Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 3

"Secret Love Child"
Any objections to me deleting the information about Heath Ledger having a "Secret Love Child" who will split his inheritance? Seems like a ridiculous tabloid story to me that doesn't deserve to be mentioned. I'll be deleting it soon if no one objects. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I object. It didn't get in there unless it was sourced and the sources actually do support what's written. With Ledger's worldwide film and notoriety we should be vigilant and accurate. If it turns out this story is false in some way we should sort it out. Banje boi  21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors - Depression/Drug Use
Several (tabloid) sources claimed Heath was suffering from Depressions and/or some drug abuse, especially after the end of his relationship to Michelle. Several interviewers I have read about confirm that he looked very worn out in interviews in September 2007. Was this all just speculation or should some of it get included here? Ferrante Albrizzi (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same magazines also swear that Bat boy is real, Oprah is married to the loch ness monster, and JFK was a Republican. Got any real sources?  Otherwise, I surmise it will stay out of the article.  Keeper   76  17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Article Hijacked by publicist?
"The Last Days of Heath Ledger"

What is this self-serving garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronstock (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that this section and references seem to be poorly written and at least a bit promotional. I suggest it be removed altogether as it's a fictionalized magazine article and if anything about the article itself or reaction to it is notable find a way to incorporate it into existing content. Banje boi  09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please remove Heath Ledger section and place here on the talk page? It's inclusion is a bit dodgy and may be more appropriate for another article like New Journalism. If we are going to include it I think we need to find a consensus of what about this fictionalized account is appropriate for this article. Banje boi 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Posted below. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Text

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

Discussion
Any ideas on what, if any of this should be used in the article and also if the content may be better elsewhere, if so, where? Banje boi 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [Copying my own comment from above; I placed it there before I saw this section]:

I don't agree that this is "self-serving garbage"; I wrote the passage that you have removed from this article. I am not in any way Heath Ledger's or anyone else's "publicist", and the reason that I included it is because it was a pertinent controversy in the media that is relevant to the subject of the article. The statements are supported by the sources, which are reliable, third-party publications, and it is about a publication in Esquire, a notable third-party publication. I don't see any reason that information about this published "fictionalized account" is not "appropriate for this article"; its inclusion is consistent with both Neutral point of view and WP:POV. Please cite some relevant WP:POL that justifies excluding this information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the sources to Heath Ledger sec. --NYScholar (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With the additions to "Further reading" sec., I do not think that the section of development that was removed earlier is necessary. People can read the sources themselves for more information. (Point of "Further reading" sec.; but since the title of the article by Taddeo could be misleading to some readers, it is important to have the annotation and the review by Arango listed too, in my view.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling it "garbage" wasn't terribly helpful but i tend to agree that maybe it's not helping things. When I trim it down I get In the April 2008 issue of Esquire, "The Last Days of Heath Ledger," by Lisa Taddeo - a posthumous fictionalized account - was printed and met with criticism.
 * This is pretty lightweight considering all the other good work done so far. The extensive footnotes also don't help a lot. If there is evidence that this was seen as quite controversial then maybe; otherwise I think your linking in the "Further reading" area quite appropriate. Banje boi  07:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Seasick from reading it. Can someone intelligently rewrite this? I'd feel silly doing it as I am not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.2.107 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. EchetusXe (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of infobox?
While fixing a quotation above (scroll up to that disc.), I also attempted to correct some other problems in the infobox and text relating to it. According to some alerting me to the problem in discussion of another film-related article, one cannot cite a "trivia" section of IMDb.com listing as a "reliable source"; I substituted another more reliable source citation; but others may need to scrutinize uses of IMDb.com throughout this article as source citations and find more reliable and vetted third-party published sources wherever IMDb.com is used as a source for statements in the article. Other more reliable sources that are not peer-edited (as Wikipedia is) are needed; see WP:V. There is no source listed in this article that supports including Heather Graham in the "domestic partner" parameter of the infobox. If one has a reliable source (not a trivia section of IMDb.com) to substantiate that HL and HG were actually "domestic partners" (in the sense defined in the parameter of infobox actor template page), then the documentation needs to be added to the statement about them dating in the text. One should not insert names of people that someone "dated" [but may not actually have lived with (co-habited)] to the infobox parameter "domestic partner". Please see the template for further information, explanation, and talk page discussions. I'm offline after this again, but I thought it important to correct these problems and alert people here that other corrections may be necessary to improve the accuracy of this article and its documentation. --NYScholar (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [clarified in brackets before going back offline. --NYScholar (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * I don't know if the E! True Hollywood Story of Heath Ledger counts, since its noted that he did have a relationship with HG, but I don't know if she was a "domestic partner". I found this and People magazine is really a reliable source, but not sure if it counts much. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The requirement for including a name in the "domestic partner(s)" parameter is at Template:Infobox Actor; the timeline that you list as a source does not support the inclusion of Heather Graham in that parameter in the infobox: Please consult what it states at the template link (scroll down there for explanations of meanings of the various parameters (fields), specifically "domester partner(s)":

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


 * Thanks. Offline again after this response to comments above.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I wasn't sure if HG was a "domestic partner" of HL. That's what I said. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If one has no source to substantiate that a person was a "domestic partner" of Heath Ledger, the person should not be included in the infobox, as per the template. That's the point. Someone had included Heather Graham in the infobox; I removed that due to lack of documentation substantiating her inclusion. --NYScholar (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Applicability/accuracy of section headings
Resolved. Recently, a section heading was changed to non-neutral language, incorporating a phrase from a source (Williams) in the section heading (without quotation marks); that is not a neutral presentation and it did not account for the material in the whole section, which goes beyond only "bouts of insomnia" (Williams' phrase). The section includes the information about his suffering from some kind of respiratory infection (a "cold" or some kind of "pneumonia") just prior to his death (and possibly still at the time of his death), as the subsequent report on the medications in his system included both over-the-counter sleep and cold medications (see the sources, as cited) [Also: Please see previous discussions already archived]. Came back from offline to correct this and some documentation errors in other articles, but going back offline after this comment and previous comments to do my own non-Wikipedia related work. --NYScholar (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [strike out. --NYScholar (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * I have no idea what you're referring to but please fix it if it's not correct. Also please keep in mind that the vast majority of editors to articles don't seem to read the talk pages so some of your advice aimed at them may never be heard. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi  21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the diffs. (all one has to do is examine the editing history of the date of the comment to find them): Diffs.. Obviously, comments on talk pages are directed to those who do read talk pages. If one is reading this talk page, one is among those who do read talk pages. --NYScholar (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already fixed the problem; the comment was by way of explanation of the corrections, for those who needed a further explanation. (For the editing summary, also see the "diffs." just linked, from "editing history".) --NYScholar (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
Wasn't he {going to be} nominated for an Oscar or something based on his performance as the Joker? I seem to remember something being said about it but I honestly don't remember the facts :\ I think if it's true, it's worth mentioning in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicNiGHT (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball so we can wait until the Oscars are announced or possibly if a reliable source declares his performance makes him amongst the strongest Oscar contenders. I would keep an eye on Dark Knight (film) as that's where the best information, IMHO, will be dug up and redigested. I see there is already some talk about Ledger being considered for the first-posthumous award since 1976 so that might help. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the Youngest???
Heath Ledger was the youngest person ever nominated for a best lead actor Oscar at the time he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. Although, he most likely will not be, if he were to be nominated for his role of the Joker in The Dark Knight, (I feel he should but that's just personally opinion), I believe he'd be the youngest to win if that were to happen. But I'm not sure on that part. But if he does somehow get nominated for the Joker (which was the best acting performance so far this year) would he be nominated as a lead actor or supporting actor? The movie is the Dark Knight and Christian Bale played Batman, the main character, who is referred to as the Dark Knight. But I think they may be pretty close in screen time? Who knows, let's wait and see if he gets the nomination first. But anyway, Heath was the youngest nominated for lead actor Oscar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.229.206 (talk • contribs) 15:14, July 25, 2008
 * Nominations of Leading vs. Supporting have nothing to do with technicalities. Those who are eligible to vote for nominations simply decide whether or not they are nominating an actor for Lead or Supporting, it could go either way in many cases. We'll just have to wait and see. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: If one wants to document the (I think "notable") statement "Heath Ledger was the youngest person ever nominated for a best lead actor Oscar at the time he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain." then one needs to figure out a way to develop and integrate it effectively in the article (in the lead and/or text?) and to provide a reliable source in prevailing citation format of the article for it (in the lead and/or text of the article), or provide the source here for further discussion of that kind of editing by other editors (I won't be here to discuss this further). [Updated below: Please see my later comments.  Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * Since back online momentarily, returned to state: according to the chart List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees, as listed in the "See also" section of this article (click on the link there), the statement made by Gwynand [69.248.229.206] as quoted above and another later one quoted below: Re:Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)] are not factually correct or supported by sources. Heath Ledger was not "the youngest nominated for lead actor Oscar" when he was nominated for his work in Brokeback Mountain; please see the details in the chart.  The discussions cited in sources pertaining to The Dark Knight concern the possibility of his being nominated posthumously for "Best actor in a supporting role" for his work as the Joker.  He was 28(+) when he completed that role and that would not make him the "youngest" nominated in either Oscar category (posthumously or not); James Dean was 25 [Ed. according to that linked chart; according to the Wikipedia article, he was "24" when he died] for one of those nominations for "Best actor in a leading role" (the chart lists years and days for ages of those listed).  Please see that article for related dev. and sources cited there.  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC) [Added ed. note due to discrepancies in Wikipedia-linked chart in "See also" section and James Dean infobox and article. --NYScholar (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)] [Added bold print; already answered the question asked below by anon IP user, last week.--NYScholar (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC); added related "Diffs.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)]


