Tvoz |talk 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead or unconscious?

The article says he was found dead, then in the same sentence says he was found unconscious. If he was alive but unconscious when the housekeeper got there, surely he would have been taken to hospital? Katharineamy (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that unconscious means not conscious. If you're dead, you're also unconscious. To say that Ledger was found unconscious is just another way of saying that he was found to be unawake and unresponsive. He was shortly thereafter determined to be dead. Mike R (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I switched "unconscious" to "unresponsive," which I hope is a fair compromise -- gets a very similar meaning across without the ambiguity, I think. Feel free to tinker beyond that, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
good edit Tvoz |talk 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "unresponsive" might(!) be even worse than "unconscious". "unresponsive" people are not necessarily "unconscious", but "unconscious" people are always "unresponsive", so "unconscious" is a "stronger" word than "unresponsive". Since the decision was between "unconscious" and "dead", "unresponsive" is - in my opinion of course - a step in the wrong direction. But, unless it is not confirmed what is true, I don't really have word which would really fit. Of course, "unresponsive" is definately true, but it might be a bit misleading (as "unresponsive" might mean: conscious, but unresponsive) 85.177.216.168 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For clarification, here's an article that gives a detailed account of what happened between the time his housekeeper arrived at his apartment and the masseuse discovered he was dead.Reelm (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death

We may never know the true cause of death, or all the details surrounding his death, especially if its accidental. It may depend on what his family wants to release to the public. Should this be mentioned in the main article? (did we ever find out how the INXS lead singer died?) 99.248.53.179 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to decide this. Tvoz |talk 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of 911

I Wikified "911" to the correct 9-1-1. Certainly American readers are familiar with 911 and what it is, but many users visit this site from outside the US where it is likely less familiar to them. Michaelh2001 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i doubt that very much. 911 is recognised as being the american emergency services the world over, no? i'm not american and have known its 911 since i was young. i've also never been to america. having said that, i've got a thing for the porsche 911, and sometimes just call it a 911, so there's more than 1 use for the number. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This is moot - Michael's edit to 9-1-1 is correct and links for anyone who is unfamiliar with the usage. Tvoz |talk 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambien

A lot of news reports have said he had, among some other prescription drugs, Ambien in his room when he was found dead. Why doesn't this article mention the Ambien? Even the Ambien article mentions Heath Ledger, so why doesn't this article? It's a pretty big detail that is pretty much been mentioned by the press all over the world. Or are we leaving this bit of information out because it may affect potential sales of Sanofi-Aventis? JayKeaton (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He may have had Colgate toothpaste in his room too, but at this point it's not relevant. When the toxicology reports come back, and if Ambien is a drug that was found to be notable, then it is necessary to add. 144.137.204.192 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is relevent because major news outlets HAVE mentioned it and HAVE questioned it's involvement in his death. If a Colgate toothpaste was thought to be dangerous and he was found with tubes of Colgate in his apartment then the news outlets would mention the Colgate. But they didn't talk about Colgate toothpaste, so Colgate toothpaste isn't notable because it wasn't mentioned. They DID mention the Ambien and have talked about it, so it IS notable. JayKeaton (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ambien should definitely be mentioned in this article; it was mentioned many times in the new reports about his death that I have heard of and it really should be mentioned if Ambien is indeed the cause (or partial cause) of his death. I take Ambien myself on occasion and I want to know if someone has died taking it, famous or not in fact. -A.H. 5:15, Tue 29 January 2008
Perhaps you should consult your doctor or pharmacist rather than relying on celebrity articles on Wikipedia. Pairadox (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One report that I heard of the prescription drugs found in the apartment did not cite "Ambien" but "Lunesta" and other reports have not confirmed the "Ambien" claims. One needs to wait until actual reliable third-party published sources and the toxicology analysis published via such sources are available. Do not cite speculations from unreliable sources. --NYScholar (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sleep complaint?

A few weeks before his passing, Heath complained that he had trouble sleeping. Can someone elaborate with a verifiable source whether he had trouble sleeping at night or trouble sleeping at all? -Mardus (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I heard the interview was from November, and it was published by NY Magazine. Did a search but didn't find it. I did find this interview though. From 11/20/06. He talks about playing a heroine addict for the movie Candy. He flatly denies using the drug.Reelm (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Here it is! It was published in the New York Times, not NY Mag. You might need to register to read it.
“Last week I probably slept an average of two hours a night,” he said. “I couldn’t stop thinking. My body was exhausted, and my mind was still going.” One night he took an Ambien, which failed to work. He took a second one and fell into a stupor, only to wake up an hour later, his mind still racing.
Reelm (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A slightly different version of the interview was published in The Observer today (27/1/08). It's available here --Whoosher (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Body found warm?

I beleive i just read news report which changes much information cited in this article. In this news article, it has been claimed that his body was warm at the time the medics arrived there. Which should be added immediatley. Please read this article, the address is pasted below.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23124067-661,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.95.14 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Creative Commons picture

If someone needs a photo of Ledger I found one here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/howie_berlin/102081411/ --Heida Maria 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't accept CC-BY-ND-NC photos. miranda 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But you can someone with some time may ask the copyright holder if he wishes to publish it under CC-BY (I unfortunately don't have a flicker account). -- lucasbfr talk 10:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Edited 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked people with this photo and several other photos on flickr before you posted the remark. miranda 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This was a general remark not directed at you, sorry if you took it that way. -- lucasbfr talk 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, that's okay. See below. miranda 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I don't like the picture of him in the article. It gives the impression that he is drug-addicted. Can someone please find a more flattering picture? 99.248.53.179 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a free image, you can upload the image. Otherwise, no. miranda 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As unflattering as it is, that's what he has looked like in the past couple of months, busted up, drugged and worn out. It's always better to get a recent picture of him, because a picture from his 10 Things I Hate About You days (where he was attractive) isn't going to useful as that was about 10 years ago. Raven. 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, free image. Wikipedia doesn't hold glamour shots of celebrities. Wikipedia gets free use images of celebrities from those photographers who are willing to donate them for free use. miranda 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But you are assuming that he WAS busted up and drugged out leading up to his death. I am assuming nothing. Do all the recent pictures look this bad? 99.248.53.179 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All of the celebrity pictures, which are freely licensed? No. miranda 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not assuming he was, I'm saying that he LOOKED like he was. If you can find a recent picture of him that fits Wikipedia's standards, then you can upload it if you want. Raven. 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any on Flickr. Sorry. miranda 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I didn't recognise him from that picture. I remember him from Brokeback mountain, and that's the picture of him I recognise. Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well these recent pictures are actually the ones that were gonna have to use to remember Heath for the rest of lives. Raven. 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Raven your usage of the term "drugged up" in relation to Mr. Ledger's looks is a can of worms I'm sure you don't want to open. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you, personally, have ABSOLUTELY no proof of any drug usage by Mr. Ledger. Its quite possible for a person to exhibit most if not all (obviously false) signs of usage of many different types of drugs simply due to several situational factors, when no drugs of any kind were consumed. For example, both fatigue and marijuana usage are linked to redness of the eyes. Please keep hearsay and personal opinions and ideas far away from this site. Hrhadam (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

wake up buddy, the guy looks doped up. its just a fact. but anyways, it is a bad pic. in a biography you might find a pic taken during a bad time in some ones life but usually it would be lower down in the article. Har 1/23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.241.16 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


You can find really bad pics of most celebrities these days, doesn't mean they look "doped up". I've seen unflattering pics of people I know that have the same look, and they're completely drug free. Anyway, I think everyone can agree that it's a terrible picture, and the article could use a better one. (Especially now that he's deceased) Who would put a bad pic of Elvis Presley, Gene Kelly, or Clark Gable for example? Or even living stars who aren't known for their looks, like Gene Wilder or woody Allen? Best pic would be one with a look that the person is "known" for. I think if anyone has a better one, they should replace it. Swapnil 404 (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Use copyrighted image?

