Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:54, 9 February 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Television Mid‑importance Heath Ledger is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Heath Ledger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Heath Ledger at the Reference desk.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives
(2004 Nov 22) to (2007 Jan 22)

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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Deleting content

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

I did not remove two sections. I 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)

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." . 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. 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, Misplaced Pages 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. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not one-person's decision, but the result of a discussion.]. •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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 this encyclopedia bio some perspective": the "perspective" of family members and the mother of the subject's child who knew the subject best (far better than any Misplaced Pages 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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it is the responsibility of Misplaced Pages 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 . --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up

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

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

Cause of Death

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

Corrected. You guys are damn fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.30.200 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other revisions

I made some other additions to other parts, more minor typo. corrs., etc., but I still don't feel that I "own" this article. I'd be happy if others would work on the citations format; e.g., it's correct to have a comma after the author's or authors' names in normal order (first name, last name) in notes citations, as opposed to bibiog. refs. list (which is alphabetized). Unfortunately, the citation templates do not result in proper punctuation for notes and lead to inconsistencies. I originate citations in normal language w/o templates so as to control punctuation: name of author (first name, last name), title of article or book (in quotation marks or italics; if link given, end q. mark should post prior to symbol for link), title of work (newspaper, book, website, etc.) in italics, date of publication (wikified link), date accessed. I've been following "Retrieved on..." separated by period bec. so many of the other citations originated w/ templates have that format. In my own notes, I generally have a comma and then "accessed" and just the date (Wikified); no "on" is really nec. But I've deferred to the prevailing format already in this article ("Retrieved on...."). In the EL sec. I used the "Accessed" format bec. I originated the dates accessed. (I just don't prefer the word "Retrieved," which I find uglier than "Accessed.") --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the "Resolved" templates being removed?

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

That's not actually how those are usually used. We call something resolved when the issue is resolved not a point within the conversation. If, after an reasonable amoount of time (maybe a week) the items is left as is it can be archived to keep the talk page clean. If someone reposts and the issue is likely not to be seen as resolved then remove the tag. It can always be added later. Benjiboi 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please stop adding resolved templates to sections that are not resolved. Just because you are personally satisfied with the current form doesn't mean that everybody is - I for one still don't see the encyclopedic value of quotes from the Prime Minister. Pairadox (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you (Pairadox) could have said so. People cannot guess what is on your minds (both Benji and Pairadox). Please be direct. As for the "Resolved" templates: I was not the one asking for them. As far as I am concerned, if I find that a dispute between me and others is "resolved" I can place that in front of my own comment, which I have now done. If you (P) want to dispute a specific part of a section, please do so in a new section. The other one is full of all kinds of comments, some directly related, some not. If you want to "clean up" this talk page, please cooperate. Thanks. If people don't know what you are asking for when you are asking for templates to be used like "resolved" and "done" and so on, please explain what you want them for. Thanks. (I have never seen any of those templates used on any talk pages in my now several years of editing Misplaced Pages.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"I think the entire section needs a serious trim." Is that direct enough? I wrote that days ago nothing I've written since then indicates I feel any differently. As for the request for resolved templates, that was part of a general talk page cleanup request that was accomplished by archiving and marked "done" almost 24 hours ago. Pairadox (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Respectfully, it does appear that you're jumping the gun on marking some of the above issues resolved. Like the others, I noticed a couple issues that looked like they could still be live. Townlake (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also {{tl:done}} can be used within a thread to indicate one point is "done" like a list of corrections. {{tl:resolved}} is usually reserved for the entire thread. And both are used to communicate to make very active talk pages, such as this, easier to use. Benjiboi 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate guidance in use of these (for me otherwise) unfamiliar templates. Re: where I placed them most recently (upon corr.): they are only relating to my own comments, not the whole sec. (re: the one being discussed--the quotations one). Again, I don't feel that it is necessary to use these templates at all. If those commenting above have remaining issues to discuss, they can start new sections as per the talk page header. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited already-excerpted quotation from official Australian government press release

