Portal talk:Current events/2008 January 22

Death of Heath Ledger
My initial assumption was that the death of a young, famous actor would qualify as "Current events" material. An editor pointed out the listed guidelines (visible above the edit window which I hadn't noticed before) state that "ordinary deaths of prominent persons" does not belong in Current events, save someone "of extreme importance." Obviously Heath Ledger is not someone we can consider at this level, but I wonder about the "ordinary" qualifier regarding his death. When should a person's death be considered "ordinary?" The fact that people continue to add his death to this page further begs this question. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that "someone of extreme importance" would be for example; the Pope, the President of the U.S., the Queen of England, and so forth. (38.107.138.125 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Again, it's not his importance that I dispute; he was not the leader of any nation or other large collection of people. But given the increasingly unusual circumstances of his death, perhaps his death is no longer "ordinary" and therefore might merit inclusion. I suppose as time goes on, the argument will simply become moot in this particular case as the window to reporting a "current event" will be soon closed. Yet I feel that this standard should be examined further. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think of Heath Ledger as a extremely important person. I added his death notice because people are familiar with his movies... Hell they put the death of Luciano Pavarotti on the front home page when he died... and I can guarantee you, more people have seen a heath ledger in a movie, than pavarotti on stage, or televised event. I mean where's the line. I was surprised when his death wasn't listed. That's why I posted it up.... I didn't hear about it until I read some blog that had nothing to do with Ledger, what are the standards, I ask you?--24.17.252.218 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)--Sparkygravity (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on. This is insane. Are you honestly comparing Pavarotti to Ledger? One of the greatest opera singers EVER or a popular young actor who's biggest hit is Ten things I hate about you?

"I can guarantee you, more people have seen a heath ledger in a movie, than pavarotti on stage, or televised event."

Are you serious? OK then. Prove it to me. Oh wait, you can't. because it is a BS statement.

Every time a celebrity dies every random IP that has never edited more than a few articles decides they must break the news. What about all the wars, economic crises, and national diasters? Oh no. Heath died OMG OMG OMG. This is insanity.

 "What are the standards, I ask you?"

Very simple, as it clearly states when editing current events: "Do not list the deaths of prominent people. Thats what recent deaths is for. Exceptions are to be made for people of "extreme prominence." There are your standards.

Come on people. No disrespect to Heath, but this is current events (= relevant geopolitical news relevant to the international community) not Page Six. WikiTony (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yes actually, they are both insignificant to the political, and technological history of human kind... They're entertainers, you seem to think is a huge deal, but it isn't. In 200 years, there names will be remembered only as entertainers, and nothing more. Wikiguidelines state to not add deaths of people who are not prominent. To say that pavarotti was more influential to the world than heath ledger is biased, and it's not a neutral point of view. The addition of his death to the current events page isn't anymore justified than heath ledgers exclusion. Maybe the number of times you've had to revert heath ledgers death might have clued you into that.... but apparently your not that bright, otherwise you wouldn't misconstrue my previous statement.
 * Your right about my statement, "I can guarantee you, more people have seen a heath ledger in a movie, than pavarotti on stage, or televised event" being BS, it was meant to be.... Sure I can go to the ticket sales, and marketing demographics of each entertainer, but I'm not going too. It points out the inconsistency of the current guidelines. By what measure can you really say one person is "extremely prominent"? Now that's bullshit! What are we going to do, sit here and argue about who was more loved Leger or Pavarotti? Give me a break. The standards are already set, if millions upon millions of people are familar with your name, then your part of the mainstream culture... why shouldn't your name go up on the current event page? Perhaps this is a discussion better suited for the guidelines page. But really, marginalizing someones fame, one over the other, is biased, it's not neutral, and it's everything wikipedia guidelines are supposed to protect against.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)