 * Otherwise: Please see the guideline for talk pages of articles: focus on editing not on speculations about the subject: see top header: "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." --NYScholar (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay? so all that gibberish just confused me. So, is/was Heath Ledger the youngest actor to ever receive a nomination for a lead actor oscar? and if he were to win something for the joker what would that mean? (which most likely not get a nomination. though it should) and yes we know this is a talk page and not a forum to discuss the article. but the article is for knowledge on the subject. and since you "wiki-authorities" or wiki-think their so cool people are always on the talk pages giving out rules that have nothing to do with them in the first place, the articles become all whacked with BS and are completely inaccurate. so us normal people have to come to the talk page and ask for the right information because you people acting like you know everything are too busy trying to dictate a website other than improving or editing a page. THANK YOU. oh, noooo, please go ahead, suspend me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.229.206 (talk • contribs) 13:28, July 29, 2008


 * Comment. If it's not already there, perhaps a line "Ledger is one of the youngest _____; James Dean when he was ______." would be helpful? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This topic [see heading of this sec.] is not an event in fact yet; it is just speculation (mostly on fansites and on the internet; not in mainstream citable news sources or periodicals). Until this were to become an actual event supported by reliable and verifiable sources, the statement (see section title above, etc.)) is not notable.  There are already plenty of sources cited in the article discussing the speculations about Ledger's possibly being nominated for an acting Academy Award (and it would be for acting "in a supporting role" not a "leading role"); they are checked and verified.  These sources do not stress his being the "youngest" or "one of the youngest"; emphasizing that is not supported by mainstream reliable sources (right now).  I don't see the point of this kind of advance development based on something that has not yet occurred and that might not occur.  After it occurs, if it occurs, it is notably encyclopedic.  See earlier comments and later discussion as well.  Talking about this here is not improving the article, in my view.  The lists already exist in Wikipedia and one of them is already in the "See also" section.  If the list changes later, then one can point to the fact on the list and say something about it.   "One of the youngest" is not very notable or precise; there are Academy Award winners (not just nominees) younger than Ledger would be posthumously [according to the way the Academy computes ages of nominees and winners] were he to be nominated and/or win such an award.  "Youngest" is notable; "one of the youngest" is (espec. at this point) very vague.  --NYScholar (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's something about dead Australians
If Heath Ledger is nominated for Dark Knight, and wins, that would mean that the only 2 people ever to win a competitive acting Oscar posthumously were both Australian males - Peter Finch for Network (1976), and Ledger. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he wins we certainly could mention it. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi  21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References clean-up needed
If looking for something to do ... some of the references need work. There is extensive notes within a few that don't seem needed and at least a few other of the links are not to the actual online article but to the publication's main page instead. When possible we should link directly to an article. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't be working any further on the reference to this article, but I thought I'd stop in to mention that perhaps someone might want to take the time to reorder the note numbers in lists of notes so that they are numerically in order. In the past I have done that, but I don't have time to do it anymore. After fixing the punctuation of direct quotations (see sec. below), I will be offline. Logging out. --NYScholar (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See the recent problem in subsequent citations created when someone arbitrarily deleted some citations from the article; the numerous citations related to a statement indicate how prevalent the attention to the subject of the statement was or is; that many third-party published verifiable sources discussed the subject of the statement provides evidence of both notability and further perspectives in those sources on that subject of the statement. One needs to examine each source citation (read the article cited) and decide case by case whether or not including it is useful; one cannot just delete source citations, since some are cited more than once and deleting them results in red error messages throughout the notes section of the article (and sometimes the text as well). The red error messages do not show up in "diffs."; one would have to click on the previous verson to see the problem and scroll through the notes section as well to see how it registers as missing citation information in the templates used. --NYScholar (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some recent changes to this article lost some of the previously-documented source citations; I did work on making some of these correctios to restore lost citations and update some others today. [Note: I don't expect to have the time to do any more in the at-least near future and will be offline doing other work, which, after unexpected delays, has finally arrived and will occupy most of my time.] --NYScholar (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger a Method actor?
HIs perfomance as The Joker in the Dark Knight was a perfect example of how Method Acting should be done. Heck, just google 'heath ledger method acting' or 'heath ledger method acter' etc. Hellothar999 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Hellothar999 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't really use a google search as the reference for this. I suggest you do a little searching and see if you find a reliable source that states that his performance was "a perfect example of how Method Acting should be done" or something similar. If you find something post it here and we can try to suss out how to include it. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  13:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Love child claim needs removal
It has been completely denied by the woman that is being fingered as the mother as reported in Babble 04/03/08 and at Askmen.com. Since there is no proof that a love child exists could someone please remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.15.38 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't get in there unless it was sourced and the sources actually do support what's written. With Ledger's worldwide film and notoriety we should be vigilant and accurate. If it turns out this story is false in some way we should sort it out. Please provide a direct link to reliable sources if you wish to have someone check them out. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Babble.com and Askmen.com are not "reliable sources" as per WP:V (core policy) [there is a forum of reader's comments that are not verifiable reliable sources in Babble.com (which repeats gossip or in which people just state their personal opinions); the blog Babble.com's main entry (April 2008) is repeating information from the primary (and thus more reliable) news source(s) already cited in Heath Ledger).  Moreover, Babble.com (via Google http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/archive/2008/03/31/heath-ledger-s-love-child.aspx ) [the news-report-related main entry], does not say that the claim "has been completely denied by the woman...." etc.
 * Babble.com simply repeats the reports already cited by reliable sources (as per WP:V) in Heath Ledger and cites the woman as referring to her other children to attend to and that she is making "no comment": ["She's quoted [in the news sources already cited] as saying, 'I have my children to think about. I really can't comment.']  If anyone other than Williams (on behalf of her daughter w/ Ledger) files an affadavit in probate of the estate, one of the additional sources that I provided today states that it would be by August 11, 2008.
 * Unreliable websites (including sites that copy material from Wikipedia) are not suitable as sources for this article.
 * Askmen.com's subtitle is "Gossip of the Day" (see Wikipedia policy re: avoiding repeating unsourced gossip); it also simply repeats the information already cited [without giving the primary news sources]; http://www.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-news/heath-ledger/heath-ledger-love-child-claims.html in the article; there is no verifiable reliable source [in those two sites] that the woman "completely denied" the published reports cited in Heath Ledger, as the anon. IP user states above. --NYScholar (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * [struck out part, since I've updated it by finding some verifiable reliable sources to use in dev.; see further disc. below and newer dev. --NYScholar (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * The anon IP user above may be referring to site with information similar to a Canadian website that posts a quotation said to be from the woman's husband, but without giving reliable and verifiable sources: e.g., tribute.ca: http://www.tribute.ca/news/index.php/heath-ledgers-ex-denies-love-child-story/2008/04/04/ ; that is not a source citable in this Wikipedia article. Whether or not the couple has done or will do a DNA test is not yet reported in verifiable reliable news sources; if one wants to cite a better source than tribute.ca for the information (a more reliable primary news source that it seems to be referring to), then please post the link here for consideration.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Readers' comments" in such blogs and comments in online forums are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The story, as reported by more than one reliable source cited, is that he "may" have "fathered" another child (a "secret love child", according to the sources' titles and texts); whether or not (on behalf of that person) anyone makes a claim on his estate is yet to be seen. But the development is notable and supported by the sources cited.   New developments may alter how that is presented; right now, it [the news-reported "controversy"] is presented following Wikipedia core editing policies: Neutral point of view and WP:V; scroll up for links to these and other editing policies/guidelines if needed; or consult WP:POL.   --NYScholar (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [For Wikipedia's three core editing policies pertaining to "content", scroll up to top of this talk page for links to all three in the talk page header: WP:V; Neutral point of view; and WP:NOR. (updated). --NYScholar (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]