Now that he is dead, it's acceptable to use a fair use image in the infobox, correct? If so, could someone who is informed about fair use policy find and upload one? Skomorokh confer 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the picture's copyright belongs to the person that took the picture, not to Ledger himself. Same with his movies, the rights belong to the studio. And even if it did belong to Ledger, copyright would go to his successors it wouldn't automatically be released into the public domain.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How is this relevant? My point was that given that the individual is dead, it will be somewhat difficult to create a free image of him, and seeing as there does not appear to be a free image extant, this justifies our using a copyrighted image under fair use. Skomorokh confer 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, i thought that you meant that copyrighted images were now free because he's dead.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a free image, it is never acceptable to use a fair use one. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know of a free image? Skomorokh confer 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted to the free picture. When free pictures are available, ALWAYS use the free picture. miranda 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Found out the old image was a copyright violation. miranda 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Picture

The picture has to be removed as it does not fall under fair usage. All pictures of Ennis Del Mar are copyrighted, so Wikipedia can use a copyrighted picture for him. However, not all pictures of Heath Ledger are copyrighted, so a non-copyrighted one must be used. 172.142.118.103 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ennis picture was used on various mainstream media websites, such as that of the San Francisco Chronicle, to illustrate the story. How is it that they have permission but Wikipedia does not? (Inquiry, not criticism.)3Tigers (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The image has a Fair Use rationale, so there's no problem there. Plus, it's of his most famous character; I think it's a fine image (especially since the previous image was deleted as a copyvio, and this image has been on the article since well before his death). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It has a fair use rationale, but its a somewhat weak one. It would be much stronger if the image was actually placed with the text that discussed the role. In the infobox it is divorced from that. It is about Ledger, not the character. It's a rather weak fair use argument. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The only merit to the argument is that the Brokeback role is arguably his most famous (as it garnered him a major award nomination). Dunno how well the argument holds against the Joker, though, as that remains to be seen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The aforementioned SF Chron article definitively states that's his best-known-for role, FWIW. Pairadox (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use wouldn't apply to living actors so with the death of heath and no free images available, according to wiki policies, unless a free one is uploaded, a screen shot or a head shot would be justified under fair use. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But the image being used is intended to promote the movie, not Heath Ledger. Using it in the Brokeback Mountain etc articles may be fine but I'm not so sure about using it here, particularly in the infobox. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As was Buddy Ebsens photo to promote The Beverly Hillbillies, a screen shot of Judy Garland, and other head shots including Ava Gardner, Dean Martin, Charles Rocket, Bob Hope, Andy Kaufman, Chris Farley and many other actors that have passed on. Unless a free alternative exists this is allowed. It is not allowed for living actors because there is always a chance for one to be made. With the death of an actor that opportunity is gone. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Usually fair use images of recently deceased persons are not used. miranda 08:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've looked all over wikipedia and there are no policies on images of those that have recently departed. There are numerous about the living but there is a consensus stating if a free alternative is not available a free use image is allowed. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright holder has objection for the image to be used (as seen above), the picture should be removed from the infobox and used solely to illustrate his character in Brokeback Mtn.. Seriously, there are free alts. out there. But, you have to ask the copyright holder for free use. Also, there are recently deceased persons without any images. miranda 10:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Free use image negotiated by me. Problem solved. Issue closed. :-P miranda 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone please not put his Brokeback Mountain picture in the infobox? That's a fair use image. miranda 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a free image

I have found and uploaded the following free image of Heath. I suggest it be swapped around ASAP to avoid the now invalid FU image. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I talked to the person who had that photo in CC-BY-NC-ND to change it to CC-BY-SA. See, that's what happens if you ask people to change their licenses, politely. :-P miranda 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I did this while you were typing the above message. :-P miranda 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is now used on every Heath Ledger article (already used on all the Wikipedia articles, and I made sure it was in use on Wikinews and Wikiquote). Good find. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, made 13 new wikipedia language accounts and conversed with people on IRC how to translate the image text to their native language. Exhausting, but worth it, considering that fair use images were used. miranda 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Miranda! -- lucasbfr talk 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The original (darker version) is also available on Commons. miranda 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bodybag image

Do editors feel an image of Ledger's body being taken away by police would be an improvement to the article? Two such Creative Commons images are available [5] and [6]. Skomorokh confer 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Pairadox (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but right now I can't see how any of those images would improve the article. They may be useful for news coverage, but I would doubt their relevance for an encyclopedic article as they don't provide the reader with particularly necessary informations. But of course this may change in the course of time, and in a much bigger article (for example due to a growing post mortal importance or myth) they might be included. --Catgut (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's just bad taste to use those pictures now.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A body bag image would NOT enhance the article nor would it edify the reader. Please do not include. Thank-you!Sea Wolf (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a powerful image that very well could benefit the article. I wouldn't rule it out. JayKeaton (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the article for body bag. In the case of Ledger, might be useful for article on death of Heath Ledger.  Chantessy  17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Non Free images (again)

There are 2 non free images in the article, and I don't see any other purpose than illustration. Moreover, I think Image:Brokebackmountainheathledger.jpg's rationale is not good (it may be debatable when there was no free replacement, but the matter is moot now). I am removing both images, if there are no objection. -- lucasbfr talk 10:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture looks crap

Picture in infobox looks squat and deformed on my browser (Firefox 2.0 for Windows). Can that be fixed? Mike R (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind it looks like it was a caching issue. Mike R (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites

Citations need to be fixed. I did some. But, whenever someone has time, use this to cite the links. miranda 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn! That's a nifty tool, but I did it all manually before clicking on this one. As of this moment, I think I got them all. Tvoz |talk 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks Magnus! miranda 07:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
When this article becomes stable (in a month or so), we need to fix the cites. miranda 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Upbringing

I recall an interview he gave either to a French or to a German journalist, I cannot remember which, in which he explained his parents went to great length when he was a kid to provide him with a very eclectic education, far beyond what is traditionally taught at school. I remember in particular how he said his father would teach him art and history while his mother taught him literature and languages. He mentioned he was comfortable in Spanish and fluent in French (his mum is a French teacher). I think this bit on his upbringing is worthy of appearing in his bio. Not every actor of this generation can claim to be so educated and well-rounded. Especially those born in a "Hollywood-wrecked family". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Find the source and post here on talk, please. Tvoz |talk 07:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Highly rated chess player

