Talk:Heath Ledger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heath Ledger article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography (Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

More information about this article...

	The following comments have been left for this page: This needs many more references, especially for the quotes.--Grahamec 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (edit)

WikiProject Australia / Television (Rated B-Class)
Portal	Heath Ledger is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music. See also P:AUSMUSIC.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · history · watch · refresh) This needs many more references, especially for the quotes.--Grahamec 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has an assessment summary page.

To-do list for Heath Ledger:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Research and source Ledger's life in New York
Expand, at least a bit, his directorial path in the lede

Archives
2004 - 2007 January 2008 February 2008 (A) February 2008 (B) February 2008 (C) February 2008 (D) February 2008 (E)

[edit] Article Hijacked by publicist?

"The Last Days of Heath Ledger"

What is this self-serving garbage?

A posthumous fictionalized account of "The Last Days of Heath Ledger," by Lisa Taddeo ("an associate editor at Golf Magazine and an aspiring fiction writer, [who] spent four days in restaurants and cafes and parks near where Mr. Ledger died,")[100] has raised some controversy prior to its print publication in the April 2008 issue of Esquire.[101] It covers Ledger's final four days, from January 19 through January 22, 2008, the day he died, whose entry is subtitled "The Final Curtain."[100] According to Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism at Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia, "The risk of a piece like 'The Last Days of Heath Ledger' is that the work winds up in a literary no-man’s land. The biggest problem I see is you are sacrificing the biggest strengths from each of the genres. You are losing the veracity of journalism, and you are losing the imaginative license of fiction. You run the risk of ending up with something that is neither true nor interesting."[101] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronstock (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article suggestion

"After he referred mistakenly to West Virginia as having had lynchings as recently as the 1980s, West Virginian scholars disputed his statement, observing that, whereas lynchings did occur in Alabama as recently as 1981, according to "the director of state archives and history" quoted in The Charleston Gazette, "The last documented lynching in West Virginia took place in Lewisburg in 1931."[60] Yet The Gazz qualifies its newspaper's report somewhat further in adding, "though you have to wonder what the Klan was up to in the decades after that."[61]"

Seasick from reading it. Can someone intelligently rewrite this? I'd feel silly doing it as I am not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.2.107 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would expand the movies discussion as that is what he's most known for. Each of the movies before Brokeback Mountain can point out what character, anything notable and what, if any awards. Benji boi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Could you please add this quote from Joe Queenan in British paper The Guardian on January 24th 2008 in his "career" section: "The Academy's failure to give Ledger its best actor award for Brokeback Mountain ranks with its most hideous, cowardly decisions ever. Ledger will now be remembered as the victim of an epic miscarriage of justice, giving a truly astounding performance that somehow did not find favour with the grizzled, homophobic slobs who run Hollywood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomprowland (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The wake

Is it really necessary to quote corny journalism as 'fact'? Here's a less emotive report, if it must be included at all. [1] It was a wake, on Cottesloe beach, in warm weather - it was bound to end up in the water. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If by "fact" you intend "objectivity", "objectivity" is also not Wikipedia core policy; it is "verifiability" and "neutral point of view": "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Please see links in WP:POL. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the bit about his funeral. It seemed to imply that two of Ledger's grandparents are buried in the family plot at Fremantle Cemetery when in fact the plot in question is at Karrakatta. But we don't know they've actually done anything at Karrakatta, so it's a bit speculative. - Mark 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Children parameter