I'll be updating the dev. with an additional source (Wikipedia-considered more reliable source) with the "denial"; the additional source provides other hyperlinked updates. --NYScholar (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the dev. with two additional sources. In my view, this dev. should not be "removed"; it is notable material that is properly documented (sourced), as per Neutral point of view; see also the essay in WP:POV for related perspective. --NYScholar (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose relocating award nominations out of first sentence
Hi, I propose that we relocate the long list of award nominations out of the first sentence. Rather than starting off with "Heath Ledger is an XXX-, YYY-, ZZZ-, and QQQ-nominated actor", I argue it would read better to start off just saying "Heath Ledger is an Australian actor...", and then weave in the nominations throughout the lede. Thus, we would hear "In 1999, he was nominated for the XXX and YYY awards for his lead role in FILM NAME...", and later in the lede we would read that "In 2004, he was nominated for the ZZZ and QQQ awards for his supporting role in FILM NAME2". I argue that starting off with awards or nominations is a style that is more associated with press releases or promotional blurbs than with typical encyclopedia writing style.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Quite sensible. His nominations could be written just as proposed with a chronological emphasis. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The first sentence is extremely awkward and peculiar, as it stresses nominations when he actually won some awards; "award-winning" (with subseq. dev.) or "celebrated" (by both some awards and multiple nominations for awards) is briefer and more accurate.  The awards are already listed in the infobox and the nominations, along with the awards, are already listed in the filmography section.  If one scrolls way back to earlier editing history, one can find versions of the first sentence without that awkward feature.  Offline after these comments. --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hallowichigo12:i agree!!!! I have now revised the emphasis in the lead to reflect above consensus. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored "award-winning" based on earlier agreement to revise the sentence so as to point toward the subseq. dev. in the lede (lead), opening paragraphs; and I added a new paragraph for the award refs. Contrary to another ed's summary comment, not "all actors" have won awards. The adjective was there for a purpose, not simply "thrown in" to "spice up" the article; see WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also do not see the phrase as not "neutral"; it is supported by the material in the rest of the lede and by the material in the infoboxes. It is common for ledes and articles to provide allusions to what is summed up in infoboxes. That something is in an infobox does not preclude reference to the information in the lede of an article; generally, the opposite is the case. Please do not invent editing guidelines and policies. Statements of fact supported by sources and material in an infobox are not non-neutral; see Neutral point of view for the policy statement. --NYScholar (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people can discuss whether or not to include "award-winning" in the first sentence before removing it. Please do not engage in edit-warring over this. Discussion should take place here to see what other editors think of the matter. Depending on the arguments presented by a number of editors (not just one), I would accept the sentence with or without the modifier "award-winning." One might keep in mind that the relative youth of the actor when he won awards is notable and makes "award-winning" more significant than it might be for an actor with more decades of experience and life. Ledger lived less than three decades and was a working professional actor for only about one decade. --NYScholar (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-read suggested sentence in first comment and decided to remove the phrase. I'm okay w/ the first sentence either way. --NYScholar (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA
GA failed procedurally per criteria 5. Article is semi-protected, therefore not stable enough, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a proper decision. I do not think that anyone should have nominated this article for review as a "good article".  I think that the nomination was premature (even if it had not been semi-protected).  The subject (though deceased) has still been making "current news", and the article has been undergoing frequent revision and updating.  It is too soon to nominate it for a "good article" review.  It needs to be stable for a considerable amount of time before such a nomination is warranted. --NYScholar (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There were never any comments on the "review page" in the link in the GA review infobox to right; I've moved it here. No one except for Jclemens above appears to have commented.  I believe, as I say above, that the GA nomination was premature anyway.  --NYScholar (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved the box for this "drive-by" nomination to top of page as is standard placement for GA nominations - understood that no comments appeared on that nom page and that the nom was seen as premature by the regular editors of this article.  Tvoz / talk 05:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for doing that. I had tried a number of times to relocate it to the top, but the coding in the box format had prevented it showing up properly.  This current format is the way such "good article" templates usually look in my Wikipedia experience.  Much appreciated.  --NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - the problem was the "Small=yes" field. Tvoz / talk 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted very long Q
I am moving this very long Q [from source coded as Halbfinger2] (which I had originally contributed to this article) here; the source is cited and clearly consultable; this very long Q (bordering on poss. copyright vio.) is not really needed in the article; the source citations document the statements adequately: Heath Ledger's death raised the stakes surrounding Christopher Nolan's Batman sequel. The director Christopher Nolan ... worked with Heath Ledger (playing the Joker) and Christian Bale (as Batman) ... on the coming 'Dark Knight'.... [photo captions] ... Rebooting the Batman franchise may be behind him, but he still has to improve upon it. Sequels are always trickier. And now he must also navigate the aftermath of the Jan. 22 death of Mr. Ledger. ... It [Ledger's death] came well into editing, and only after the studio had introduced Mr. Ledger’s Joker through posters, trailers and a six-minute Imax short. But it automatically raised the stakes: the acclaimed actor's final role would be ... [sic] a comic-book grotesque? Worse, though Mr. Ledger had finished work on 'The Dark Knight' in October and was already halfway through another film ['The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus'], news that the prescription drugs that killed him included sleep aids — along with narcotics — prompted Internet chatter about whether his intense performance as the Joker, styled after Malcolm McDowell's in 'A Clockwork Orange,' had been a factor in his demise. ... Mr. Ledger, however, also called it 'the most fun I’ve ever had, or probably ever will have, playing a character.' But his fatigue was obvious, said Michael Caine, who briefly overlapped with him. 'He was exhausted, I mean he was really tired. I remember saying to him, "I'm too old to have the bloody energy to play that part." And I thought to myself, I didn't have the energy when I was his age.' ... Mr. [Wally] Pfister, the cinematographer, said Mr. Ledger seemed 'like he was busting blood vessels in his head,' he was so intense. 'It was like a séance, where the medium takes on another person and then is so completely drained.' ... Will Mr. Ledger’s death cast a pall over 'The Dark Knight,' whose tragic plot turns already make it much darker than 'Batman Begins'? 'We'll see,' said Mr. [Jeff] Robinov, of Warner Brothers. Mr. Nolan, for his part, said he felt a 'massive sense of responsibility' to do right by Mr. Ledger's 'terrifying, amazing' performance. ... 'It's stunning, it's iconic,' he said. 'It's going to just blow people away.'

Deletion of interruption to format of lede

 * [Moved from user talk page]

Regarding removing the pronunciation I added to the Heath Ledger article. Your comment implied something was wrong with the format. I followed the template at Help:Pronunciation. What specifically is wrong with it? Kjmt (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's totally unnecessary. This is English Wikipedia. Common English words like heath (see its page, which provides a link to the entry in Wiktionary, which has pronunciation info.) and ledger [See also: Ledger (disambiguation) (ditto)] in a person's English-language name do not need "pronunciation"; there is no unusual pronunciation here for native English speakers of Wikipedia. The insertion interrupts the common format for such an article as this one and appears to me to be gratuitous. If you must add pronunciations, please do so only for words that most English speakers would have difficulty pronouncing. This name does not have such words in it. --NYScholar (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you click on the Wikified links to those common English words, you will see that they do not have pronunciations in their articles either. If pronunciation information were necessary (which I question), it would be in those articles, not this one.  --NYScholar (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice also that "Heath Ledger" is already linked in the Wikipedia article page for "Heath". --NYScholar (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [See: Heath [and see also: Heath; none of those other people's articles needs pronunciation for this name either; same is true of Ledger; see links above and Ledger (disambiguation). --NYScholar (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * See lefthand menu for "What links here" as well. I notice from your contributions that most of them involve adding pronunciations to Wikipedia; please do so only when such information is necessary.  In this case, it is not and appears to interrupt the format of the lede (lead).  For further information re: format of lede, please see WP:MOS, particularly Manual of Style (biographies).  --NYScholar (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) [added dir. sec. link. --NYScholar (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)]

Archiving procedure
Please do not archive still-current or relatively-current sections of discussion on this talk page. Others may not yet had an opportunity to read them if portions of this page are archived too quickly. It is common to see material in article talk pages that dates back a month earlier than posting; a week is not too long to keep material in a talk page for articles, especially for high-demand biographies of living or recently-deceased people of still considerable current interest, like Ledger. Please also try to avoid re-factoring the page, archiving things out of chronological order of postings, and just archive as it appears. Doing otherwise can be misleading. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If no suggestion for archiving due to length appears in "preview mode" (at top), there is really no need to archive the talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From "Help:Archiving a talk page:

"It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate and may contain obsolete discussion. Large talk pages could be a burden for users with slow Internet connections and slow computers. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see what has been discussed already, and so they can avoid bringing up topics again that have already been addressed. ... The decisions when to archive and what is the optimal length for talk pages are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus among the editors on each particular talk page. ... If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion. In other words, keep the full context of the discussion together by not archiving in the midst of an active discussion." --NYScholar (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Small Error
"A few months before his death, Ledger had finished filming his widely-praised penultimate performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight."