An article in the January 23, 2008, issue of Variety noted that Ledger was "a highly rated chess player"[7] in a discussion about plans for him to direct an adaptation of Walter Tevis's novel The Queen’s Gambit. The article here at Wikipedia has no mention of Ledger's chess abilities. That certainly seems like it would be a worthy addition by someone knowledgeable about chess. 71.162.248.100 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag at Heath Ledger

copied over from my talk page

Hi, I would appreciate it if you would restore the BLP tags to the article, rather than forcing a revert of your recent edit. The article contains much content about living persons even if the subject is dead and the BLP policies still very much apply to much of the content on the page. This is something that contributors to the article need to be made aware of. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It will be ignored by other editors as nonsense since the article itself is only and specifically about living people. What I would recommend is creating a tag at the beginning warning people of liable writings & not to make this into a forum, give links to articles about those and other applicable policies and that would most likely work. To sum up if a tag doesn't fit, just create one yourself so that others will pay attention. :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Liable information can still be added to a recently deceased person (i.e. cause of death, chronologies, etc.), because the investigation is still in progress. I really don't want to revert war over this. miranda 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree about your reason, but not by using an incorrect template. Use a different template or create one on the page. If you don't agree take this to the Heath Ledger talk page since thats where this should be discussed not here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now there isn't another template, and the little note clearly says that although the subject is not alive anymore BLP still applies. The tag should stay until another template is made.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "fair and balanced" should probably not be used, as it has become something of a joke, at least in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike R (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed that wording. Mike R (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I like the explaination box (which I have actually adapted for a few articles where BLP still applies such as articles on bands and the like), I'm concerned about the precedent being set here and have in fact placed a question at the Biography Project. Has policy been changed, meaning that the BLP banner must now be kept on all articles on deceased individuals, particularly recently deceased ones, if any reference to people still alive is made? This is the first time I've seen this done but that's how precedent is made. I'm all for precedent, but it needs to be in line with policy. That also goes for making new templates. The current BLP template was created after consensus was reached, etc. We shouldn't be creating new templates addressing individual articles. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP Conversation taken up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Applications for the Dead or Recently Deceased and agreed that it does not directly apply to subject. Since others are directly referenced that are still alive I changed the info box to elaborate on this. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Added a new more pertinent and appropriate template that still addresses the problems and concerns expressed by other editors. --NYScholar (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Weird I added the template a while ago (I created it) I guess it got removed by somebody... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No it didn't; somebody just added a second copy of it. Pairadox (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Domestic partner?

Why is this listed? Is it common practice for every biographical article to list everyone to whom a person was engaged and/or was living with? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That does seem a bit unusual. Obviously the infobox has a field for it, which implies it's widely used... but I imagine that's intended for current relationships, rather than a list of older ones. Not sure how the subject's unfortunate passing affects that. The relationship in question sounds to have been fairly recent, if that's at all relevant. We could probably bear to remove it, pending discussion. Anyone else have input? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems right to me to include it - mother of his child with whom he is known to have a close ongoing relationship, known to the public as a couple - usually identified as fiancee, only recently separated. I would not use the infobox to list all of his girlfriends, but this it seems was more than that, and feels appropriate to me. Tvoz |talk 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Williams doesn't have one... it should at least be present for both partners, wouldn't you think? Also, "domestic partner" in some jurisdictions has a legal meaning... and it may not be prudent to use it if we're not sure of the legal status of the involved individuals. I'd call for removing based on lack of verifiability. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The legality matter is a convincing point, Dante. Tvoz |talk 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They have a CHILD together. how much more verifiability do you need? They were at one point engaged, it didn't work out, and broke up. The relationship doesn't completely end because they are permanently attached with a child. "domestic partner" may be a bit much, but they are(were) but the obligations of being parents (by mutual agreement) would be "bonded" for the rest of the child's life if he were to remain living. --Hourick (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability isn't an issue, as there are plenty of sources for their relationship. Check her article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're both missing the point. The issue is not the verifiability of their relationship, but of a "domestic partnership"... which can have a specific legal meaning. No one is suggesting that they weren't an item and were not bound together by their child. Frankly, to assert that I *was* making such a claim is a little bit insulting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed a ":" in my indentation; my comment was at Hourick, not you. (and you are correct about the partnership, but I think it's moot at this point) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox actor has a field for "spouse", that's were she should go, not on "domestic partner".--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 10:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd accept that unless someone comes up with a better term. But for now it's as good as any. --Hourick (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. A spouse is not the same as "former fiancée"; I can't imagine how the two could be considered interchangeable. I've undone the edit that lists her as a spouse; personally, I dislike "domestic partner", but spouse is just out and out wrong. I'd be fine seeing her disappear from the infobox entirely; I don't see it as particularly important to have there (it's covered sufficiently, and more effectively, in the body of the article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with EVula - leave it out. As explained in the article, the two had parted and to say something different in the infobox has the potential to confuse. —Moondyne 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed. Mike R (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not spouse. Tvoz |talk 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites

I think heathledger.net should be removed, because it is a fan site, and not a reliable source. miranda 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Might want to block the user who keeps inserting the spam link. miranda 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

CNN footage of Ledger's casket between the hearse and the Manhattan funeral home showed a Star of David on the casket which would appear to indicate that Ledger was Jewish. This was on the day the casket was transferred from the Medical Examiner's Office to the Manhattan funeral home.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.143.31 (talk • contribs) Video footage at http://cbs2.com/video/?id=58160@kcbs.dayport.com The Star of David is on the top of the casket. This is the same video footage which I saw on TV where the Star of David was much more distinct (not as fussy) than in the internet video footage.

I think we need a reliable source for that information. miranda 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a picture of the casket available? Although I suppose that is a somewhat morbid subject... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Even if true, it only shows something about the casket, not about Ledger. Pairadox (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoted in Rolling Stone in 2006 implied that he was atheist but since it never specifically stated atheism so it's better not to mention anything about his religious beliefs.  Chantessy  16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Cause of Death

Resolved.

TV Guide reports on Ledger's cause of death as an accidental overdose. Reference here: Heath Ledge Cause of Death

Tubesurfer (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This info is already in the article, with better sources. Townlake (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from Prime minister, friends, etc. not encyclopaedic

Resolved.

Why are there quotes from friends, family and the Prime Minister about how tragic it is that he died? While it is tragic, these are not encyclopaedic and should be removed. Wikipedia is not a eulogy repository. Also, the fact that his friend boarded a plane to NYC is not notable in the least. When people die, many people will go to the person's funeral, and also say nice things about the person. This last section reads more like a People magazine article than an encyclopedia entry. Even though it is a current event, it can still read so that each event happened in the past, and can include information that will be of note years from now when it is no longer current. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Everything after the autopsy paragraph is essentially a eulogy blog, and it seems to be expanding. Townlake (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This always happens right after the death of a public figure. We'll just have to keep refining as we go.3Tigers (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Those quotes can be moved to Health Ledger at Wikiquote which has a section Quotes about Heath Ledger (In Memorium) Boylo (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The recently included Michelle Williams block quote lengthens the article without adding anything relevant. She's mourning, we already know that. The block quoted statement from the family isn't any more valuable; together they make this article read like a page from People Magazine. Is there a compelling reason not to remove both quotes at this point? (Obviously the citations can be preserved so interested readers can find them.) I won't delete if other editors don't support the change, but it seems like it's time. Townlake (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the entire section needs a serious trim. A pic of a sidewalk memorial has just been added! I also question the use of tabloids, inherently unreliable sources. Wikipedia in not a tabloid or a memorial site, not even for the famous. Pairadox (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree the quotes should be removed to Health Ledger at Wikiquote as mentioned by Boylo above. I'm also concerned about the growing video paragraph, but I'll bring that up elsewhere. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I just made major changes to the unofficial Eulogy section - took out the block quotes from the family and Williams, added Cliffs Notes summaries of the statements. Thoughts? Townlake (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Have restored quotations, with the appropriate introductory sentences and colons. The quotations are highly pertinent and notable and should not be deleted, especially given the wild speculations currently cited throughout this article (via the entertainment news sources, which are not wholly reliable). --NYScholar (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand WP:BOLD, but editing this article needs to be a collaborative process. I am disappointed that one editor would revert without discussion and would have to rely on loads of peacock language to defend the revert, given the pre-existing discourse and apparent agreement on the issue. Townlake (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So much for containing the sprawling. I'm not at all sure how these quotations counter the 'wild speculations' throughout the article. In fact, I'm left speculating on Heath whispering to trees and (trying) to walk, two steps at a time. Mention that statements were made and transfer the actual quotes to the quote page. The Terry Gilliam information should be removed to the movie's article. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[I hope!] [Those refs. that Williams makes are to their daughter, Matilda Rose, not father Heath. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)] [After re-reading them, however, I now see what you mean! (And I recall thinking something like that as well initially; just forgot about that initial response. It was a rather odd way to put it, I thought. But that's her prerogative to say what she thinks and feels about the matter. Full q. is in the source cited. --NYScholar (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
Re: the Gilliam matter: a while ago, I revised the statement; it applies directly to Heath Ledger and I still think it totally pertinent where it is. --NYScholar (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Chateau Marmont video

Resolved.