Every parameter on the template has an explanation (see Template:Infobox actor). That "Children" parameter is meant for children that are notable on their own right and not because of who their parents are. The parameter is not made for a number ("one daughter" with...). There are numerous examples, like Angelina Jolie, her children are far more notable than Matilda Ledger, and yet, because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, they are not mentioned on her infobox (see also Brad Pitt). Another example would be Jon Voight, he has two notable children, therefore it's ok to mention them in the infobox. I really don't see why i'm being reverted, just read the description and check out other big actors articles.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common sense should indeed be used, but not when the template's description is so clear and when adding a number or a non notable name would only make Wikipedia a bit less uniform.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly in the "don't mention her by name" camp here. No-one is arguing that her name isn't verifiable or that she hasn't been widely named in the tabloid media, but I do believe that minors who are non-notable in their own right deserve to have some privacy and protection. WP in not a tabloid newspaper and we shouldn't use standards there (which effectively is just "newsworthiness") as justification for our own standards. Per also Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. On the weekend there was a story about a fake death-threat against one of the Pitt-Jolie children. I would hate that we contribute in anyway in exposing another innocent for no good reason. As for speculation about future notability, that is crystal ballery and poor justification for the here and now. —Moondyne 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Her name is not currently in the infobox; previously, after the name was deleted earlier, I added "children" parameter: "one daughter (with Williams)"; that was more recently deleted and the section regarded this matter posted here by another user. Her name was mentioned explicitly in the article long before I began editing it (probably prior to Ledger's death, when WP:BLP strictly applied. Her name is used in public statements by Ledger's father and by Williams, which are cited in the sources for this article, and the name is given over and over in source citations used in the article, including by her late father in his interviews (citable and cited sources).

To imply that this Wikipedia article might "contribute in anyway [sic] in exposing another innocent for no good reason" by virtue of the mentioning of her name already in the many sources cited in the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core policy in editing articles in Wikipedia, as is WP:V#Sources: verifiability. There are repeated references to the name of the daughter (some quoting Ledger) in the article. This section applies only to including the parameter of "children" in the infobox (scroll up); the same parameter already exists in infoboxes of many celebrated people ("celebrities", public figures, in their Wikipedia articles. The article is not a "news" article; it is a biographical article about a recently-deceased celebrity actor, and it is common for the existence and the names of children to be in such biographical articles. See other articles: e.g., John Lennon, whose infobox is a musician box and longer than HL's and does not include his children's names, at least one of whom is an already-notable musician in his own right. It may be because there is so much else in the John Lennon infobox that such information about (notable) children is omitted from it (I haven't time to examine that article further to read its talk page) and also bec. "children" may not be a parameter used in musicians' inboxes (I don't know, I haven't time to check), though it is definitely a parameter used in writers' infoboxes Template: Infobox writer (as mentioned above), and many musicians and actors are also writers; John Lennon was a noted writer of lyrics and also an actor in films, and Heath Ledger was also involved in producing music videos and short films, though I don't know what his involvement was in the "writing" or composition of them (if any). Perhaps others want to look into finding sources that are citable for adding such matters. --NYScholar (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Slanted toward cause of death

Considering he was only 28 when he died and it being such a mysterious death I think its noteworthy to have extra attention toward it. Anytime someone young dies it is a big, big story. So I think its more relevant to have more attention placed toward it. Maybe in a few years someone can scale things back. -Airtuna08 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Photo credit

Please leave the photo credit to Howie_Berlin. According to the e-mail that I received from Mr. Berlin giving Wikipedia the rights to use the photo, he wants to be attributed for his work. This e-mail is in the OTRS queue as well. Thanks. miranda 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image licensing is complex enough without further non-standard licensing clauses being appended. The {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license allows for attribution and stating that on the image page is generally sufficient. —Moondyne click here! 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) Precisely. Not to mention complications arising from clauses attached through non-transparent means such as private communication. Dr.K. (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Interesting. I always thought that attribution was just that, but now I realize that the location of the attribution is a separate issue. This raises some questions regarding editors' names appearing in article space. If, for instance, a Wikipedia editor specifies similar terms then editor names might start appearing in mainspace. If it can be allowed for external contributors I don't see why this would not be allowed for Wikipedians as well. Dr.K. (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about opening this can of worms. First, the license says CC-BY-SA, he will be attributed according to the pic. page according to the arguments above and not by my suggestion. Second, I am not getting or searching for any more freely licensed photos for this project anymore. Sorry. :-) miranda 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Image placement

[Moved here from my talk page; it concerns editing article's images. See also editing history. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]