In this part of the article the bolded portion states that Heath Ledger's role as The Joker in The Dark Knight was his penultimate performance. The word "penultimate" means second best, so I think there's a small error in that the author meant to call Ledger's role as The Joker his best performance but he/she misused the word "penultimate". The author might have been trying to say that Ledger's role as The Joker was his second best on purpose, and maybe the author used the word as it is meant to be used but I thought it was something worth pointing out just in case. 72.138.107.30 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[No error at all]: Penultimate means second-to-last, not "second best". [There is no value judgment at all in the use of that word.] Please do not guess at meanings of words [see editing summary re: this comment]. I know what I intended to write, and the word is what I intended. --NYScholar (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [added the linked definition; i.e., "penultimate role" means "next-to-last role" ("second- last" role") not "second best"! --NYScholar (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]

No need to get snippy, I wasn't "guessing" at the meaning of the word thanks very much :) I simply misinterpreted it.  Thanks for taking the time to read through my post. 72.138.107.30 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is getting "snippy": before pointing to a purported "misuse" of a word (a purported "small error"), one is advised to use a dictionary. I provided the link to the Wiktionary definition of penultimate for reference of anyone reading this discussion.  (Made the same point in my editing summary in this talk page section earlier.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Official "manner of death"="accident"
CNN source, as cited along w/ primary source it quotes, states: "Heath Ledger died from an accidental overdose of prescription medications including painkillers, anti-anxiety drugs and sleeping pills, the New York City medical examiner's office said Wednesday." --NYScholar (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's in poor taste to state his death was accidental in the lead. It's a bit forward. Simply stating "his death" seems more appropriate. Furthermore, despite being the "official" cause of death, there are many conspiracy rumors and theories that he in fact committed suicide. <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  04:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy is WP:NOR; we don't care what these [poorly or unsourced] "conspiracy rumors and theories" state; the fact is established that his death was an "accident": read the section Heath Ledger, particular[ly] the subsection Heath Ledger and its sources; there is nothing at all "in poor taste" about the sentence in the lead; it is accurate and well-sourced. --NYScholar (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [added bracketed emphasis & corr.; for information about what is appropriate to include in an "opening paragraph", please consult WP:MOS. This article's opening paragraphs provide verifiable and reliable sources in summing up main points of body of article (its sections and subsections). --NYScholar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * Moreover, it is in far better taste than any focus on "conspiracy rumors and theories" and totally undocumented claims of "suicide" would be. Those notions have been put to rest by the autopsy and toxicological analysis report, as properly cited in the article. --NYScholar (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above user's use of the phrase "in fact" has no support in fact or in the verifiable reliable sources permitted by Wikipedia. See the policy that pertains to recently-deceased subjects linked at top of this talk page: WP:BLP (part of WP:V). --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From the official report: "We have concluded that the manner of death is accident...." --NYScholar (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite fully comprehend Wikipedia's NOR policy. I'm not suggesting the phrase be replaced with "Ledger committed suicide". I'm merely proposing the removal of the word "accidental". You are misconstruing my remarks. <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not "misconstrue" what you were "suggesting"; I saw your deletion of "accidental" and I restored it--properly, as supported by the sources cited both in the in-line citation following the statement and in the detailed subsection (linked above as well), and I've quoted the statement of the official report [from] which "accidental" derives. There is no consensus to delete "accidental", so please don't delete it. --NYScholar (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [typo. corr. (tc) within brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * No consensus according to whom? You? <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Consensus. --NYScholar (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question. Please refrain from directing me to further Wikipedia policies, as I am familiar with them all. You have not provided any proof that there has been a discussion that established consensus to keep or remove "accidental", so why are you claiming consensus has been reached? <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that you do not have a "consensus" (others' agreement) to delete accidental from the first paragraph (lede). At least two people (you and others) would have to want to delete the word to approach some "consensus" after discussion of what you seem to think is a "controversial" statement in the lede.  I don't think that use of "accidental death" is controversial; it is supported by the sources (many of them now) cited in the in-line citations following the statement and in the subsection I've already linked above.  You seem to have come to this article without consulting it carefully enough.  I've considered your editing summary (which is incorrect) and your points above, and I still see no compelling reason to delete accidental.  --NYScholar (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not on some sort of campaign to change the sentence (nor do I believe my opinion to be one hundred percent correct), but in my opinion it is not appropriate. <font color="#000000">NSR <font color="#26466D ">77 <font color="#000000">T<font color="#26466D ">C  04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the sentence is entirely "appropriate"; it is well documented ("well sourced"), as required by Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines for an article on the subject of a recently-deceased person. (The top of this article provides the related editing policy/guideline links, which lead to WP:BLP, as pertains to this article on a recently-deceased person.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to change a sentence simply to conform with the "opinion" of an editor, especially one that the user holding it recognizes is not "one hundred percent correct". The current sentence is supported (documented) by the sources cited after it and also in the subsection that it summarizes ("well sourced"). --NYScholar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Related explanation
Further details about the official cause as well as the official "manner of death" pertaining to Heath Ledger are in the subsection already linked in my earlier coments (Heath Ledger). [I just added the quoted phrase "manner of death" to the heading of this section to indicate that.] Anyone who has edited this article over a long period of time and who has read the sources cited in it knows that, until the official report of the cause and manner of death was released, there were unsupported media speculations about what they might be (as is already acknowledged generally at the beginning of the subsection Heath Ledger). Once both the cause and manner of Ledger's death were officially established and widely reported by reliable third-party published news sources, I and other editors updated the development of this article, citing such verifiable and reliable sources of the official information. These verifiable and reliable sources are accessible to anyone reading this article who is willing to take the time to consult them. --NYScholar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To other editors considering this article (if any): Please examine the long editing history of this article and do not delete properly-documented ("well-sourced") information from it based on one's own "opinion". The opening paragraphs (like the subsequent body of the article) reflect careful consideration in editing. Before NSR77 came along and deleted the word accidental from the first sentence, I had worked on this sentence over an extended period of time, rearranging the order of material in the introductory paragraphs ("lede") to make it both concise and accurate in relation to the verifiable and reliable sources cited.
 * 1) I had purposefully decided not to emphasize the specific details about the complex causes of Ledger's death in the opening paragraph. Those particular details are in the cited sources (the "in-line citations" following the first sentence) and in the subsection on "Autopsy and toxicological analysis", which draws upon those sources and cites them also.
 * 2) The opening sentence cites the official "manner of death" as "accident" via accidental as an adjective before death ("accidental death").
 * 3) Given what is already provided in the section on "Death", including "autopsy and toxicological analysis", I believe that the current sentence is both entirely appropriate and respectful (i.e., given the officially-reported circumstances of death, which are now widely accepted and reported in verifiable reliable sources). It should be clear to anyone looking at the editing history and archived discussions pertaining to editing this article, that other editors and I have worked very hard on this article's proper use and formatting of sources so that it is consistent with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, which prevail over the "opinion" of any single editor regarding what is permitted [or "appropriate"] in Wikipedia articles.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [Added emph. for clarity in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)]

date format choice
Strictly speaking, MOSNUM requires Australian-based articles to use international date formatting. In the date audit, I didn't change the US formatting (there was once inconsistency, BTW). Please buzz me if you decide that it should be changed—I can do it via supervised automation. Tony  (talk)  04:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter of dating has been discussed at length before. The discussion is archived. The format of dates before the post above was consistent throughout the article. This article is not "Australian-based"; it happens to be about an actor who has a strong Australian identity and connection. The dates do not have to be in "Australian" style. They conform to the Wikpiedia MOS and the citation templates use the template citation format for dates, which appear differently for different registered users given the preferences in their Wikipedia accounts: e.g.: 2008-09-02. The dates of articles and books and Web publications (e.g.) are the dates of publications; these are published in many locations, not just in Australia. In fact, the subject is of interest to many readers who are not Australian and who do not reside in Australia. This article appears in English Wikipedia and (at least until the previous post was posted) it has been consistent with WP:MOS. The spelling contributed by editors attempts to be consistent with Australian and British (when they are the same) spelling and diction, but such diction that might cause problems for other English Wikipedia readers, following WP:MOS on varieties of English is avoided when synonyms that would not cause such problems can be used instead; direct quotations are to be quoted exactly; dates are to be consistent (as they were at least until the previous post). Personal preferences of a Wikipedia editor do not trump consistency of date presentation; the presentation of birth dates, e.g., is WP:MOS in opening paragraphs (ledes) and infoboxes, and so on. --NYScholar (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It took a while, but corrected the unnecessary previous changes; "strictly speaking" is totally misleading, as WP:MOSNUM is a "guideline" in Wikipedia, not a policy, and, at the very beginning, it states explicitly: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles such as 14 February or February 14 is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason...."

