Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 6

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 Heath Ledger's Doctor(s) 2 Heath/Heathcliff 3 Memorial services 4 Deletion of pertinent well-sourced material and its sources 4.1 the passage 4.1.1 Notes 5 Ledger as a New Yorker and reaction to his death 6 Australian English 7 Number of citations 8 Fix Lede please 8.1 Lede notes 1 8.2 Lede notes 2 8.3 Lede notes 3

Heath Ledger's Doctor(s)

Are the proper authorities going to investigate the doctor(s) who prescribed the medications? ASSUMING that Ledger was upfront about his medical history with him/her/them, this might also be a case of malpractice. --Northridge (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the sources already cited in the article; this talk page is for discussing making improvements to the article only, not for discussing the subject: see talk page header (tags at top) for further guidance. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Heath/Heathcliff

His first name is simply Heath, not Heathcliff. This mistake seems to have started (and spread) because of the story about Wuthering Heights etc. "Inspired by" doesn't mean having that name on your birth certificate or passport.

Ledger himself said in a Vanity Fair article that Heath wasn't short for Heathcliff:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2000/08/heath200008?currentPage=4

"Finally sitting down to a plate of meat loaf and potatoes—his curls blowing in the rising wind—he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath. But I do have an older sister named Kathy,” he says. “Well, Kate.”

In addition, his family's obituary notice, published in an Australian newspaper, read Heath Andrew and not Heathcliff Andrew.

Based on these things, I think it should be corrected in Wikipedia. 220.101.78.25 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Memorial services

What actual formal "memorial service" (on the same order of those in Los Angeles, after the body was shipped there, where the parents and a limited number of close friends held their first memorial service prior to the one w/ Cruise et al.) taking place in New York?. Could you please cite a quotation from a source indicating what you are referring to? (See editing summary and change in article. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Deletion of pertinent well-sourced material and its sources

People have been deleting sources that I used to document statements, and that is leading to confusions. Also, please stop deleting properly-documented (reliably and verifiably-sourced information) from the article. I see some attempt here to suppress information that makes Ledger's death more comprehensible in terms of "accident"; for example, the already-confirmed information that he was suffering from a respiratory ailment (cold or worse), which may explain why cold medication substances would have been found in his system along with sleep aids, etc. People seem to be tilting the article away toward the direction of addiction vs. accident, violating neutral point of view. Please allow dev. of well-documented information about subject (that he was very well liked and respected among his peers, colleagues, and fans) and please stop deleting the sources documenting such information in the article. The attempt to suppress the popularity and the widespread sadness at his death and that the subject was not feeling well due to having a cold or a more serious respiratory illness prior to his death is also not in keeping with neutral point of view. These phenomena are especially well documented in source after source. It violates both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:AGF to delete this material. Such material has been developed in the article in good faith. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to be clear about what statements you are talking about here - please supply diffs. If its this, then be assured that such POV nonsense will be quickly reverted. This is an encyclopaedia and commentary such as that has no home here. Of course the death of anyone is sad, but we generally don't need to record such even if it is cited. —Moondyne 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above characterization of the following passage (and the sources that document its accuracy and pertinence) is false and misleading: (1) the statement summarizes the content of the article (3 sections of it at least); (2) the statement defines a phenomenon (the response to the subject's death) that is not only striking, but well sourced with reliable third-party sources (not original research and not the opinion of this or any other Wikipedia editor); (3) it is not describing Wikipedia editors' points of view, but rather documenting points of view that are actual on the subject: [see: WP:POV and (pertinent guidance when the subject was still alive): WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [It is not acceptable to delete well-sourced material just because it is positive any more than it is acceptable to delete well-sourced material about well-known public figures just because it is negative. --NYScholar (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

I agree. I started a thread relating to a "Star of David" being located on Ledger's casket during his transit from the medical examiner's office to the Manhattan Funeral home. I even sourced CNN video footage. All of that has been deleted. The fact that he or his family had a religious preference is being suppressed by certain anti-religion fanatics who are deleting passages they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.143.12 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the passage

<< His untimely and unexpected loss resulted in expressions of grief and sadness from his family, friends, colleagues, and fans, interest in the public media, and heightened concerns about "the abuse of prescription medications."^[1][2][3]

Notes

>>

:[I don't know why only the notes (1,2) from an earlier part of this talk page are showing up: something to do w/ prev. nn. section above in talk page disc. I may remove that section for time being, since that disc. is pretty much over now, and since I originated it; the note citations appear in preview mode or in section mode only right now in this sec. --NYScholar (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)] [--NYScholar (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)]

Furthermore, whoever has been deleting the sourced statements and their sources is also creating subsequent problems in later note citations. See the current version (red missing notes).