I'm struggling to understand why this paragraph is 1) as extensive as it is and 2) in the 'Death' section. It's like reporting news that turns out to be no news. Can it be pared down and another home found for it? •Florrie•leave a note• 02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm not sure why tabloid and other questionable sources (CelebTV, TransWorldNews, US Weekly) are being used at all. Pairadox (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the video paragraph from "death" to "personal life" and cut it in about half... it might need further edits, but I'm content with it for the moment. Townlake (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I objected to that edit: I tried to work w/ the material, then moved it into a separate sec., then decided it and its sources (most of them) are inadmissible here: please scroll down to that sec. below. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Here's the direct sub-sec. link: #Public media controversy following Ledger's death (Hope that works; if not, I'll try to corr. it later). --NYScholar (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this response. Obviously Talk really did need a cleanup, haha. Did you object to the way I edited it, or to the presence of the topic in the first place? My whole reason for initially trimming and moving it was it seemed like relatively irrelevant scandal-sheet filler. I'm not interested in defending this section - it looks like the posts above agree there's no real notability issue, and unless there's any objection, I'm on board to see it go away. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitive Statement

Resolved.

The article states that Heath's death "will affect the marketing campaign" of the Dark Knight. Of course it is possible and will most likely, but no one can predict the future. Perhaps it should be revised. Mdriver1981 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to a Jan. 24. '08 article published by the Wall Street Journal, the official word from Warner Bros. is that the Heath/Joker centric marketing campaign will continue. But I think the current marketing campaign is too macabre to continue as planned. We'll just have to wait and see, so I agree with you. The definitve statement should be removed. For now.Reelm (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we're coming full circle on this one. Originally that statement started with the qualifier "CNN reports that...", which was removed because the citation made clear who was reporting it... but now the statement does sound prematurely authoritative. If there's doubt about that statement / rumor at this point, removal would certainly strike me as appropriate. Townlake (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they'll just stay the course with the marketing, they were going to eventually go over to focusing on Harvey Dent at some point anyway. I don't see continuing with what was always planned as exploiting anything. From what non-reliable sources I've read that seems to be what they will be doing. Heath Ledger played a fictional character with over sixty years of history before he was involved and in my opinion if it wasn't for his death (and of course the hype for the movie and his work in it even before he passed away) many people who see the movie wouldn't even know it's him, he's barely recognizable. Which is a compliment on how the work he did with it not to mention the other people that worked on creating this version of the Joker. I think that changing the film or even the marketing due to "sensitivities" would be more disrespectful to his memory than it would be to continue on exactly as planned. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: this matter: I added more recent sources and revised the presentation of statements in this article in a way that is not "original research" and that is not insensitive or speculative. Reliable third-party published, verifiable sources that do not depend on "unamed" or "anonymous" sources but that quote named authoritative sources need to be used in this article; see WP:V#Sources. (See earlier discussion posted above by other editors.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

additional comments (related to editing this article so as to improve its accuracy)

Resolved.
[moved from my own talk page by NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)]

Deleting content

Why did you remove two sections with this edit? Pairadox (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not [intend to] remove two sections. I [intended to make] the small changes that my editing summaries say. Someone else may have removed the sections; please examine the changes more carefully. --NYScholar (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) [Added in brackets emphasis that that was not my intention. Don't know how it happened. If my small changes resulted in inadvertent deletion of the two sections, I apologize. Maybe there was some simultaneous editing going on, or maybe the way that I made the change by undoing an earlier change resulted in that happening. I can't figure that out now because I have to go offline. Again, sorry for anything inadvertent that may have occurred. --NYScholar (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)]

The edits that I intended to make show up in red, as per the editing history summary that I composed to match them: diffs. Going offline after searching editing history. (I had no intention to remove sections.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Pairadox (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger, again

While I admire your dedication to accuracy, are you at all interested in consensus? •Florrie•leave a note• 07:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Please make your comments about specific edits on the talk page by adding section to the most recent part of the article's talk page. Please see "N.B." [in my talk page above]. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had addressed my concerns on this talk page I wouldn't have posted on your talk page.[8] See above for discussion regarding family and other quotes. •Florrie•leave a note• 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment on the talk page of the article re: sources, and I have made a few typographical corrections in the article today. I have to go offline now. Please comment on the talk page of the article at Talk:Heath Ledger. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as consensus goes, Wikipedia editing consensus operates over time. One person's decision to remove properly-documented (reliably-sourced) pertinent information does not amount to "consensus." The changes that I made involve restoring a deleted source which is more recent than the previously-cited sources, and it updates the earlier emphasis of the statement so that it is more accurate. I am moving this discussion to the talk page of the article, where it is appropriate to discuss specific changes to the article that attempt to improve it. Thanks. [moved to this talk page of article.] --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not one-person's decision, but the result of a discussion.[[9]]. •Florrie•leave a note• 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Before making my changes, I had read the entire discussion and I posted in that section. Consensus also involves changes not made after the quotations were restored in an appropriate manner. I have since created sub-sections for the article. People can look at the sub-sections and see how they relate to one another and the full article. They are all pertinent and reliably sourced, but I have suggested some questions remain in the editing summaries of some. --NYScholar (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Death section way too large

Resolved.