Those changes were unnecessary as the format was already not only "acceptable" but also "stable" over an extended period of time, and, moreover, discussed in archived discussions. Please leave as it is; it takes a lot of time to create the proper formatting of citation templates and dates in chronologically-helpful transitions throughout the article; the Wikipedia date-links are helpful to readers in spotting important dates as well, and normal order (month, day, year) is customary Wikipedia date style for opening paragraphs for birth and death dates, and they are commonly Wikipedia links. --NYScholar (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the whole sec. on "National variety of English" is disputed and features a template saying so. The dates are fine the way they are. --NYScholar (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ledger's notability goes well beyond his being an actor from Australia; as he moved to the United States in 1998, and of his 19 movies, only 6 are made in Australia, whereas 13 are made in the United States, including the last 3. After his death, the subject took on interest well beyond both Australia and the United States and might be said to be of greater than local interest and of more global interest (as demonstrated by his penultimate film The Dark Knight). --NYScholar (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're going to unlink the dates in line with the newly-updated MOS (which is inevitable) then the "14 June 2007" style of date will almost certainly be most appropriate for use in this article, the way discussions are going about how to word the new MOS section. This will be either because the article uses Australian English, because of strong national ties to the article subject (which is the reason for the use of Australian English) or because, as you say, the article is of international interest, and the format used by a substantial portion of the world is the same as that used by Australia (see here). - Mark 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Until and unless the MOS section is actually changed, the article follows current WP:MOS (see the internal links in the section). The variety of English for the main body and related sections (composed in editors' own words) has been Australian English for some time: See archived discussions, which previously have cited WP:MOS.  Current WP:MOS and WP:MOS are followed in this article.  I and other editors of this article would appreciate your bringing to our attention if/when the MOS does change (in a stable way) re: "full date formatting"; at that time, one could discuss whether or not and how to change to another kind of full date formatting based on its current guidelines or recommendations or requirements.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a strong consensus to change the dates in the body and non-automatically-formatted dates (ones not formatted in template style), perhaps it can develop in dicussion while waiting to see what happens in the MOS (in the meantime). If I'm not understanding what you are referring to, please explain further and link to what you want us to read re: MOS changes or potential changes.  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably didn't make my feelings clear on this. I don't personally care which of the two formats gets used, or if the dates even get unlinked in the end. I'm just flagging for your attention the way consensus in that discussion seems to be going, and the way people will interpret the proposed wording in relation to this article. - Mark 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

International full date formatting

 * Just speaking for myself, I have no objection now to using "international date" format in the body of this article to parallel the international fame and celebrity of the subject. --NYScholar (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have no objection anymore to removing the square brackets if it is done entirely consistently throughout the article; in the citations, however, the brackets may still be needed so that the dates are bolded as the 2008-09-09 style is. As one who had to restore all the square brackets, which took a lot of time, I will not be the editor who removes them.  (There are square brackets around years in some of the charts created by other editors; I just helped to develop the charts, following their prevailing format.  Please do not alter (and thus try to maintain) the prevailing citation format; it takes forever to code those citations.  --NYScholar (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling, as well as dates

 * [see archived discussions.]

"Variety of English" (as debated earlier) has been to maintain the Australian spelling where needed (though to try to avoid any regionalization of the English by choosing other words common to most varieties of English) and to go with Wikipedia template dating (2008-09-03, e.g.), which will be governed by each registered user's own Wikipedia date preferences. One will see what one prefers, so choose your Australian date preferences and that's how at least those will appear. Consistency is in choice of month, day, year for dates that are not template-controlled, as in the main text. (I think that most people can live with this, and they have done so for quite some time.) --NYScholar (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I personally am not Australian and am not always aware of what is Australian spelling, I may slip up in how I spell a word (following American English if I don't know that there is an Australian difference in spelling of it); I don't mind a change here or there if that is the case--though we would all prefer a word that is the same in Austral., Brit., and Am. English wherever possible, and all spellings of quotations must conform to the way they are in the sources being quoted. --NYScholar (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Filmography
What if we edit the filmography section according to Manual of Style (lists of works)? Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already a filmography section, according to the Manual of Style. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 08:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say add? No, I said edit, by which I meant converting the table to a bulleted list. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the table seems fine to have. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suffer?
Plenty of references on his death but any on his "suffering" it as the second sentence says? It seemed quite sudden and without any disturbance even according to sources. If anything his family have probably suffered more from it. --Candlewicke Talk) 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we add information about his last days? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Currency
It's probably US$16 million = A$20 million, going by exchange rates earlier in the year. - Mark 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't speculate, since we have to go w/ what the sources actually state. I've made the corrections, using quotation marks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Most readers will assume that the Australians and Australian publications citing Australians are using Australian currency in "$" and that the American or U.S. publications citing Americans and American publications are using U.S. currency in "$". We just quote what the sources state and people can read the sources in their entirety for the contexts. (Currently, acc. to the currency converter, 1 US$ = 1.25 Austral. $. But that is "original research"/WP:NOR.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ok, I found a source on Factiva:


 * "The actor signed the will on April 12, 2003. It lists assets and cash of just 145,000 Australian dollars (US$118,000), but the actor's estate is believed to be worth more than A$20 million (US$16.3 million), the newspaper said." &mdash;


 * There's plenty of copies of this AP article around on the internet, but most sources convert the amounts to their local currencies where necessary. - Mark 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated the correct designations via additional source citation(s) and editorial bracketed interpolations/appropriate Wikified links. --NYScholar (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on the death section? Possible solution?
[Note: This section of discussion raises issue of possible splitting of article into "sub article"--"Death of Heath Ledger"--see below re: "The death of Heath Ledger" possibility. Have placed appropriate template on article due to this discussion and later reversion by another editor later. --NYScholar (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)]

Clearly a lot of effort has been placed into this article as of late, however, I'm concerned that the recent events (particularly the death section) suffer undue weight and recentism. I'm concerned that summary style isn't being adopted appropriately. Anyway, I think we should set up a sub article, "Death of Heath Ledger". We could then trim some of the details here on the main article. I'm also quite certain that an article on the death of Ledger could become a GA article in it's own right. Thoughts? — Realist  2  16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur, in full a_boardley (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to see Heath Ledger's article be GA, but with all that has been going on, I feel that it might fail criteria 5, since award season is going on and a possibility of him being nominated. As for the sub article, I would support it, but I'm somehow neutral to the idea, because maybe disputes will occur. But, if that doesn't happen, we could probably have it setup like Ronald Reagan's article; an FA example article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a sub article for the death would really work well for the article, and like I said, I could see such an article attaining GA statues on it's own merits if it were cared for. Lots of high profile people have sub articles on their death, Ronald Reagan, John Lennon, Elvis etc etc. Some of those sub articles are GA themselves. Heaths death was widely reported, so it's certainly notable enough to warrant it's own article and we could reduce the details on this article. I don't envision a mammoth reduction of text on this article, but it certainly does need substantial...tightening. — Realist  2  17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way, I guess I can't disagree with creating a subpage. I think that maybe skipping GA and aiming the article to FA. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but his death was widely covered by notable news reports, that surely won't be a problem during the review. Thoughts? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think going for FA is a great idea, that's the ultimate goal for all articles. I don't think we should skip GA, it's a useful stepping stone to FA. I think the main page and a sub page on his death could both reach FA ultimately. — Realist  2  02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, we can go definitely go with GA, and then we can take it to FA, depending on the GA outcome. Yeah, it  would be a good idea to have the article and the subpage mentioned in the main page, so count me in. --   ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, are there any other people who regularly contribute to the article, if no other voices are likely to take interest, we can proceed. — Realist  2  17:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one; User:NYScholar is a heavy contributor to the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will ping him and give him time to respond (he's on break at the moment). — Realist  2  18:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Several months ago, I considered [to myself] the possibility of splitting off sections relating to the "death of Heath Ledger" as a separate article, but, especially given the protected nature of the article (due to repeated vandalism over a very long period of time), I do not think it either prudent or possible to re-submit this article for a "good article review". Someone prematurely submitted it for a good article review contrary to policy (protected/semi-protected articles are not eligible for such reviews and that is why it was rejected at the time (see the linked discussion in template at top). Given the possibility that it will be heavily revised after the Oscar ceremony, it is, in my view, premature to submit it to any kind of review. Feature article status brings out controversy often, and this article does not need that kind of scrutiny and such changes at this time. It is probably not anywhere near featured status given current Wikipedia criteria. It is still a work in progress, due to its current event status from time to time. Articles that are still likely to change due to changing current events (a template is added from time to time on such articles indicating that) are not likely or eligible candidates for either good article review or featured article status, as I understand these processes. (cont). So I think one should just let this article evolve. I don't see any particular benefit at this time of splitting off "death of Heath Ledger"-related material. Most people coming to this article would still expect a detailed (but not too detailed) account of the circumstances and consequences of his death in his biography. I think that it over-estimates the subject to split off the death-related material at this time. He is an actor, not a president of a country, etc., and I am not sure that it warrants a separate article. I also do not think that the current state of this article is contrary to Wikipedia editing policies, guidelines, or MOS. If so, any particular parts can be worked on further within those policies and guidelines and WP:MOS.
 * See my last post in this section--I've changed my mind and did the work to created the templated split-off sec. It didn't seem nec. to use sandbox, after all. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) As an editor who has spent considerable time working on and from time to time updating this article and its source citations, references, and EL sec., I do have concerns about premature review submission. Again, I suggest not altering the article format until at the earliest after the Academy Awards ceremony in February 2009. If someone does split off the sections relating to his death into an article, the editor can work on it in a sandbox usertalk page subpage and others can take a look at it. But I don't think that this is currently a useful time to experiment with the article's format. Death is part of biographies of (still fairly recently) deceased persons. He died less than a year ago at this time (nearing on 11 months ago; a year Jan. 22, 2009). If one looks at far more famous people, composers, other legendary actors who died young, one needs to see if there are "death of..." articles about them. (cont.) E.g., assassinated political figures, e.g., JFK, Abraham Lincoln, RFK, MLK, and so on, are of far greater notability than Heath Ledger, perhaps justifying a separate article on their deaths ("assassinations"); but the accidental death of an actor such as Ledger is not on the same level of notability, in my view--and, obviously, I do think highly of Ledger, but I am concerned about maintaining adherence to Neutral point of view and Notability standards.
 * [At this time, I do not think that Ledger rises to the level of notability of either Elvis Presley or John Lennon. --NYScholar (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]
 * [Or perhaps even Roy Orbison. Both Presley and Orbison have sections on their "Death" in their biographical articles.  See also Elvis Presley phenomenon (not perhaps the greatest title?  There is no comparable "Heath Ledger phenomenon", at this time anyway, and there may never be. Only time will tell.  (Try 20 to 30 years down the road....) --NYScholar (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]