Hi, we place images in the section for which they are relevant not to somehow avoid cutting into text, which, depending on user's preferences can vary greatly as some, including non-registered readers, minimize image size and others increase from there. Ergo we place images as if we were editing a featured article. Benji boi 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation, which I just noticed. In this case, the image does relate to both the previous section (see the title of the Wiki "news" template: "Memorial service" etc.) and the "Memorial tributes" section. I really don't see how placing the image two lines up is in any way contrary to Wikipedia MOS; I've seen many Wikipedia articles where the image is just above the heading so that it can post directly opposite the text. I may try to reduce the size of the caption (which I was last one to edit some time ago); shortening it is a plausible way to reduce the size of the image overall (the space it takes up). The MOS also suggests that the image size be parallel to that of the section. In this case it is too long and cuts into the next sec. (to which it is not relevant). [This exchange is relevant to the article talk page: Talk:Heath Ledger. --NYScholar (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [I've just copied and moved it here.] --NYScholar (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Heath Ledger's mom

I recently learned that heath's mom was a race car driver. Does anyone know what type of racing she was into wheter it was single seater / open wheel racing or other types of racing? I think this may further enlighten the article regarding Heath's early life.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Domestic partner(s) parameter in Infobox actor

According to Wikipedia's own article on domestic partnership, the term "domestic partner(s) in the Wikipedia Infobox actor used in this article does not refer only to "legal" domestic partnerships (only one kind of "domestic partnerships") as claimed in the editing summary visible here: Diffs. There is no limitation to the "legal" meaning of the term in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and it is used in many other infoboxes for actors. Williams and Ledger were engaged to be married, according to many cited sources, and they were "domestic partners" in the general-usage sense while they lived together in New York City, in the United States, where most states do not have a "legal" definition of the kind claimed in that editing history summary. See the article domestic partner. That change needs to be reverted; see Michelle Williams. There is no consensus for deleting the information from the infobox. There has been earlier debate about this matter; see the archived talk pages. In the state of New York, where Ledger and Williams lived together, "domestic partner" has a general meaning, not only a legal one. Please do not impose original research on the article. I've already linked to Domestic partnership in an earlier editing history summary. Please don't keep deleting correct information in the infobox actor for Heath Ledger Ledger. It is parallel to the infobox for Michelle Williams. Please see the parameter in Template:Infobox actor for "domestic partner(s)". Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The parameter there states:

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

The parameter info is incorrect in this case; in New York City, Domestic Partner is a legally recognized class that confers specific rights and responsibilities. See Domestic partnerships in the United States#New York City for specifics. Pairadox (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not consistent with the intention of the parameter in the infobox actor and violates WP:NOR. Williams is described throughout most news articles as Ledger's ex-fiancée and the "romantic relationship" is the one referred to in the infobox actor's parameter usage: it is a general usage of the term, not a legal usage of the term. Your original research is not pertinent to the intended use of the parameter (as it is defined) and your continual reverting of the information has no precedent in Infobox actor; please cite Wikipedia policy not original research. The citation of Template:Infobox actor is the pertinent citation. --NYScholar (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert the names of the actor's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. Use the format: FirstName Surname (Year–Year) ... Note: If still together, use "present" in place of the end year (
).

(source: Template:Infobox actor)

(The continual reversions are verging on violating WP:3RR.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of properly-documented information

Other recent reversions of properly-documented third-party published source information, with proper citations, are also not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not reverting the reversions so as not to be accused of violations of WP:3RR. But I object to the continual reversions of the information that I have supplied properly. The deleted information is not "rumor" as claimed in the editing history summaries; it is based on and quotes family members in third party published sources, in that case The New York Post. Much of the information in this article comes from tabliod newspapers published in Australia and elsewhere. It is hypocritical to claim that recent additions are "rumor," when they are not. The information is repeated throughout many other third-party published sources as based on ["a statement"] (public statement issued by) the cited primary source, Ledger's father, Kim Ledger, who is hardly participating in rumor-mongering, as implied in that editing summary. --NYScholar (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Rumors?