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

What value do his words add? What is the purpose of including them? Pairadox (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They show how an entire country is eulogizing an actor. It reveals the importance of the subject to his native nation. It is highly notable and demonstrates the subject's own notability. WP:Notability. --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with this one myself. A head of state releasing an official statement about a performer is a pretty big deal, and the quote's been blended into the article's text well. Townlake (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the controversy, prior to seeing Townlake's comment above, I had already moved the PM's public statement source into an earlier sentence; people can read the whole statement in context, just as they can read the full contexts of the other public statements. I've tried to highlight its importance in the sentence by naming the Prime Minister as such. --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your edit on that, works for me. Townlake (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Circumstances of death

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

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

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

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

>>

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

I don't think this sec. is nec. The source is now at end of prev. sec. ("Death"). Missing a piece of a note; I'll try to fix in a moment. --NYScholar (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) . --NYScholar (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]

(ec)

When originally composed in this HL article, material was simply lifted from Baker's article; I added quotation marks as nec., resulting in quotation of almost the entire article. That is copyvio and not permissible. The ref. to "circumstances" in the current sent. in the current "Death" sec. in HL is the lead-in to the source citation; anyone who wants to know Baker et al.'s renditions of those circumstances (as then known) can just read the source articles as cited. Otherwise there will be substantial paraphrase not so much quotation or a block quotation, which was an option not liked much earlier (see archived disc.). This change addresses earlier complaints about length of sec. on "Death." --NYScholar (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Section will have to be edited substantially after the cause of death comes down anyway, so this will probably keep a couple days. I don't think the whole narrative is necessary, but cutting the whole thing might be a bit extreme. Let's discuss. Side note - if 6 Feb 08 is really the date the examiner's info will come out, we might want to request a Full Protect on the article for a few hours after the news breaks as a precaution. Townlake (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ that. --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

News of the medically-determined cause of death has hit the wires. I'll check back in on this page when I can during the day; meantime, if other editors find it helpful, the direct link to the Request Page Protection page is here. Townlake (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

International date format

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

I reviewed the policy, and yep, sounds good to me. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style has specific dates format for birth and death dates in the lead of articles (and in infoboxes for actors), and it is not the international dates format; it is month, day, year format. It is not necessary to use international date style in an article about a celebrity from Australia; he lived and died most recently in New York, and, until now, the prevailing style in the article has also been mostly American English (with some exceptions: "centred" instead of "centered", the "ou" in places, which are actually inconsistencies. American English is acceptable for this article. UK English is not as used worldwide as American English; see the links on both: American English, UK English. Words are quoted exactly as appear in their sources; the editors themselves need to be familiar with language they are using, and a lot of the editors editing this article are from the U.S. not only the U.K. or Australia. Ledger is a subject whose notability has surpassed his place of birth. The dates in citations currently follow prevailing date format recommended in the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (it is certainly not incorrect), and it is easier for current and subsequent editors to continue using it in developing new sources for the article as events develop. The so-called "international" date format is UK date format; the other is American and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. It is much harder to format (thinking of future eds. as well). ---NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent, it's six-of-one to me, would just to see it made consistent. There is great international interest in the story and there's no consistent format right now, so at worst a change to that format would not be inappropriate - and the Style guide clearly says that either format is ok. Townlake (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's much harder to change all the (mostly consistent) dates and spellings currently in the article (excepting source citations spelling, which should follow quotations exactly) than to change them and maintain those changes: see whole section on "National Varieties of English" in the W:MoS: here for more links and contexts. Thanks. Got to go soon. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not hard at all, really. :) I aim for consistency. I'll have a look at it tonight. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally international date formatting is preferred, since he is from Australia seems even more appropriate. Benjiboi 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no other articles in Misplaced Pages where "international date formatting" (abbreviated with numbers and not months and full years) is "generally" "preferred"; in fact, almost every article I've read and worked on and seen has dates in reference citations in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style format for dates of birth and death in leads: month, day, year. These changes have no "preferred" policy or guideline statement that I know of and I want to see what you are using as a statement of "preferred" usage in Misplaced Pages. "Since he is from Australia" is not relevant to a subject who has reached beyond national boundaries ; in terms of "international" relevance, "international" date style is not what is being talked about; it is choice of version of English in English Misplaced Pages that one is referring to: whether to use American English or UK English, etc. If the subject reaches beyond national boundaries in interest, I prefer to use American English, as more people around the world use American English than use UK or British or Australian English (that is a point made in the discussion I've already cited in Misplaced Pages's guidelines for versions of English. You are mixing up apples and oranges. The subject lived in New York in the U.S. at his time of death, as he had done for a few years recently, and he died in New York; he is being buried in Western Australia, and the interest in the subject is worldwide. But international interest is not equivalent to use of "international dates" style in Misplaced Pages; that is chosen as a preference in one's signature, for e.g.; but month, day, year is generally what one finds in references and footnotes and in the texts of articles in Misplaced Pages, and the 6-2-08 or 6-2-2008 format is horribly confusing, especially for those expecting month, day, year as per usual Misplaced Pages article style. I suggest reversing those changes as they do not match the rest of the article and are creating vast problems (such as "when?"). --NYScholar (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice also that the format of dates in the Australian tabloid The Daily Telegraph matches normal Misplaced Pages birth-date format of month, day, year: See the section of EL for quotation of its title with that format for dates in it.