(cont.) Also, a cautionary word pertaining to formatting of citations (something I've worked hard on consistently over long period of time not only in this article but in a lot of other articles as well): There are many source citations that would need to be reintroduced as full citations and recoded throughout the article if section/s were split off into a separate article, and I do not currently have the time or interest in doing that. Many other editors do not pay attention to loss of citations when they edit (the use of the "ref name=.../" format), and that causes problems for the article's coherence and reliability/verifiability. (cont.) Thank you both Realist and ThinkBlue for inviting comment. Much appreciated. [(ec)Other comment intervened while I was writing this.] --NYScholar (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) I don't think that the death-related material is unduly weighted at this time. In the future, that might change. --NYScholar (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) Added the current events template due to frequent changes re: awards and nominations for awards. See interpolated editorial note also just before "Awards and nominations". --NYScholar (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may, the reviewer who "reviewed" the article failed it because of criteria 5, as it significantly changed day-to-day, with multiple information being inserted. Also, there's no policy in submitting protected articles to the Good article nomination page. If there were, then somewhat articles wouldn't be classified as Good articles. Like I said above, I would love to see this article marked as a Good article, but with awards season, that would be a problem. Yeah, the template works on top of the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I appreciate the detailed response. I will say, the article should not have been GA failed for being semi-protected, assuming that was the only reason given. Michael Jackson is, understandably, an indefinitely semi protected article and it became featured. If you nominate the article again and someone fails it because it is semi protected you take it to WP:GAR. It simply should not have been failed for being semi protected or vandalized. "Stability" is strictly in reference to "editorial disputes" or an article that is changing due to an ongoing event. Trolls and vandals do not affect the GA/FA process alone. — Realist  2  19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, thanks again. "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" (criterion 5).  The problem w/ vandalism and the matter of semi-protection is something that I recall being mentioned as well; it was changing day to day also because of the vandalism.  Every time the protection has been lifted, the vandals have returned. Many have been banned but found ways around the banning of IPs by using sock puppets.  The article will be changing significantly due to the award nominations and possible receiving of awards pertaining not only to The Dark Knight, but also to the release of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in 2009.  Again, I would suggest working on the split off of "Death of Heath Ledger"--related material in a sandbox that is part of a user's own subpage.  There are many transitions relating to "posthumous" events in this article as well that are part of its coherence that also might need some major adjustments (significant revision/changes) if such material were split off into a whole article and cross-linked to this article via a template ("See main...") type template.  I don't have time right now to work on such a piece, but if someone else wants to do that via a user subpage/sandbox, I would suggest doing that and waiting until at least after the release of the 2009 Parnassus movie to submit for good article or featured status review, once all the sources for revisions are checked and verified, espec. --NYScholar (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Decided sandbox not nec. See last commt in this sec. of talk. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked and found that with altering six main source citations, I could make the section on Death separate and linkable via template--The death of Heath Ledger. May need further tinkering, but it seems to work okay. Other editors seemed to find it a feasible change, so I did do it, but it did take a lot of time, so I hope that it was not done for naught. Comments? If one doesn't like it, please advise here. As it turned out, it didn't seem necessary to use a userpage sandbox. I didn't save anything until after I had adjusted the source citations. Doing that showed up some errors that need corr. in format of main article, which I may do shortly--or wait to do later. --NYScholar (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have a few problems with this change: That's about it from me. - Mark 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The article split was not done with the necessary GFDL-compliance actions described on Splitting (namely edit summaries of " split content from/to article name ", and the use of  on this talk page).
 * 2) There is no summary of the split-off death article placed in the death section of the main article. It is not sufficient to just have a blank section with just a link to the sub-article.
 * 3) I don't think it's really appropriate to have a whole separate article about the death. The oversize of the death section indicated more that too much detail had gone into it, not that it was deserving of its own article. Even Elvis Presley doesn't have a separate article about his death.
 * Agree with this. I see no valid reason to split his death off, and it seems like a very bad split. The death should be reincorporated, and instead cut down to a more appropriate summary style and the rest of the article expanded so it is not taking over the article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've provided the summary, with source citations; the rest is in the section. The article was way too long, according to the message that appears in the editing preview (and it still is showing such a message, and this was discussed among the main editors of this article (who are not currently many). Neither of those commenting above is a main editor of this article.  I see no reason to reincorporate.  It is simply a way to manage the length of the article and all the same material is still accessible with proper and helpful cross-links.  This is a very common thing to do in Wikipedia.  People felt that the controversy about the causes and consquences of The death of Heath Ledger were taking up far more space than any such discussion of, say, Elvis's death would do; see the separate article on the Elvis phenomenon, which is not warranted by Ledger at this time.  Not all celebrities are parallel, and this is a means to account for the unusual aspects of this biography--people who edit this article do not want the death to overshadow the life and the life's achievements. Comparing Heath Ledger with either Elvis Presley or John Lennon (as above) is (currently) like comparing "apples and oranges}="; Ledger does not have the enormity of Elvis's and/or Lennon's fame and reach over decades, and, unlike Lennon, he was not murdered; his death was accidental. --NYScholar (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this split. Being a main editor of this article is irrelevant nor does it negate our views (see WP:OWN), and splitting for size is not appropriate. This needs much more discussion and better reasons that removing the info because you think it caused it to fail GA or is making the article too long (which is not correct at all). Invoking WP:BRD as the split was bold and now has been reverted. Now a proper discussion, with more than a few views, for such a broad change should occur. (and RfC may be appropriate, or posting notes to Film, and Biography asking for project views) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having now taken over 4 hours of my time to deal with this, I am withdrawing from this work. It is a waste of my time. Being reverted in such a manner truly stinks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor who reverted the entire creation of "The death of Heath Ledger" also lost all my format corrections to the material--source citations formatting corrections, other corrections, and did not save the work in any manner. I would like a copy of that work saved so that it can be posted to a subpage of my own user page for the previous editors discussing this matter (who had all agreed with moving the section--I was actually the only one who was opposed to it and yielded to their views, eventually even doing all that work myself. The good article review has nothing to do with the move discussion--it was rejected out of hand because it was a premature good article nomination.  I suggest that one read the archived discussions before reverting other editors' hard work.  You need to revert the reversion to rescue the lost corrections.  What a mess the reverter has now created. --NYScholar (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The content is still available in the article history. Feel free to move the corrections back here. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The message one sees in editing preview is: "This page is 115 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size." An earlier editing conflict (ec) with reverting editor lost my comments about previous long discussion (archived) of death--it has been whittled down to details accepted by long consensus--the length is due to the nature of the subject. It is not too detailed (though it once was. This article has a long history of revision since last January 2008 and boldly reverting a carefully-considered (and discussed change, which was actually relatively minor--all the same material was accessible via the link to "The death of Heath Ledger") does damage to this process of editors trying to work together constructively.  