How is this part of the "biography" not "rumors?" (Yet it has been left in the article, whereas the more recent information has been deleted):

In September, 2007, Williams' father, Larry Williams, confirmed to Sydney's Daily Telegraph that Ledger and Williams had ended their relationship.^[1] Subsequently, Ledger was reportedly "seeing" or "dating" supermodels Helena Christensen and Gemma Ward and former child-star Mary-Kate Olsen.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

[edit] Notes

^ "Williams' Father Confirms Ledger Split", Hollywood.com, WENN (World Entertainment News Network), 2007-09-04. Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
^ "Supermodel's Last Call to Heath", news.com.au, Herald Sun, 2008-01-24. Retrieved on 2008-01-26.
^ Robert Stansfield. "Helena Christensen Was On Way To See Heath Ledger", Scottish Daily Record, 2008-01-24, p. 6. Retrieved on 2008-01-26.
^ Holly Byrnes, Sarah Grant, and Angela Saurine. "Are Gemma Ward and Heath Ledger Dating?", Sydney Confidential, The Daily Telegraph, 2008-01-03, p. 31. Retrieved on 2008-02-06.
^ Janet Fife-Yeomans. "Sorrow of Heath Ledger's secret love", The Daily Telegraph, 2008-01-25, p. 4. Retrieved on 2008-02-06.

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

[edit] Condition of room when found

It has been retracted in several newpapers and magazines that there were not pills "strewn about the room" in which he was found. The police report itself states that there were several pill bottles on the nightstand. Please correct this as it really makes it look worse than it is and it is irresposible to repeat something that was in in the tabloids. While I understand that Wiki can be inaccurate, this statement is just wrong. I can't give you the names of the correct reporting services unfortunately, but I believe The New York Times corrected their statement about the condiftion of the room and several others as well. Thx so much for this page by the way. Good job! Barb 3-15-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 (talk • contribs) 11:27, March 15, 2008 (UTC)

Opps, did I miss something? when I went back to the page, the text above was gone. Maybe I was looking at a chached page? Sorry..Barb —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuckley58 (talk • contribs) 11:28, March 15, 2008 (UTC); 11:33, March 15, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[Please sign comments using four tildes: scroll up to top of page for guidelines. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]

[I've added the templates & reconstructed info. from editing hist. --NYScholar (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] Current state of this article

This article still needs more work in my view; it is still too dependent on rumors and tabloid journalism sources. Its sources are in many cases tabloid newspapers that rely on anonymous sources in their reporting and that convey unsupported rumors.

Frequently, when one tries to update this article with reliable third-party published sources, the updated information is being deleted with what appear to me to be explanations that are not supported by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines for editing. The current infobox template is an example; one cannot just make up one's own rules and regulations; the descriptions in the template box for the parameters are explicit. There is no requirement for "legal" meaning of "Domestic partnership" ("domestic partner(s)") in the parameter of that infobox: Template:Infobox actor; it makes clear that the parameter refers to "romantic relationships" in a more general sense. The same editor keeps removing the information about Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger being "domestic partners" (in the meaning defined by the parameter in the Infobox template: Template: Infobox actor) and trying to impose a "legal" meaning on it every time another editor tries to restore it. That violates the definition in the parameter for Infobox actor. There is no consensus for that reversion. This correction is still needed. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [The references to "legal" definitions of Domestic partnership or "domestic partners" in New York City pertain to employers' granting of benefits to those filing for them--not pertinent to the usage of "domestic partner(s)" in the parameter in Template:Infobox actor and the references to them in relation to Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams are pure speculation based on original research not permissible in Wikipedia articles. For those truly interested in what constitutes the meaning of the term in various geographical "jurisdictions", one can do one's own reading; e.g., Human Rights Issues: Domestic Partnerships. That is not relevant to the definition of the parameter in Template:Infobox actor. For readers of this article, given the content of the article and its references to Michelle Williams, including her in the infobox is not only accurate and not only in keeping with Wikipedia's own definition of the parameter in the infobox actor, but it is also helpful.

It is absurd to keep deleting Michelle Williams' name from "domestic partner(s)" in the Infobox, citing non-pertinent information about "domestic partnerships" in New York City (or elsewhere). Most news accounts (including those published in Australia in March 2008) refer to Williams as Ledger's "partner" or former "partner" or former fiancée based on the knowledge that they had a daughter together and were in a committed relationship for approx. three years and lived together both in New York City and wherever they went during the period of 2005 to 2007 (two years). That is documented by the reliable third-party sources in the article. It is not speculation.