It's nearly the same size as the portions about his career; why is this being turned into a memorial and repository of speculation, ie Plummer's comments on his health and tabloid reports about the video? As I've said before, TransWorldNews, Us Weekly and Celebtv.com are not reliable sources. Pairadox (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect as time passes the death section will slowly shrink down as the historical focus slowly improves about the event. Look at the article for River Phoenix... when he died there was about an equal amount of media attention and the article currently has only one paragraph about it. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to believe that, but recent attempts to curtail the expansion of this section have failed. Given the WP:TE issues that have come up the last few days, I respectfully suggest it might be time to refer this article to the Bios of Living Persons noticeboard. Is there a second? Townlake (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Second. Pairadox (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Townlake (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Update. section being trimmed down and BLP notice is in process. Benjiboi 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this, your comments at BLPN, and providing your perspective on the issues we've been having in here. Your presence is helpful. Townlake (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to help, I've purposely avoided reading through the whole thing to just have a direct take on the present talk issues and to offer an extra perspective. Might help, probably can't hurt. Benjiboi 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Resolved tag from this section - the Death section is growing rapidly again with a bunch of questionably-notable material. I'd to avoid more edit battles, so would rather get other editors' opinions before I start going into bold mode. Townlake (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Prior to his return to New York from his last film assignment, in London, in January 2008, he was apparently suffering from some kind of respiratory illness." POV??? Plummer only suggested that he MAY have pneumonia. In the death report there is no reference due to any respiratory illness. Plummer also answered (when asked if Ledger looked tired): "Oh no. Great energy. Always wonderful energy..." and "Leaving England, says Plummer, Heath was in very high spirits." And by the way: Hydrocodone is contraindicated if you have pneumonia.Luzymae (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the article linked: respiratory illness; a common cold--see descr. at disambig. page cold--which used to be in some of these passages, is a kind of respiratory illness. This is not the only source that states that he had a cold (or a more serious kind of "respiratory illness") prior to returning to New York (a day or so before he died?); he was in flight from London to New York just before that. If Plummer (a reliable first-hand source cited by reliable sources) says that he, Ledger, and others on the set were suffering from colds, they were suffering from colds. The article on respiratory illness is clear enough a link to provide; the reason for the general link is previous complaints about mentioning pneumonia. Re: "contraindications": acc. to the toxicology results and interpretations cited in the sources by bonafide doctors (not anonymous Wikipedians), many of the prescription and over-the-counter drug substances that he had taken over an extended period of time that were still in his system were "counterindicated"; their duplication (too many of similar types of narcotic and other respiratory suppressant drugs) led to the cessation of his breathing. The sources (web news, print news, and video broadcast news) present those kinds of details. --NYScholar (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In my view, this section is not currently "too large". --NYScholar (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Tabloid speculations do not belong highlighted in the "Personal" section of this biography of what was until very recently a living person. By moving the tabloid speculations about the video, which was indeed pulled before full broadcast, into the "Personal" section, it was given emphasis that it does not deserve. The whole subsection on it could be moved to talk for further discussion.

Christopher Plummer's words are those of a co-star and serve as an eye-witness account; they are his own views based on his experience working with Ledger. They are sourced and quoted exactly as presented in the source. They are not on a par with "unnamed" and "anonymous" sources referenced by tabloid newspapers. I have no objection to the removal of the accounts by transworld, UsWeekly, or Celebtv.com; I simply re-formatted them more accurately; I did not add those sources to this article. The "Death" section is now in subsections for greater ease of reading. So far, it is Heath Ledger's death that has catapulted him into the news this past week; that may alter, but right now, the article's focus is appropriate. If and when the cause of his death is clear (perhaps tomorrow--Tuesday--which is also super-primary election day in the U.S. and will be a busy time for U.S. based editors), the emphases of this article may change. We are doing the best we can with what is currently available. Please review the template. A current event template may also be necessary and useful for this article. --NYScholar (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph that includes the Plummer quote is speculation, as evidenced by the opening phrase "Ledger may have been suffering from pneumonia". The rest is just Plummer's speculation about his health. Pairadox (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree: "may" is the editor's language (my language) based on the fact that this has been and still is current speculation about cause of death, which is not yet factually determined (and may never be: we'll see). Many news sources cite "pneumonia" with no evidence; Plummer's words are, according to the source cited, "confirmation" that he was ill during the shoot. Otherwise, readers of this article will wonder where the idea of "pneumonia" and "walking pneumonia" come from in other news reports not giving sources; apparently, Plummer is such a source. For who he is: see Christopher Plummer; he is a world-renown actor, far more celebrated actually than Ledger himself was prior to his death. --NYScholar (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know who Plummer is or can't follow a link in the article. The point is, unless Plummer is also an MD who examined Ledger, this is still nothing more than speculation. Speculation by a famous actor, yes, but still speculation by somebody without the qualifications to elevate it beyond speculation. Pairadox (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't make this into something personal; it's not. Plummer is quoted in a reliable third-party source and the quotation is documented appropriately. Your complaint has no basis in Wikiepdia policy. Please cite some pertinent Wikipedia policy that pertains to your objection. The quotation is sourced according to WP:V#Sources. It is something that Plummer said that pertains to the many references to "pneumonia" made throughout many other news reports pertaining to the possible cause(s) of Heath Ledger's death; the fact that he was "not feeling well" right before his death is certainly relevant to the presentation. Many other articles cited as sources in this article are far more speculative and even salacious and are not "encyclopedic"; reference to Plummer's firsthand observation is pertinent at this time. --NYScholar (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In some of my earlier edits, I lost some quotation marks and a source: I restored the quotation marks and the source from which Plummer's full quotation comes. I still think it relevant enough and well-sourced enough (now w/ these typo. corrs.) to keep in the article as posted. --NYScholar (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Trim quotes

Resolved.

Heath Ledger#Memorial tributes, related public statements has two quotes, both should be trimmed a bit to encompass the spirit of the quote but only stick to adding to the narrative. Benjiboi 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no value in "trimming" the full block quotations; there are actually three quotations in the section: one from the Prime Minister of Australia (not a block q. bec. it is only 3 lines) and the full other qs.: in my view, to trim or to paraphrase them is to lose the full context of what they say. I believe that readers of this article would be interested in reading the full quotations, in context, given the allegations cited in the sources throughout this article, which these full quotations do address and/or allude to. --NYScholar (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the refs. made to Ledger's family members and to Michelle Williams in the rest of the article, I believe that these people should be allowed to speak entirely for themselves: "public statements" are just that: public statements; they are quoted in full in the newspaper accounts/sources, and that is out of respect. So they should be treated in this article: with equal respect. The statements are major responses to the events described in this biographical article, which is not merely a "narrative," but rather an article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They can be used as a ref regardless of we print lengthy statements. I feel this, for example, would cover the family quote sufficiently:
The essence of what they said is kept without rehashing material covered elsewhere and a request for privacy doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic or needed. Benjiboi 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