I would like a copy of the article that I created restored so that I can keep it on file for when this matter comes up again (as it undoubtedly will).  Thanks.  (I don't know how the reverter made the article that I created ("The death of Heath Ledger") totally disappear from Wikipedia space, but it does not seem kosher or even to take into account the previous discussion, as I was the only editor objecting to the moving of the death-related material to a separate article.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not make it totally disappear. Note that "it may be appropriate" doesn't mean mean just split it however one desires. See its history. And I have no reincorporated all of the content from there back here, so nothing has been lost at all. As for splitting for size, following the precedence of most biographies, the first appropriate split would be to split out his filmography, not his death. Also, a split should only be done after all other possible solutions have been implemented, including making sure all prose is tight and well-written (copyedit) and that unnecessary minor details have been removed (Posthumous films goes into excessive detail on The Dark Knight that isn't necessary; the "Memorial tributes and services" seems excessive; and I suspect the bulk of that extra size is coming from all the quotes included in references where they probably are not necessary). Nor does does size mean you HAVE to split, only that it may be something to consider.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've recovered "The death of Heath Ledger" material from editing history and saved it to User:NYScholar/Sandbox, as I had initially suggested doing. This way editors interested in editing this article can consult it as the option being considered. --NYScholar (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Split out of death
Since the article has now been tagged, adding a section for new discussion. For my view, I oppose splitting Heath's death from the rest of the article. It is a bad place to split, and I am not seeing any valid reason for it. Size issues do not mean just arbitrarily splitting out the largest section. As noted above, I believe the size issues can be better solved by fixing issues throughout the article with excessive minor details, copyediting of the prose, and splitting out his filmography (perhaps joining it with the already split out awards). Newcomers should read the above discussions for earlier reasons given for and against the split. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly supportive of a separate death article either. A streamlining of the section would be of benefit. I wonder if the small section Heath Ledger could be incorporated in some manner as a lead-in to the death section. It has several quotes about his inability to sleep and health, but unless I overlooked it (and that is possible), it doesn't mention his last interviews, where he discussed how he was having difficulty shaking his imagery the Joker role had created. That would seem a solid lead in to his death. I don't think the section gives his death undue weight in the article. He died, most people do. I do think, however, that giving it its own article would be giving it undue weight. Time should let it even out, but acting in reaction to things that are currently happening may be an error. Already, parts of the death section could be trimmed back - the section about the will is too involved. He didn't update his will, his daughter was provided for in the end. Some of the sections seems superfluous in retrospect, such as the "love child" paragraph. If you compare this to the deaths of other celebrities from years past, the flurry of publicity that occurred at the time of death is put in perspective with time. I think that should be the case here. (As an aside, I am finding this talk page a bit confusing - discussions removed to other talk pages and pasted from elsewhere, it make it hard to follow discussion in any linear fashion.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support sub article: I support a sub articles on the death and leaving 2-3 paragraph summary here on the main article. I don't support a blanket move of all the text, with no mention on the death on the main article. A summary of the details must remain here. — Realist  2  03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The page is less than 30kb of readable prose, which means, per WP:SIZE, nothing from the article needs to be separated (P.S. I do not count the lead paragraphs when I calculate readable prose, as the lead is a summary of the entire article, thus one would be counting duplicated information and since the lead is supposed to be considered to "stand on its own", then we should count it as its own thing). Here is the problem, the entire article suffers from wordiness. It needs a massage copyedit and cleaning, as it's current verbosity gives the impression that it is larger than it actually is. There is no need to separate out the section on his death. Just because there is a lot of information does not mean that it warrants separate mentioning.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: User:Realist2 stated, "Lots of high profile people have sub articles on their death, Ronald Reagan, John Lennon, Elvis ..." Let's face it, Heath Ledger had a long way to go before achieving the status of those people. He was nothing more than a talented actor whose star was ascending. I think a lot of the support for a separate article about his death is based on fan zeal and not the fact the subject is encyclopedic enough to warrant one. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never watched a film by him, as far as I can remember. My opinion is, we only need 3 paragraphs maximum on the death. An awful lot of it does need trimming, but that is an awfully sad lose of perfectly good material. Thus a full article on the death could be developed. NO HARM will come of it and we can have a detailed sub article on his death if it interests someone. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, many of them are far less notable than the death of this actor. Again, this isn't fan worship, I don't watch his films and I don't particularly watch films at all. It's a case of, darn, what a waste of perfectly good information, information that will interest some readers. We can't keep it all here, it's way out of proportion, but I'm sure many people would be interested in a detailed review of the event. — Realist  2  15:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: That "there are millions of articles on Wikipedia, many of them are far less notable than the death of this actor" is not sufficient reason for the article to exist. Nor is "It's a case of, darn, what a waste of perfectly good information, information that will interest some readers." I can think of hundreds of topics that would interest some readers but that doesn't mean they warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Ledger simply wasn't significant enough for his death to have its own article. If the death of iconic and legendary James Dean doesn't have a separate article, why should that of Ledger? LiteraryMaven (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Now that I see it, I'd say I would have to agree with the panel above. When the idea was first brought up, I was against it, but then after few conversations, I caved in and supported the choice. But seeing how its garnered a lot of negativity on a separate article, I would have to agree and keep the death information on the main article: Heath Ledger. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Ditto as per above (currently). --NYScholar (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Update
Jake Coyle (of the Associated Press) announced on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 (published by MSNBC.com) that "Heath Ledger's death was voted 2008's top entertainment story by U.S. newspaper and broadcast editors surveyed by The Associated Press." See source: Jake Coyle, "Ledger's Death Voted Top 2008 Entertainment Story", msnbc.com, 23 Dec. 2008, accessed 24 Dec. 2008: from the article's discussion of "The top 10": 1. HEATH LEDGER DIES: When the Australian actor was found dead Jan. 22 at 28, shock and confusion over the circumstances of his death followed. The autopsy concluded Ledger's death was accidental, the result of a toxic combination of prescription drugs. His legacy continued, though, in a roundly acclaimed performance as the Joker in the year's biggest box office hit "The Dark Knight." That current news announcement might lead some Wikipedians posting above to update/revise their position re: whether or not the topic "The Death of Heath Ledger" (or, now, "Death of Heath Ledger") is notable enough for its separate Wikipedia article linked to this one. (See Heath Ledger and Death of Heath Ledger, where I rescued the redirected/moved material that I previously posted but that was reverted later). --NYScholar (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[updated title of previously-proposed article (section split off) due to changing of template by another editor after I first entitled it). --NYScholar (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]

