Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Cause of Death 2 Quotes from Prime minister, friends, etc. not encyclopaedic 3 Chateau Marmont video 4 Definitive Statement 5 additional comments (related to editing this article so as to improve its accuracy) 5.1 Deleting content 5.2 Heath Ledger, again 6 Death section way too large 7 Related concerns 8 Trim quotes 9 Talk page clean-up 10 Cause of Death

Cause of Death

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

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so that each event happened in the past, and can include information that will be of note years from now when it is no longer current. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)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

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

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)

[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.[1] 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.[[2]]. •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

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)

Related concerns

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

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:

“

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.

”

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)

Y 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)

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)]