(ec) One problem with your analogy, NYS; Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or even a news site, it's an encyclopedia. So far I count seven people who want them trimmed or even gone and only one who advocates keeping them intact. Pairadox (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No one objecting to these full block quotations ("public statements") has provided any convincing reference to Wikipedia policies justifying their deletion. I do not even understand the nature of any of the objections. These references to what is or is not "encyclopedic" are not supported by Wikipedia's own definitions of "encyclopedic." See, however, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT; the public statements (which are quoted in full so as not to mislead) are notable and encyclopedic in Wikipedia's own terms, given the content of this article and its focus on the death of the subject and the biographical historical refs. to the people making the statements. --NYScholar (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I think there's been enough indirect reference to such things as WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RECENTISM that quoting chapter and line of policy isn't needed. Pairadox (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the length of the quotations (they are not very long), these continual objections seem absurd to me. The objections themselves seem "undue" etc. What you have cited does not relate in my view to these particular quotations. And, yes, it is necessary to document the actual policy reasons for the objections. Just because people "don't like" the full quotations, which are reliably and verifiably sourced (documented), is not reason to delete or edit (water them down). They should be read in context, again in my view, not via some Wikipedia editor's changes to them. --NYScholar (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Omitting the family's and Williams' points of view is exactly the opposite of achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; it amounts to suppressing facts and a strange form of censorship (again in my view). --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Inserting all the extraneous info and full quotes is simply not needed. Give this encyclopedia bio some perspective. Five years from now will any of it seem that important or relevant? Maybe some but certainly not most of it. Trim it liberally down to move the narrative of Ledger's story along. He died, we get it, they're sad, obviously, he was a great human blah blah blah, this is all great material for a book but doesn't do much for concisely overviewing Ledger's life and accomplishments. It's noble to want to include everyone's take and quotes but really we just need to tell Ledger's story. Benjiboi 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That whole section should be sniped down to a medium paragraph. Whenever someone famous dies there is public statements and memorials, these don't seem terribly notable in any way. Note it, ref it and move on. Benjiboi 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In terms of "giv[ing] this encyclopedia bio some perspective": the "perspective[s]" of family members and the mother of the subject's child who knew the subject best (far better than any Wikipedia editor or the editors and writers of tabloid news sites) are far more worthy of noting and quoting in full than some of the gossip being cited in this article (past and present versions). Not all "perspective[s]" are equal in value and notability. Certainly, when a death is as unexpected and sudden as Heath Ledger's and when tabloids continually refer to guessing about how his family and friends responded and are responding to it, actual quotation of well-sourced "public statements" are notable, pertinent, and useful to readers, especially those who may be misled by tabloid news reports and who might be coming to Wikipedia for better sources. --NYScholar (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Firstly you'd need a source to prove his mother knew him best and that information would go elsewhere. Likewise with family members. No one has suggested that these quotes be replaced with tabloid fodder so you can let that go as well. We don't cater to gossip to either support it or deny it, we state the facts neutrally and dispassionately. "We would like to thank our friends and everyone around the world for their kind wishes at this time" doesn't do much to educate our readers about Ledger. If you're not able to trim the section down then allow the many others who feel it's excessive to do so. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and we are not obligated to include unencyclopedic quotes, it's bad form and unhelpful. Consensus is that the material needs to either be removed or reduced. I suggest you do so asap or someone less caring about the subject will do it. Benjiboi 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I find these points absurd; it is not "gossip" to quote "public statements" that are press releases published in reliable third-party newspapers and reported in mainstream news programs (many of them). One can be sure that family members and former girlfriends (actual personal relatives and friends) of a person know him more intimately and are more knowledgeable about him than tabloid news reporters (who did not know him at all). Press releases are not "unencyclopedic." These are short quotations, not long ones; I did not write the introduction with the word "short" in it that precedes the family's block q.; and the public statement from Williams is just four lines. "Trimming" a quotation alters what it says if it is a "public statement"; the "spirit" of the quotation is not necessarily something that Wikipedia editors can provide; the words of the quotation provide what the person's public statement states. There still seems no reason to alter it or to paraphrase it any more than the introductory statements preceding the quotations already do. The quotations document the Wikipedia editorial paraphrases. Such quotations are generally not to be omitted when they are reliably sourced. There is no attempt here to make them state anything but what they do state. That these are the public statements are matters of verifiable fact. They are introduced as the statements of the people making them, whose perspectives are clearly those of family members, a prime minister (government representative), and a former girlfriend; the family and girlfriend are mentioned earlier in the "biographical history" and "personal life" sections of the article. What they state about the subject is pertinent. The objections are beginning to me to seem more and more absurd. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In case the previous writers have not actually read the sources cited throughout the rest of this article, the emphases on the need for "privacy" to "grieve" are directly related to the lack of privacy occurring in the tabloid reporting that has occurred on and since January 22, 2008. See the archived talk page and the problematic sources that have been deleted from the article as well as those still in the article. Anyone who has followed this subject closely and fully read this article will know what the statements are referring to and how pertinent the references in the public statements are. [They relate to controversies raised in the news coverage, already cited in the article.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [added bracketed clarification. --NYScholar (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]

Why do you feel that it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to respond to the tabloids? Why can't we just have a concise encyclopedia article? Pairadox (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. I've cleaned up that section again, including removal of the block quotes. I also removed a sentence about the family posting multiple tributes; it would have needed more context to make sense about why it was notable, and if that context is available, let's discuss. Townlake (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say, then, remove all quotations from and citations to unreliable tabloid newspapers linked to and made throughout this article. The article is heavily weighted toward gossip. That emphasis is hardly "encyclopedic"--given the objections made by these other editors above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not reverted the deletions, but I've added some better spacing so that the illustration posts in the proper section fully. --NYScholar (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. The section looks better with your spacing. Thank you. Townlake (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
My pleasure. (Thanks for thanking me.) I think this section is okay now. (I can live w/ it.) I did develop the context for the other sentence that you removed. If it still needs discussion, please continue to feel free to do so here [i.e. on this talk page in a new sec.]. --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [clarification added in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]

Talk page clean-up

This talk page needs serious clean-up. Could editors familiar with the article please tag talk threads with {{stale}} and {{resolved}} as appropriate and archive any old or non-relative threads? This is helpful not only to editors trying to understand what issues are currently in play but also to keeping the talk page size down for users with less than ideal connections. Benjiboi 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Pairadox (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death

It says Maggie Landon. Who, Why, and Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.30.200 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Corrected. You guys are damn fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.30.200 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) [:Moved to end of page. The ID of vandal who added the "Maggie Landon" and deleted sec. is available in the editing history summary. Glad it was reverted. Perhaps should be reported. --NYScholar (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)]

[Please see Diffs for that vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)]

Why are the "Resolved" templates being removed?

Resolved.

I was identified in a project page complaint as the only one opposing [the removal of] the block quotations. So I have added the "Resolved" template (as requested) to the sections relating to it; someone has been removing those templates, initially without comment. That is not useful. Some people seem to argue just for the sake of argument. Those deletions of the resolved templates are not improving this article or this talk page on it. If you want to start up the controversy again, please start another section. The discussion in the previous section is "Resolved." --NYScholar (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [corr. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]

That's not actually how those are usually used. We call something resolved when the issue is resolved not a point within the conversation. If, after an reasonable amoount of time (maybe a week) the items is left as is it can be archived to keep the talk page clean. If someone reposts and the issue is likely not to be seen as resolved then remove the tag. It can always be added later. Benjiboi 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please stop adding resolved templates to sections that are not resolved. Just because you are personally satisfied with the current form doesn't mean that everybody is - I for one still don't see the encyclopedic value of quotes from the Prime Minister. Pairadox (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you (Pairadox) could have said so. People cannot guess what is on your minds (both Benji and Pairadox). Please be direct. As for the "Resolved" templates: I was not the one asking for them. As far as I am concerned, if I find that a dispute between me and others is "resolved" I can place that in front of my own comment, which I have now done. If you (P) want to dispute a specific part of a section, please do so in a new section. The other one is full of all kinds of comments, some directly related, some not. If you want to "clean up" this talk page, please cooperate. Thanks. If people don't know what you are asking for when you are asking for templates to be used like "resolved" and "done" and so on, please explain what you want them for. Thanks. (I have never seen any of those templates used on any talk pages in my now several years of editing Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"I think the entire section needs a serious trim." Is that direct enough? I wrote that days ago nothing I've written since then indicates I feel any differently. As for the request for resolved templates, that was part of a general talk page cleanup request that was accomplished by archiving and marked "done" almost 24 hours ago. Pairadox (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that some other editors are attempting to "micromanage" even this talk page! That is not helping. --NYScholar (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, it does appear that you're jumping the gun on marking some of the above issues resolved. Like the others, I noticed a couple issues that looked like they could still be live. Townlake (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Also {{tl:done}} can be used within a thread to indicate one point is "done" like a list of corrections. {{tl:resolved}} is usually reserved for the entire thread. And both are used to communicate to make very active talk pages, such as this, easier to use. Benjiboi 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate guidance in use of these (for me otherwise) unfamiliar templates. Re: where I placed them most recently (upon corr.): they are only relating to my own comments, not the whole sec. (re: the one being discussed--the quotations one). Again, I don't feel that it is necessary to use these templates at all. If those commenting above have remaining issues to discuss, they can start new sections as per the talk page header. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited already-excerpted quotation from official Australian government press release

Resolved.