Given the AP source just cited as an index of this subtopic's notability, which can be used to document a higher level of notability of this subtopic than it had before December 23, 2008, it appears to me (and perhaps will also appear to others now as well) that "Death of Heath Ledger" has risen to a level of notability that does warrant its being the subject of a separate article in Wikipedia (linked to a brief summary at start of section on "Death" (Heath Ledger). For contexts, please review the previous comments by others and by me at start and end of previous subsection.  (Such a "brief summary" is now the "lede" of the version I posted and just updated in my Sandbox linked above.) Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it does not change my position, noactor? I have NEVER seen some of these awards mentioned in any other actor's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.180.26 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "We guys" included the awards and nominations that he received. No one went overboard. And obviously you've not looked at the articles for some of the more acclaimed actors on here. Meryl Streep has nearly twice as many, Sean Penn has a similar number. All of the awards in the filmography for this page are used on other articles, so you must not be looking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

unsigned comment moved here
can somebody update ledgers Award List? he won the critics NOT NOMINATED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmobish (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)  [Moved this unsigned comment from my talk page; it doesn't belong there. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)]

Hi,ANYONE with a premium account you can modify his page,ok if you look at wikipedias: "Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actor" you will see that heath was not only nominated but WON,then if you go to heaths page in the table of awards you will see he was only nominated.please ammend,thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmobish (talk • contribs) 11:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the article and in fact, the BFCA Award for Best Supporting Actor is noted as a win already, however the BFCA for Best Ensemble Cast was just a nomination. Perhaps the two were confusing. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous information in opening
60% of the information here seems totally unneccesary. Sure, we all love Heath and want his award wins to be known, but they're already listed in their PROPER section, the infobox. Along with role descriptions, the intro just looks silly at present. Surely a large portion of the text can be removed - this type of "just so you know, he's won awards" ethos doesn't seem present in articles for living actors. 88.109.121.92 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly common practice to list major awards in the opening paragraph. It helps establish notability.  We wouldn't want Mr. Ledger's article deleted. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that there's absolutely no way the article will ever be deleted. His biography is well cited within article. Boasting about award wins in intro is another matter - a NPOV violation which serves only to clog up the intro. Awards are noted in their correct location, the infobox, so why must the intro be littered with award wins? It would appear to serve only to "spice up" the article. The second paragraph in the intro seems to serve no purpose but to boast of Ledger's award wins and nominations. If all award nods are to be covered, I suggest an "Awards & Nominations" section. 88.109.121.92 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is customary to touch upon awards won in article leads. It hardly comes near "Boasting about awards" nor does it even approach mentioning all awards noms, which you could plainly see if you scrolled down to the filmography section. Ledger had over 60 wins and nominations while the intro mentions seven. It is notable to his article that he was an award winning actor, his work was recognized. This is a non-issue as it conforms to policy and guidelines and is not POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SECOND posthumous award, not first
In the first section where it gives a summary of his main awards won, someone erroneously wrote that Ledger has won the first posthumous Oscar. The first one was actually Peter Finch. I don't have an account (obviously), can someone else fix it? 124.170.194.175 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't say that. The sentence says "He was nominated and won awards for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight, including an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, a Best Actor International Award at the 2008 Australian Film Institute Awards, for which he became the first actor to win an award posthumously, It is about the AFI Awards, but thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who accepted it for him in the end? I was in bed and didn't see it (I live in Europe). Jienum (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His mum, dad and sister. They all spoke apparently. Sky83 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Academy Award-winning actor or not?
I see this has been added and removed a number of times. Rather difficult to establish, as only one other actor has been given an award after death, and that's Peter Finch, but his page has him as "Peter Finch (28 September 1916 – 14 January 1977) was an Academy Award-winning English-born Australian actor." Shouldn't we be consistent? sherpajohn (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Academy Award-winning" has no place in the lead sentence, per MOSFILM, and NPOV. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have some work ahead of us then, its not at all consistent. Posthumous or not! A quick survey finds: "Arthur William Matthew “Art” Carney (November 4, 1918 – November 9, 2003) was an Academy Award- and Emmy Award-winning American actor in film, stage, television and radio." "Louis Cameron Gossett, Jr. (born May 27, 1936) is an American Emmy-, Golden Globe-, and Academy Award-winning actor." "Don Ameche (born Dominic Felix Amici; May 31, 1908 – December 6, 1993) was an Academy Award winning American actor." All of these are lead sentences.


 * You aren't kidding. When I come across an article like that, I either tag as peacock (if the lead paragraph doesn't already mention the Oscar), or just delete the verbiage if the award is already mentioned in the lead paragraph. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a neverending chore, although technically, MOS:FILM doesn't really cover this article, it is covered by WP:ACTOR, and the goal has simply been to remove it when we come across and not a holistic effort to remove it. We are working on improving lead sections and this is one of the points. It is a POV issue. Most actors who manage to win an Academy Award also have a plethora of other awards and it is not neutral to pick out the main ones. It's fine if the lead section contains discussion of awards, but the lead sentence should only cover the basics of who the person is and why they are notable. Are they notable only because they won this or that award? Nope. They are notable because of the work they did to arrive there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heath or Heathcliff?
www.imdb.com lists an alternate name. A recent Australian documentary states Heathcliff was his birth name. --190.22.60.195 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heathcliff Andrew Ledger is his name, but he is best known as Heath Ledger. <font color="#6666FF" >The Joker's Woman [<font color="#667722">BlackPearl14•<font color="#CCOO66" >contribs! ] 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Credited as Heath, so Heath Ledger was the name he registered with the Screen Actors Guild. Taroaldo (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And an excellent guideline, at that (SAG name). Thank you for clarifying this issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.60.195 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thought I mentioned that. Sorry! <font color="#6666FF" >The Joker's Woman [<font color="#667722">BlackPearl14•<font color="#CCOO66" >contribs! ] 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My two cents: According to this New York Times article, it states "Heathcliff", just so you know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe a link to this article about Heath Ledger should be added
I believe a link to this article about Heath Ledger should be added to his Wiki page: http://daily.chictoday.com/2008/12/19/keanu-reeves-still-the-one/,

Publisher is: Spotlight TM, Walking the Walk on Chic Today. Article Author: Adrienne Papp

3/26/09 Cheryle Bernard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherylebernard (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? The article is about Keanu Reeves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs
I merged a few, but there are still a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs and other short paragraphs. These should be merged in with larger paragraphs. Also, added a few fact tags. Overall it is pretty well-sourced, someone(s) has been doing some pretty nice work overall. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you on behalf of all of us who have worked on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, we appreciate the praise. Also, I've removed the fact tags and added sources to the statements. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error
Ledger received numerous awards for his Joker role in The Dark Knight. On 10 November 2008, he was nominated for two People's Choice Awards related to his work on the film, "Best Ensemble Cast" and "Best Onscreen Match-Up" (shared with Christian Bale), and Ledger won a award for "Match-Up" in the ceremony aired live on CBS in January, 2009.[162]

"and Ledger won an award for "Match-Up" in the ceremony aired live on CBS in January, 2009.[162]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Slipgate (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wealthy family
What is missed in this biography is that Heath Ledger came from a wealthy and privileged family who invested millions in his career commencing with a $200,000 production show reel when he was sixteen years of age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmosis2323 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Citation 146: affadavit -> affidavit. 76.199.5.172 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Link error
Can someone with editorial access to the page please change the link Quicksand (song) to Quicksand (David Bowie song)? Thanks.24.19.37.181 (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. And you're welcome.  Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

References in pop culture
I added this headline on 06/08/09 for an Eminem song. Yeah, it may not have been in good taste, but it absolutely factual. I don't see why it got deleted. Every dead actor almost has a References in pop culture. See River Phoenix for example.

I'm sorry if you guys have a problem with this, but I don't understand why. It does have to happen eventually to have this area in the article. People 50 years from now won't care if its good taste, they are going to want to see References in pop culture.

My sentences were very well written and I even had cited a source. There was no reason given to why this was taken down...thanks a lot guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Token2k6 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously had doubts about whether a "References in pop culture" section was appropriate or if it would remain, and that was made quite clear by your edit summary: "Added pop culture references with one subject, don't know if its ok (?), but it has to happen eventually..." As I said, no, it doesn't have to happen eventually. If you want to go start a new article for pop culture references to Heath Ledger, fine, but it would likely not survive an article for deletion nomination at present, and no, it does not, nor should it, mean that one be started where one does not exist. I referred you to WP:TRIVIA, because references in pop culture are trivia. Wikipedia discourages the use of trivia sections, no matter how cleverly they are titled, because they are indiscriminate lists of otherwise unrelated mentions of someone or something in songs, tv shows like The Simpsons, South Park or some other similar title. There are few, if any, articles on "dead actors" that are at the stage to be submitted for good article or featured article status that contain such sections because an article won't pass with such a section. See featured articles Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Phil Hartman, Vivien Leigh, Ronald Reagan, Sharon Tate or good articles James Cagney, Joan Crawford, Gene Tierney. Actually, a great many B-class actor articles do not now contain such sections. See Nick Adams, Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, John Candy, George Carlin, (to date) David Carradine, Sal Mineo, Paul Newman, Christopher Reeve, Natasha Richardson...


 * This article is on the verge of being nominated for WP:GA and pain has been taken to prevent such a section from being inserted. No one commented on the writing in the single item you placed in a section all by itself. That wasn't an issue. The section itself is the issue. The source was a problem because it has content that publishes copyrighted material, which is a WP:RS and copyright violation problem. At some future point, when there is sufficient content that might justify the writing of a section that explores, not stark lists of "mentions", but discussion of how Ledger became a phenomenon of pop references (such as you might find on Charles Manson, Mae West or maybe River Phoenix, which is at least treated appropriately as a section of relevant prose but really needs trimmed). In any case, there is no support for actually starting such sections in these higher level articles when none exists. The guidelines are not to start them, but to either incorporate them in some meaningful way or to get rid of them. That other stuff exists isn't by any means a good reason to start something that isn't present. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! I don't know whether to feel embarrassed or ashamed, probably both...I had know idea the importance of this article and all the rules, and I seriously was not trying to be a jack*ss, I really just had never heard Heath Ledger being mentioned in popular culture and was excited when I heard it on that album and thought I could contribute. I will stay away from doing stuff like this in the future or until I am a veteran user. I probably shouldn't even be typing this right now, right here...oh well! --Token2k6 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack, now I feel a bit bad. I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I suppose it is kind of unique to hear a reference made for the first time. Maybe if I could set my wayback, I would remember how it felt the first time I heard "American Pie". I just thought it would be better to explain why the section isn't a good idea and the reasons that there are for not having it. There certainly are a lot of articles here than still have such sections, but as time goes on, they'll be incorporated or removed or spun off into separate articles that aren't so much subjects for vetting. This article probably isn't any more important than the many other really good articles about actors, but it certainly has been taken care of quite carefully to keep it on point and within the guidelines and policies. I think that's a lot easier for an article in which the subject has recently died than in the ones that aren't as high profile and have been around a long time. Thanks for understanding and your accepting of the explanation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)