We do not know what their legal arrangements were while they had a domicile together in New York City. We do not know the arrangements on their legal papers concerning their townhouse (in which Williams was living prior to Ledger's moving from there into Manhattan); to do "original research" about these matters or to claim that one knows otherwise without giving reliable third-party sources actually pertaining to Ledger and Williams is out of bounds in this article and violates WP:LOP. --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See opposition to an attempt to change the meaning of the parameter in the talk page of Template:Infobox actor Domestic Partner, posted by an editor of this article, relating to the editing dispute re: Infoboxes of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams deriving from this article. See also: WP:AGF. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heathcliff

[Note well (to prevent further confusion and further insertions of false information): The birth name of the subject is "Heath Andrew Ledger"; as well documented in this article's reliable sources and legal documents cited in it; it is not and never was "Heathcliff". See current note 18, e.g. --NYScholar (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)]

Another name regularly used for him was Heathcliff (perhaps his full birth first name?) Anyway this should be mentioned in the article and explained in the article, i.e. is it a birth name or what? Perhaps the character Heathcliff was just an inspiration for his being given the name Heath. Either way the other name is used in some reliable sources, such as [2] and should be mentioned/explained. I can't do the type of refs mentioned on the article, I kept trying to copy the others but it just came out as jibberish, or I would add it myself. Merkin's mum 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

It is the Daily Mirror though (for what it's worth lol), and it's far from the only place that it's mentioned [3]. http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=en&q=heathcliff+ledger&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn] 207 mentions on google news for Ledger + Heathcliff. It should at least be mentioned that sources say his name was inspired by the name of Heathcliff, if several WP:RS say so. Merkin's mum 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

For related editing policy (re: the Google search), see WP:NOR, particularly WP:NOR#Reliable sources. Thank you. I've deleted the misinformation. --NYScholar (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From the horses mouth: Per Vanity Fair interview: "... he’s asked if Heath is a shortened version of Heathcliff. “No, just Heath.” he says." —Moondyne click! 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Unencyclopedic and improperly sourced gossip magazine-type content

Has been deleted. See archived discussions and WP:LOP for editing policies and guidelines as well as the template messages at the top of this page. Please don't reinsert such content. Notable content and reliable third-party published sources documenting it are necessary throughout Wikipedia articles: see espec. WP:CITE for related links pertaining to reliable sources. See also: WP:BLP regarding living persons who are subjects of articles in Wikipedia or who are mentioned in articles about dead persons in Wikipedia. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a fansite; please also see WP:EL. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline moved from EL sec. to source citation earlier

Please do not keep adding that source to the EL sec.; doing so violates WP:EL. It is already being used as a source (twice) in the text. See current note citation 3. --NYScholar (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote "Quote of the Day" - Support Votes needed

Support votes needed by Registered members of Wikiquote for Heath Ledger to reach Quote of the Day for 18 July 2008. This is the release date in the USA for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight (film). The quote was made just before his death as he reflected on how he would wish to be remembered when he did die. Support votes with a score of between 1 and 5 will help it to be considered for usage as Quote of the Day located here at Wikiquote: [[4]]

When I die, my money's not gonna come with me. My movies will live on for people to judge what I was as a person. I just want to stay curious. ~ Interview for London's Sunday Telegraph magazine, November 2007

Boylo (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Last Days of Heath Ledger"

This is rubbish and should be vectored into it's own article if it's considered notable. If someone had written a biography about him we might quote it but should we devote a whole section to it? No.

[edit] Request

I have a Request Persian version of Heath ledger has been Featured Article I request from Administrators that add {{Link FA}} Thank you Ladsgroup (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

The article in Persian Wikipedia has been selected as Featured article. Please one of the admins add the {{Link FA|fa}} to interwikis. --Kaaveh (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] When will editing the article resume?

I realise that this article has endured frequent bouts of vandalism and needs to be protected. But for how long and at what cost and under what rationale? Obviously the theory is that the vandals need a cooling-off period. But who's to say how long this period should be or if it is even effective against determined and resolute vandals prepared for the long haul. Is there any plan in place to allow some edting in the near future? Dr.K. (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.