• "Heath Ledger: April 4, 1979 – January 22, 2008". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Accessed February 2, 2008. (Tabloid newspaper.)

So the argument pertaining to how Australia would present the dates seems incorrect (belied by that Australian source). --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The British (UK) newspaper The Times obituary for Heath Ledger (note 2 in current article) also uses normal order of dates paralleling Misplaced Pages's Man. of Style format for birth and death dates in leads and infoboxes: month, day, year. Many British newspapers and publications use this format rather than reversed format of day, month, year too. (I don't know why, but there seems to be a shift from the latter to the former (in some British dating of correspondence too that I receive); maybe it's thought more modern. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be normal for a uk newspaper to say "February 14th 2008", but I doubt any UK newspaper would use "2/14/2008", they'd use "14/2/2008". Hope this helps, I haven't seen the article you refer to. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have no clue. Just live here. As did Heath Ledger, but never mind that. Do whatever you like, I have more productive editing to do. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We might be getting semanticly bogged here. If you look at how the date is presented as part of my signature, "7 February 2008" is what I mean by international date. As far as I know this is common throughout the UK and is what I recommend. Benjiboi 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are advocating, and I oppose it.

Aside from the fact that you yourself (and some others) are from the UK and favor that style, there is no reason to use "UK" style in this article for dates. To do so conflicts with Misplaced Pages style requirements for dates in leads, texts, and, when using citation templates, in dates: they post accurately as month, day, year only if you write them properly: 2-7-2008 for February 7, 2008; to do otherwise will result in incorrect Misplaced Pages dating.

• The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style requires uses of month, day, year in leads and infoboxes for birth-date dates; even the Australian and London newspapers use this format in their dating of issues (quoted above).
• The format you use in your signing of Misplaced Pages posts has nothing to do with what is appropriate for articles. See the discussion of avoiding cultural biases in choice of English version.
• For a subject of major international cultural interest (not local cultural interest), one uses the version of English with the broadest use in the world; that is not British (UK) English; it is American English. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and its emphasis on avoiding cultural or national identity of editors as a rationale for the version of English used in English Misplaced Pages. The style of citations also governs what kind of date format one uses; Misplaced Pages defaults to month/day/year in changing however you place the dates into that format. One has to use a "|" to change that, and to do so without any rationale makes no sense.
• Note: MLA format, in contrast to Misplaced Pages MoS, does use reversed dates: e.g., The New York Times 7 Feb. 2008 (in notes and bibliographical formatting and in texts); my own customary style for Humanities research writing is to use MLA format, so I am very familiar with using that style.
• But we (per consensus--Misplaced Pages's own citation templates have been chosen, though still inconsistently applied) are not using that citation style format in this article. The rationale for avoiding use of the additional comma in MLA format is that one cannot confuse a letter (e.g., the "s" at the end of "Times" and the beginning of the date where the number for the day of the month is used]; there are actually good reasons why different formats choose different date formats and "international" is not the rationale; it has to do with punctuation rules.
• There is no aspect of this article that justifies changing the dates throughout in the text or in the notes citations from normal order used in Misplaced Pages (Manual of Style) or changing the version of English being used from American English to British English. There is no reason to use a minority version of English in an article on a subject that goes beyond local UK/Austral. interest in English Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is very clear that the birthplace of a subject does not dictate what version of English one uses in a biographical article about him or her. RE: UK usage: Heath Ledger was not British; he was Australian, and the Australian newspaper cited above (The Daily Telegraph (Australia) uses month/day/year order, as already pointed out. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• See American English; British English; American English and British English differences, particularly re: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Dates (re: confusions that the changes would introduce in citations coding); and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English re: versions of English and importance of avoidance cultural biases in choice of versions for articles.
• If editors who live in Australia or in the UK are trying to impose their cultural biases on this article, that violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and its warnings. The birthplace of an international star does not lead to choice of version of English of his/her birthplace or type of dates used in the article; the readers of this article, e.g., are not predominantly from Australia, or the UK, or the U.S., etc. They are English-speaking/English readers from around the world. (See relative numbers of users of each version of English.)
• If one is stressing the "international" nature of a subject and interest in it/him/her, then one chooses the version of English (and dates in Misplaced Pages style) that are most prevalent (and least subject to confusion), not least prevalent (and most subject to confusion).
• Misplaced Pages's "UTC" time/date stamping in signatures is a dating/timing method of based on international time, and even that has choices built into "preferences." One's own location (in the UK) has nothing to do with what date styles used in citations and texts of articles; it just relates to one's own "user" "preferences in how one post one's signature in talk pages, etc. --NYScholar (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that properly wiki-linked dates get automatically converted to whatever date format logged-in users have selected in their preferences. See the table here to see how they convert out. The only impact the format we use in the article will have is on what date format is displayed to anonymous readers of the article, in which case the most appropriate format is date/month/year.