For the record and by the way: I see absolutely no value in removing the extremely short (already edited) quotation excerpted from the official government media release of the Prime Minister of Australia, posted on the government site. --NYScholar (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What value do his words add? What is the purpose of including them? Pairadox (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
They show how an entire country is eulogizing an actor. It reveals the importance of the subject to his native nation. It is highly notable and demonstrates the subject's own notability. WP:Notability. --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with this one myself. A head of state releasing an official statement about a performer is a pretty big deal, and the quote's been blended into the article's text well. Townlake (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the controversy, prior to seeing Townlake's comment above, I had already moved the PM's public statement source into an earlier sentence; people can read the whole statement in context, just as they can read the full contexts of the other public statements. I've tried to highlight its importance in the sentence by naming the Prime Minister as such. --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your edit on that, works for me. Townlake (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also reorganized the whole article, so that it is more concise and more coherently organized, parallel other articles on actors (whether alive or dead). --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion, moving section on death circumstances to talk page

Resolved.
[in progress moving]

--NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) <<

Circumstances of death

According to police, as reported by Al Baker in The New York Times, when housekeeper Teresa Solomon, who had arrived at approximately 12:30 p.m. EST to do household chores, entered the bedroom "At about 1 p.m. ... to change a light bulb in an adjacent bathroom[,] she found him on the bed face down, with the sheet pulled up to his shoulders, and heard him snoring."[2] Masseuse Diana Wolozin arrived at approximately 2:45 p.m. to give Ledger a massage, and when he did not emerge from his bedroom by 3 p.m., called his cell phone and received no answer. Wolozin entered the bedroom, began to set up the massage table, and tried to wake the unresponsive Ledger.[2] Baker reports that then Wolozin "entered the bedroom and saw him lying in bed. She took a massage table out of the closet and began to set it up near his bed. She then went over to him and shook him, but got no response. Using his cell phone, she used a speed-dial button to call Ms. Olsen in California to seek her guidance, knowing Ms. Olsen to be a friend of Mr. Ledger’s."[2]

"According to the authorities," Baker continues, "Ms. Wolozin told Ms. Olsen that Mr. Ledger was unconscious. Ms. Olsen said she would call some private security people she knew in New York, and hung up. Ms. Wolozin again shook Mr. Ledger, called Ms. Olsen a second time, and said she believed the situation was grave and would call 911."[2] According to Baker, "Ms. Wolozin called 911 at 3:26 p.m. to say that Mr. Ledger was not breathing. The call occurred less than 15 minutes since she had first seen him in bed and only a few moments after the first call to Ms. Olsen. The 911 operator urged Ms. Wolozin to try to revive Mr. Ledger, but Ms. Wolozin’s efforts were not successful."[2]

Seven minutes later, Baker reports, "Emergency medical workers arrived at 3:33 p.m., at almost exactly the same moment as a private security guard summoned by Ms. Olsen. The medical workers moved his body to the floor and then used a defibrillator and CPR, to no avail. Mr. Ledger was pronounced dead at 3:36 p.m. By that point, two other private security guards summoned by Ms. Olsen had arrived, as had police officers."[2]

Police said that they found prescription medication in the bathroom, that there were "no obvious signs" of suicide, and that they did not suspect foul play.[3]

[removing Notes sec. for time being due to later sec. for notes to show up.]>>

The source cited still in this article in "Death" sec. already includes all this detailed information. People can just read it. (Too much q. from a single source.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this sec. is nec. The source is now at end of prev. sec. ("Death"). Missing a piece of a note; I'll try to fix in a moment. --NYScholar (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [added and updated note citation]. --NYScholar (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
(ec) [Completed the move from art. to talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
When originally composed in this HL article, material was simply lifted from Baker's article; I added quotation marks as nec., resulting in quotation of almost the entire article. That is copyvio and not permissible. The ref. to "circumstances" in the current sent. in the current "Death" sec. in HL is the lead-in to the source citation; anyone who wants to know Baker et al.'s renditions of those circumstances (as then known) can just read the source articles as cited. Otherwise there will be substantial paraphrase not so much quotation or a block quotation, which was an option not liked much earlier (see archived disc.). This change addresses earlier complaints about length of sec. on "Death." --NYScholar (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Section will have to be edited substantially after the cause of death comes down anyway, so this will probably keep a couple days. I don't think the whole narrative is necessary, but cutting the whole thing might be a bit extreme. Let's discuss. Side note - if 6 Feb 08 is really the date the examiner's info will come out, we might want to request a Full Protect on the article for a few hours after the news breaks as a precaution. Townlake (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree w/ that. --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [This is it for me; I'm logging out of Wikipedia, to turn to my other, non-Wikipedia work Wed. and rest of this week. --NYScholar (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
News of the medically-determined cause of death has hit the wires. I'll check back in on this page when I can during the day; meantime, if other editors find it helpful, the direct link to the Request Page Protection page is here. Townlake (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

International date format

Resolved.