The quoted passage was added to the lead due to the previous template requesting further dev. of the lead. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style on leads. Paragraphs in the lead are supposed to refer to the content of the article (and the sources cited in the article to support its content). The statement that I added quoted above and repeatedly deleted from this article with unpleasant characterizations of it is warranted, given actual responses to Ledger's death, not just by members of his family and friends who knew him personally, but also by strangers who simply knew him through seeing his work in films or television and also his fans. The statements that document the enormous outpouring of public sadness about his loss (at least a hundred thousand comments in one location on the internet multiplied by several such sites) is a phenomenon that Wikipedia would consider "notable" and noteworthy enough to be discussed in this article. The source provided later documenting the point in relation to this matter has been deleted wholesale. That is careless editing at the least and wholly disrespectful, given the editing summaries and earlier explanations that I have clearly already made about the above passage (and earlier versions of it, also deleted wholesale with unpleasant editing summary remarks). WP:AGF. I will be restoring missing citations if the users who took them out and made these errors do not correct their own errors. WP:AGF --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ledger as a New Yorker and reaction to his death

As a separate point from NYScholar's: I do think that the article would benefit from a sentence or two about his place in New York life and the spontaneous response that New Yorkers had upon learning of the death. Ledger was a well-known figure in NYC and Brooklyn, often reported on in local media, and news of his death traveled quickly and resulted in large gatherings of fans outside of the Soho apartment, the Brooklyn residence, and eventually at the funeral home. This was widely reported and is clearly a part of the story - it was a significant public display that should be included here, at least as notable as the Prime Minister's statement. See for example this article - and there are other sources. Tvoz |talk 06:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Australian English

It appears that at some stage in the last month, the article was changed over to using US English spellings for words. This was in violation of the Manual Of Style, which says to keep the existing variety of English in an article unless there are strong national ties which warrant changing it to another form.

For the purposes of information and to save other people doing the digging through the history I did, the Australian English words "behaviour", "apologise" and "threatres" were used in the article from early 2006 onwards. Quite a long while later on, a stray "rumor" went into the article and stayed there until quite recently, along with the Australian English words. - Mark 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I encountered it for the first time--after Ledger's death on Jan. 22, 2008, this article has not been written predominantly in Australian English (which I am not familiar with), perhaps due to the greater involvement in its writing and editing by a variety of non-Australian English Wikipedians. Since his death, the article has taken on far greater than local (Australian) relevance. There is no rule in Wikipedia that a person's nationality governs the version of English used in the article about him or her. Please scroll up to earlier discussion and links provided. Thanks. (One should keep in mind that all quotations of Australian or other versions of English would be rendered as they are published in sources and certainly not altered. The writing of the article can, however, be in American English without any violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style--see earlier links. There is no Wikipedia requirement that this article be written in Autralian English and cultural biases of English versions is warned against in Wikipedia. Its English version needs to be wholly consistent (consistency of English version is a requirement in Wikipedia). [One has to keep in mind also that many native English speakers are not familiar enough with Australian English to use it in their own writing and editing; e.g., "centred" and "rumoured" are not familiar to many who use American English, whereas "centered" and "rumored" are; cf. honor and honour, as well, which also creates contentious debate in Wikipedia. One will need to look at the currently-prevailing version of English used in the article (not in quotations). what version makes most sense for this article now (since the subject's death), and try to maintain its usage consistently throughout the article. (Quotations from sources published in America that are in American English cannot be changed to some other version of English.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Outdent. With all due respect to all editors either is fine but strong arguments can be made for both US and Aussie English. Personally I suggest a truce for now as this article will be heavily edited for several months. He was notably covered by the press while alive and those same outlets will cover many aspects of the death inquiry, movies he's in that are being released and news of his child, etc. Eventually it would be nice to agree that one or the other makes more sense. Benjiboi 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Number of citations

I really look forward to the time when this calms down and we can start eliminating redundant citations. I don't think it's necessary to have two citations in the lede "proving" he died, and two more giving the cause of death, all four attached to the same sentence. Pairadox (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not why each citation is there. Please read the sources and view the video that I cited earlier so that you know what they contribute to the article in way of documentation of statements. (Please don't harrass me on my talk page; I'm going to bed. Please don't add anything else to my talk page, as already requested. Make comments about improving an article here. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)]

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

Fix Lede please

I've repeatedly tagged to lede for improvement as it's too short. As there are some quite active editors please consider tackling this challenge (hint: it might help curb some vandalism too). See WP:LEDE for guidelines, essentially the lede (the intro part above the table of contents) should serve as an accurate overview of the article's contents and therefore of the subject itself. Benjiboi 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

<<

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

>>

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

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

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

[To Benjiboi] The current lede is fine. I have no objection to it being expanded with encyclopaedic material but do object to it being tagged as being deficient in its current form. [To NYScholar], this is quite unsuitable. —Moondyne 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede notes 1

Notability should be addressed better. A second sentence should be inserted that he was consider a promising young actor with leading man potential or similar. Something that hints why he is a notable actor.Benjiboi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede notes 2

"His death brought tributes from the Prime Minister of Australia, Warner Brothers, other Hollywood celebrities, and his fans worldwide." is not notable or needed. Instead remarking that his death was seen as tragic for a promising career would be better. Benjiboi 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lede notes 3

I would break out Brokeback Mountain into it's own sentence and mention his awards won, several that don't seem to be in the article yet as well as his Oscar nomination. Benjiboi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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