Whilst it is true that some people in Australia put month first, then date, then year, this is only used when spelling out the name of the month in full (e.g. "December 13, 2007"), and never when using an abbreviated form (i.e. "12/13/2007" makes no sense here).

As for your statement about a "minority version of English", the correct form of English for this article is Australian English, and the use of the "dd/mm/yyyy" date format is actually the majority, and the US use is the minority. For instance, see the list of countries using some form of dd-mm-yyyy (I count 89 countries) compared to the list of countries using mm/dd/yyyy (I count 5 countries, including Canada which also uses dd-mm-yyyy).

On a slightly related note, you have been flooding both this talk page and the main article's history with related, incremental edits. It would be preferable if you used the preview function to get your comments together and coherent instead of posting numberous comments one after the other in quick succession. - Mark 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death

http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Entertainment/Detail?contentId=5695576&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=7.1.1 EsocksLAMB (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Cit format

I spent a good deal of time a few weeks ago seeking out citations for unsourced text and getting all of the references that had been haphazardly entered here into a consistent format, using the "cite" templates that predominated. When I finished, the whole article was consistently using the templates, and there was an exchange here on talk about citation format. I see that since then another 25+ citations were added without the cite template formats - this is inconsistent and something needs to be fixed. (There are at least 50 - twice as many - already in the cite format.) If there is a citation format already in place, proposing a change in format is fine here on Talk, but just adding new cites in a different format than has been established leaves something of a mess to be cleaned up. I'm willing to work on changing the smaller number of new ones to the cite template, and I hope others will help out in that task, but there needs to be some agreement about this going forward. I prefer the templates for their consistency in the way the references display, and the increased likelihood that all of the relevant fields, such as access date, are included. And now from a practical point of view, it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense for someone to have to go through the article and change over 50 citations to a different format, for no clear advantage that I can see. To be upfront about it, I'm not really willing to put that kind of work into undoing all of the work I did previously, but maybe someone else is, if we reach consensus on making that wholesale change. See talk archive for an exchange about citation style between Miranda and me that no one raised any objection to, and see WP:CITE for the need for consistency. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Outdent) (ec) NYScholar, that is your opinion and your preference but obviously the wikipedia community has differing views on the subject. What works well for you might be disruptive to someone who needs consistent formatting as they are visually impaired so use an interpretive device. Also your system can be seen, by me at least, as quite hard to sort through as it's not standardized to either of the standard formats i regularly encounter on wikipedia. Benjiboi 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