The international dates have been changed to US date format (except for the infobox) but, according to WP:DATE - Strong national ties to a topic, the article may be styled on international format. If there are no serious objections, I shall re-format the article over the next day or two. •Florrie•leave a note• 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the policy, and yep, sounds good to me. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style has specific dates format for birth and death dates in the lead of articles (and in infoboxes for actors), and it is not the international dates format; it is month, day, year format. It is not necessary to use international date style in an article about a celebrity from Australia; he lived and died most recently in New York, and, until now, the prevailing style in the article has also been mostly American English (with some exceptions: "centred" instead of "centered", the "ou" in places, which are actually inconsistencies. American English is acceptable for this article. UK English is not as used worldwide as American English; see the links on both: American English, UK English. Words are quoted exactly as appear in their sources; the editors themselves need to be familiar with language they are using, and a lot of the editors editing this article are from the U.S. not only the U.K. or Australia. Ledger is a subject whose notability has surpassed his place of birth. The dates in citations currently follow prevailing date format recommended in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (it is certainly not incorrect), and it is easier for current and subsequent editors to continue using it in developing new sources for the article as events develop. The so-called "international" date format is UK date format; the other is American and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It is much harder to format (thinking of future eds. as well). ---NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, it's six-of-one to me, would just to see it made consistent. There is great international interest in the story and there's no consistent format right now, so at worst a change to that format would not be inappropriate - and the Style guide clearly says that either format is ok. Townlake (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's much harder to change all the (mostly consistent) dates and spellings currently in the article (excepting source citations spelling, which should follow quotations exactly) than to change them and maintain those changes: see whole section on "National Varieties of English" in the W:MoS: here for more links and contexts. Thanks. Got to go soon. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not hard at all, really. :) I aim for consistency. I'll have a look at it tonight. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally international date formatting is preferred, since he is from Australia seems even more appropriate. Benjiboi 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen no other articles in Wikipedia where "international date formatting" (abbreviated with numbers and not months and full years) is "generally" "preferred"; in fact, almost every article I've read and worked on and seen has dates in reference citations in Wikipedia:Manual of Style format for dates of birth and death in leads: month, day, year. These changes have no "preferred" policy or guideline statement that I know of and I want to see what you are using as a statement of "preferred" usage in Wikipedia. "Since he is from Australia" is not relevant to a subject who has reached beyond national boundaries [by this time, the time of and after his death]; in terms of "international" relevance, "international" date style is not what is being talked about; it is choice of version of English in English Wikipedia that one is referring to: whether to use American English or UK English, etc. If the subject reaches beyond national boundaries in interest, I prefer to use American English, as more people around the world use American English than use UK or British or Australian English (that is a point made in the discussion I've already cited in Wikipedia's guidelines for versions of English. You are mixing up apples and oranges. The subject lived in New York in the U.S. at his time of death, as he had done for a few years recently, and he died in New York; he is being buried in Western Australia, and the interest in the subject is worldwide. But international interest is not equivalent to use of "international dates" style in Wikipedia; that is chosen as a preference in one's signature, for e.g.; but month, day, year is generally what one finds in references and footnotes and in the texts of articles in Wikipedia, and the 6-2-08 or 6-2-2008 format is horribly confusing, especially for those expecting month, day, year as per usual Wikipedia article style. I suggest reversing those changes as they do not match the rest of the article and are creating vast problems (such as "when?"). --NYScholar (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice also that the format of dates in the Australian tabloid The Daily Telegraph matches normal Wikipedia birth-date format of month, day, year: See the section of EL for quotation of its title with that format for dates in it.
So the argument pertaining to how Australia would present the dates seems incorrect (belied by that Australian source). --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The British (UK) newspaper The Times obituary for Heath Ledger (note 2 in current article) also uses normal order of dates paralleling Wikipedia's Man. of Style format for birth and death dates in leads and infoboxes: month, day, year. Many British newspapers and publications use this format rather than reversed format of day, month, year too. (I don't know why, but there seems to be a shift from the latter to the former (in some British dating of correspondence too that I receive); maybe it's thought more modern. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It'd be normal for a uk newspaper to say "February 14th 2008", but I doubt any UK newspaper would use "2/14/2008", they'd use "14/2/2008". Hope this helps, I haven't seen the article you refer to. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I have no clue. Just live here. As did Heath Ledger, but never mind that. Do whatever you like, I have more productive editing to do. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
We might be getting semanticly bogged here. If you look at how the date is presented as part of my signature, "7 February 2008" is what I mean by international date. As far as I know this is common throughout the UK and is what I recommend. Benjiboi 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I know what you are advocating, and I oppose it.
Aside from the fact that you yourself (and some others) are from the UK and favor that style, there is no reason to use "UK" style in this article for dates. To do so conflicts with Wikipedia style requirements for dates in leads, texts, and, when using citation templates, in dates: they post accurately as month, day, year only if you write them properly: 2-7-2008 for February 7, 2008; to do otherwise will result in incorrect Wikipedia dating.
  • The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires uses of month, day, year in leads and infoboxes for birth-date dates; even the Australian and London newspapers use this format in their dating of issues (quoted above).
  • The format you use in your signing of Wikipedia posts has nothing to do with what is appropriate for articles. See the discussion of avoiding cultural biases in choice of English version.
  • For a subject of major international cultural interest (not local cultural interest), one uses the version of English with the broadest use in the world; that is not British (UK) English; it is American English. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and its emphasis on avoiding cultural or national identity of editors as a rationale for the version of English used in English Wikipedia. The style of citations also governs what kind of date format one uses; Wikipedia defaults to month/day/year in changing however you place the dates into that format. One has to use a "|" to change that, and to do so without any rationale makes no sense.
  • Note: MLA format, in contrast to Wikipedia MoS, does use reversed dates: e.g., The New York Times 7 Feb. 2008 (in notes and bibliographical formatting and in texts); my own customary style for Humanities research writing is to use MLA format, so I am very familiar with using that style.
  • But we (per consensus--Wikipedia's own citation templates have been chosen, though still inconsistently applied) are not using that citation style format in this article. The rationale for avoiding use of the additional comma in MLA format is that one cannot confuse a letter (e.g., the "s" at the end of "Times" and the beginning of the date where the number for the day of the month is used]; there are actually good reasons why different formats choose different date formats and "international" is not the rationale; it has to do with punctuation rules.
  • There is no aspect of this article that justifies changing the dates throughout in the text or in the notes citations from normal order used in Wikipedia (Manual of Style) or changing the version of English being used from American English to British English. There is no reason to use a minority version of English in an article on a subject that goes beyond local UK/Austral. interest in English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very clear that the birthplace of a subject does not dictate what version of English one uses in a biographical article about him or her. RE: UK usage: Heath Ledger was not British; he was Australian, and the Australian newspaper cited above (The Daily Telegraph (Australia) uses month/day/year order, as already pointed out. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See American English; British English; American English and British English differences, particularly re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates (re: confusions that the changes would introduce in citations coding); and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English re: versions of English and importance of avoidance cultural biases in choice of versions for articles.
  • If editors who live in Australia or in the UK are trying to impose their cultural biases on this article, that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and its warnings. The birthplace of an international star does not lead to choice of version of English of his/her birthplace or type of dates used in the article; the readers of this article, e.g., are not predominantly from Australia, or the UK, or the U.S., etc. They are English-speaking/English readers from around the world. (See relative numbers of users of each version of English.)
  • If one is stressing the "international" nature of a subject and interest in it/him/her, then one chooses the version of English (and dates in Wikipedia style) that are most prevalent (and least subject to confusion), not least prevalent (and most subject to confusion).
  • Wikipedia's "UTC" time/date stamping in signatures is a dating/timing method of based on international time, and even that has choices built into "preferences." One's own location (in the UK) has nothing to do with what date styles used in citations and texts of articles; it just relates to one's own "user" "preferences in how one post one's signature in talk pages, etc. --NYScholar (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that properly wiki-linked dates get automatically converted to whatever date format logged-in users have selected in their preferences. See the table here to see how they convert out. The only impact the format we use in the article will have is on what date format is displayed to anonymous readers of the article, in which case the most appropriate format is date/month/year.
Whilst it is true that some people in Australia put month first, then date, then year, this is only used when spelling out the name of the month in full (e.g. "December 13, 2007"), and never when using an abbreviated form (i.e. "12/13/2007" makes no sense here).
As for your statement about a "minority version of English", the correct form of English for this article is Australian English, and the use of the "dd/mm/yyyy" date format is actually the majority, and the US use is the minority. For instance, see the list of countries using some form of dd-mm-yyyy (I count 89 countries) compared to the list of countries using mm/dd/yyyy (I count 5 countries, including Canada which also uses dd-mm-yyyy).
On a slightly related note, you have been flooding both this talk page and the main article's history with related, incremental edits. It would be preferable if you used the preview function to get your comments together and coherent instead of posting numberous comments one after the other in quick succession. - Mark 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[Indeed I was unaware of that. I had always had day month year preferences and the dates still showed up in articles as month day year, but I just changed the preferences back and forth and the dates shifted in the article and citations. Now I'm not sure, what will show up, since the dates showed up in month day year order even when I had preferences chosen of day month year. I have cleared the cache too, bec. that may have led to the inconsistent pattern. --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]
[That point about "the correct form of English for this article" is not supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style and is still in some dispute (see later section below, where others address this claim). At this time, I just hope for consistency. But if the article is going to be in Australian English, I will have to keep checking that article about how that version may differ from British English (which I am familiar with).] --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound as though we use a foreign language! For the extent of this article, I doubt you'll see any difference between the two. Relax. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[I do apologize; I use show preview, but I don't always see everything anyway and have to come back to make corrections, since I don't like leaving typographical errors in my own comments or work. --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heath Ledger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This needs many more references, especially for the quotes.--Grahamec 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference deathcite was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e f Al Baker (2008-01-23). "Police Give New Details on Ledger Death". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-23. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ James Barron, "Heath Ledger, Actor, Is Found Dead at 28", The New York Times, January 23, 2008. Retrieved on February 6, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heath_Ledger/Archive_1&oldid=1138133570"