(ec) And this article already had a mixture of formats when I first encountered it a few days ago, with the matter, by consensus, deferred to later; see also Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Citation templates--an unresolved situation at the current time. --NYScholar (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not inexperienced nor did I suggest that templates are required. I specifically said that the goal is consistency of style within an article, not across the encyclopedia, and I'm quite aware that different groups of editors use different styles to achieve the same consistent results. My experience has been that a much more serious problem with free-style referencing than commas is that there's no consistency in order of words or inclusion of required data. Not saying yours are entered inconsistently as I haven't looked, but a big advantage of the templates is that it doesn't matter what order you add the fields - they are adjusted accordingly and are therefore consistent within the article - and the template form serves as a reminder to include them all. I don't in fact use the physical templates - I know the fields and include them all manually, but I don't worry about whether I've punctuated or ordered them properly because that's automated, which actually saves, not wastes, a lot of time. And use of the cite format makes it easier to check other peoples' citations. That's my preference, and all I am raising here is that we ought to come to an agreement about what style will be used - as of a few weeks ago it was consistent, and now it is not at all, and you mentioned upstream that you preferred a different style and were using it. I'm not sure who you think should now or later go in to fix the rest and bring them in line with your preferred style, but seeing as there are over 50 in the cite format and 28 in various freestyle formats (at last count earlier today), logic would suggest that it's easier to convert the few than the many. Which is why I raised this. of course I don't think this is nearly as important as getting the facts straight, using good writing, and keeping the vandalism away, but before it gets completely out of hand I think this should be considered. Not everyone has internalized the rules of referencing, as anyone who reads student papers knows, and so it seems to me that any help that can be offered in the form of templates for this is positive. An aside - semi-protection from new and IP editors seems appropriate for now, but I very much doubt we'll add full protection to this article as it's very rarely done, and correctly so. Tvoz |talk 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Another way to go is to just fix an error if you see one, rather than write about it here. Or at least give a hint so someone else can do it. But never mind. The first part of your first sentence confirms what I was saying - free-styling leads to errors. You're right that people might use the wrong cite template, but that can be easily fixed. As for the templates themselves - I have no doubt that they don't all respect all scholarly conventions, but from my experience scholars in the real world generally agree that consistency within a document is more important than strict adherence to a protocol, especially if the protocol presents problems for a given situation. So it seems several folks have said here they prefer the cite templates, one prefers free-styling - I'm interested to hear what others think about this not-very-important housekeeping matter and we can move on. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "refs" format that I have used for sources that I have added to this article is consistent. Others may not be. The citations templates are a mixed lot, with variations among them. Some used "work", some used "publisher" , resulting in problematic punctuation in linked titles of newspapers, e.g.,; I tried to regularize some of them, but I have not got time to do that with all of them. Given the large number of source citations that I formatted for this article, which are all correctly ordered and punctuated (up until "Retrieved" etc.), I prefer continuing with them; I will not convert them all to citation templates that I do not prefer to use (espec. since others could easily introduce further errors in them via deletions, reversions, etc., which occur often in this article). The coding is essential for repeated citations: "ref name=..." does not require use of quotation marks before the short name inserted and does not require any space before the "/". I've already provided clearcut explanation of how to construct a "ref" note format in Misplaced Pages: it is very simple to do and the note takes up far less space than a template does (as mentioned in material at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. --NYScholar (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC) _format">01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info. I'm generally reluctant to use citenews unless it is from a print edition, but I can see that using it here might remove one of the objections NYS has to it. I'll try to remember to remove all of the unused fields. Pairadox (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

P's changes are losing all the quotation marks around titles (proper punctuation of article titles); all the italics around titles of newspapers ("publications", not "publishers"); and presenting dates of publication within parentheses in odd places at times; I've asked for greater care if one is going to convert these source citations in the notes to "citation templates"; there are multiple citation templates to choose from that match different types of sources, and one must choose the ones properly so that the punctuation of titles of articles and titles of works in which they are published (publications) is accurate. Right now, the way P. is making these changes is erroneous. --NYScholar (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am actually a professional bibliographer and academic professor who teaches the subject of research writing; I see no value when not using a consistent APA or ACS or MLA or Harvard referencing format in using templates that use last name, first name if one is not creating an alphabetized list of references (a "bibliography"). The purpose of last name first is for alphabetizing. If one chooses an "author" field in a citation template and just inserts the normal order of the author's name or authors' names after the = sign, then it will post properly, first name, then middle initial, then last name. One does not need to use the "first" and "last" name fields; even the citation templates have this option (see this article where such features in citation templates result in normal order). --NYScholar (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

NYS, I reiterate what Pairadox has said. This is not the place for discussions about your views on what you think are deficiencies of the cite templates. Take it to Template talk:Cite or Template talk:Ref or Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. This page is for discussing the improvement of this articles content, of which I've removed a whole pile of clutter and unencyclopaedic opinion. —Moondyne 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My comments are about improving this article by correcting errors currently still in the citation template formats (which are still inconsistent); some use "author =", which posts properly (first name, initial , then last name); some use "first name =" and then "last name =" which posts in reverse order. "Staff writer" uses "author =" and so on. I tried to regularize (make consistent) but ran into a problem w/ a missing code; so I'm leaving it to others to regularize and make consistent the use of citation templates throughout (since that format is what has been chosen . The editors who introduced the errors into the templates need to correct their errors, which are resulting in inconsistencies. Dates of publication must match actual dates of publication; dates of access must match actual dates of access; if you reverse the numbers, they will post incorrectly and confuse us all. --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The citation templates are not perfect, and are ambiguous of what to do with, for example, multiple authors (surname first, or what?). However, I think it's better to use the citation templates than not, because one day in the future the developers may decide to code in some functionality that takes the fields from the citation templates and allows people to choose a preferred referencing format in their preferences, and automatically reorganise the information in the template according to those preferences (kind of like how ], ] automatically reorganises itself to "] ]" when I'm viewing it). - Mark 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I have, however, found further inconsistencies and also one template that was embedded and not in vertical manner (which I fixed). The "column" or "section" is not supposed to come before the title of the publication (newspaper); it follows the date, with the page no. following that (in standard bibliog. format). Using "work" field for section (column) is incorrect. The "Late Edition" for one NYT ref. citation was incorrectly placed as well: that belongs at the end of a ref. citation in note (I placed it after a page ref.) It is generally no longer nec. to use "p." or "pp." in giving page refs.; also, since one is citing the online version of the newspaper, giving the page ref. is misleading. (I know that I am using the online version of the NYT for that citation, even though I have the paper copy of the NYT in most cases; don't recall if I have the NYT for Jan. 22 somewhere.) When the citation templates are imperfect (which they are), one has to make adjustments manually. It is not possible to render punctuation correctly with these templates in the case of author and coauthors. The templates create a semicolon where there is in most citation style formats a comma and they place a period after an author's name or authors' names, when there would normally be a comma. I have not found a way to fix that problem and that is one reason that I prefer to make the citations manually rather than with the templates. But I have worked with the templates currently in the article anyway (despite my own preferences). --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

DEA Involvement in Heath's Death

Law enforcement officials confirm that the Drug Enforcement Administration has launched an investigation into how Ledger obtained the multiple prescription drugs that led to his accidental overdose. Reference here: Feds Involved in Investigating Heath's Death Tubesurfer (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Here is the article from ABC World News about the DEA investigation. Basically it has everything that's already been reported in the past month except for this bit: According to the medical examiner's office, Ledger took "prescribed therapeutic doses ... or less" of each medication he ingested. However, the medications were not meant to be taken together. The cumulative effect was that the actor's brain stem function that controls breathing was impaired and Ledger "fell asleep and never woke up." and some other information, as well.  Chantessy  02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In NY (ET) U.S., it is currently the subject of Larry King Live, a source (transcript when available) to be added to this article. --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 (, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages editor); (3) it is not describing Misplaced Pages editors' points of view, but rather documenting points of view that are actual on the subject:

the passage

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

Notes

1. ^ Al Baker (2008-01-23). "Police Give New Details on Ledger Death". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-23. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. James Barron, "Heath Ledger, Actor, Is Found Dead at 28", The New York Times, January 23, 2008. Retrieved on February 6, 2008.
3. "Online Community Pays Tribute to Heath Ledger". 901am.com. 2008-01-25. Retrieved 2008-02-06.
4. Staff writer (2008-02-06). "Ledger's death caused by accidental overdose". CNN.com. CNN. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
5. Video segment on "Ledger Death", Larry King Live, February 6, 2008.

>>

:

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style--see earlier links. There is no Misplaced Pages requirement that this article be written in Autralian English and cultural biases of English versions is warned against in Misplaced Pages. Its English version needs to be wholly consistent (consistency of English version is a requirement in Misplaced Pages).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.) --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 Misplaced Pages: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 , it is not likely that he would considered as notable a subject in Misplaced Pages.) --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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. "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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. , 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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Australian television articles
• Mid-importance Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australia articles