Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Why are the "Resolved" templates being removed?

Resolved.

I was identified in a project page complaint as the only one opposing [the removal of] the block quotations. So I have added the "Resolved" template (as requested) to the sections relating to it; someone has been removing those templates, initially without comment. That is not useful. Some people seem to argue just for the sake of argument. Those deletions of the resolved templates are not improving this article or this talk page on it. If you want to start up the controversy again, please start another section. The discussion in the previous section is "Resolved." --NYScholar (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [corr. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]

That's not actually how those are usually used. We call something resolved when the issue is resolved not a point within the conversation. If, after an reasonable amoount of time (maybe a week) the items is left as is it can be archived to keep the talk page clean. If someone reposts and the issue is likely not to be seen as resolved then remove the tag. It can always be added later. Benjiboi 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please stop adding resolved templates to sections that are not resolved. Just because you are personally satisfied with the current form doesn't mean that everybody is - I for one still don't see the encyclopedic value of quotes from the Prime Minister. Pairadox (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you (Pairadox) could have said so. People cannot guess what is on your minds (both Benji and Pairadox). Please be direct. As for the "Resolved" templates: I was not the one asking for them. As far as I am concerned, if I find that a dispute between me and others is "resolved" I can place that in front of my own comment, which I have now done. If you (P) want to dispute a specific part of a section, please do so in a new section. The other one is full of all kinds of comments, some directly related, some not. If you want to "clean up" this talk page, please cooperate. Thanks. If people don't know what you are asking for when you are asking for templates to be used like "resolved" and "done" and so on, please explain what you want them for. Thanks. (I have never seen any of those templates used on any talk pages in my now several years of editing Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"I think the entire section needs a serious trim." Is that direct enough? I wrote that days ago nothing I've written since then indicates I feel any differently. As for the request for resolved templates, that was part of a general talk page cleanup request that was accomplished by archiving and marked "done" almost 24 hours ago. Pairadox (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Respectfully, it does appear that you're jumping the gun on marking some of the above issues resolved. Like the others, I noticed a couple issues that looked like they could still be live. Townlake (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Also {{tl:done}} can be used within a thread to indicate one point is "done" like a list of corrections. {{tl:resolved}} is usually reserved for the entire thread. And both are used to communicate to make very active talk pages, such as this, easier to use. Benjiboi 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate guidance in use of these (for me otherwise) unfamiliar templates. Re: where I placed them most recently (upon corr.): they are only relating to my own comments, not the whole sec. (re: the one being discussed--the quotations one). Again, I don't feel that it is necessary to use these templates at all. If those commenting above have remaining issues to discuss, they can start new sections as per the talk page header. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited already-excerpted quotation from official Australian government press release

Resolved.

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

What value do his words add? What is the purpose of including them? Pairadox (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
They show how an entire country is eulogizing an actor. It reveals the importance of the subject to his native nation. It is highly notable and demonstrates the subject's own notability. WP:Notability. --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with this one myself. A head of state releasing an official statement about a performer is a pretty big deal, and the quote's been blended into the article's text well. Townlake (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the controversy, prior to seeing Townlake's comment above, I had already moved the PM's public statement source into an earlier sentence; people can read the whole statement in context, just as they can read the full contexts of the other public statements. I've tried to highlight its importance in the sentence by naming the Prime Minister as such. --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your edit on that, works for me. Townlake (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved.
[in progress moving]

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

Circumstances of death

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

"According to the authorities," Baker continues, "Ms. Wolozin told Ms. Olsen that Mr. Ledger was unconscious. Ms. Olsen said she would call some private security people she knew in New York, and hung up. Ms. Wolozin again shook Mr. Ledger, called Ms. Olsen a second time, and said she believed the situation was grave and would call 911."[1] According to Baker, "Ms. Wolozin called 911 at 3:26 p.m. to say that Mr. Ledger was not breathing. The call occurred less than 15 minutes since she had first seen him in bed and only a few moments after the first call to Ms. Olsen. The 911 operator urged Ms. Wolozin to try to revive Mr. Ledger, but Ms. Wolozin’s efforts were not successful."[1]

Seven minutes later, Baker reports, "Emergency medical workers arrived at 3:33 p.m., at almost exactly the same moment as a private security guard summoned by Ms. Olsen. The medical workers moved his body to the floor and then used a defibrillator and CPR, to no avail. Mr. Ledger was pronounced dead at 3:36 p.m. By that point, two other private security guards summoned by Ms. Olsen had arrived, as had police officers."[1]

Police said that they found prescription medication in the bathroom, that there were "no obvious signs" of suicide, and that they did not suspect foul play.[2]

[removing Notes sec. for time being due to later sec. for notes to show up.]>>

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

I don't think this sec. is nec. The source is now at end of prev. sec. ("Death"). Missing a piece of a note; I'll try to fix in a moment. --NYScholar (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [added and updated note citation]. --NYScholar (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
(ec) [Completed the move from art. to talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
When originally composed in this HL article, material was simply lifted from Baker's article; I added quotation marks as nec., resulting in quotation of almost the entire article. That is copyvio and not permissible. The ref. to "circumstances" in the current sent. in the current "Death" sec. in HL is the lead-in to the source citation; anyone who wants to know Baker et al.'s renditions of those circumstances (as then known) can just read the source articles as cited. Otherwise there will be substantial paraphrase not so much quotation or a block quotation, which was an option not liked much earlier (see archived disc.). This change addresses earlier complaints about length of sec. on "Death." --NYScholar (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Section will have to be edited substantially after the cause of death comes down anyway, so this will probably keep a couple days. I don't think the whole narrative is necessary, but cutting the whole thing might be a bit extreme. Let's discuss. Side note - if 6 Feb 08 is really the date the examiner's info will come out, we might want to request a Full Protect on the article for a few hours after the news breaks as a precaution. Townlake (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree w/ that. --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [This is it for me; I'm logging out of Wikipedia, to turn to my other, non-Wikipedia work Wed. and rest of this week. --NYScholar (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]
News of the medically-determined cause of death has hit the wires. I'll check back in on this page when I can during the day; meantime, if other editors find it helpful, the direct link to the Request Page Protection page is here. Townlake (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

International date format

Resolved.

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

I reviewed the policy, and yep, sounds good to me. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style has specific dates format for birth and death dates in the lead of articles (and in infoboxes for actors), and it is not the international dates format; it is month, day, year format. It is not necessary to use international date style in an article about a celebrity from Australia; he lived and died most recently in New York, and, until now, the prevailing style in the article has also been mostly American English (with some exceptions: "centred" instead of "centered", the "ou" in places, which are actually inconsistencies. American English is acceptable for this article. UK English is not as used worldwide as American English; see the links on both: American English, UK English. Words are quoted exactly as appear in their sources; the editors themselves need to be familiar with language they are using, and a lot of the editors editing this article are from the U.S. not only the U.K. or Australia. Ledger is a subject whose notability has surpassed his place of birth. The dates in citations currently follow prevailing date format recommended in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (it is certainly not incorrect), and it is easier for current and subsequent editors to continue using it in developing new sources for the article as events develop. The so-called "international" date format is UK date format; the other is American and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It is much harder to format (thinking of future eds. as well). ---NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, it's six-of-one to me, would just to see it made consistent. There is great international interest in the story and there's no consistent format right now, so at worst a change to that format would not be inappropriate - and the Style guide clearly says that either format is ok. Townlake (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's much harder to change all the (mostly consistent) dates and spellings currently in the article (excepting source citations spelling, which should follow quotations exactly) than to change them and maintain those changes: see whole section on "National Varieties of English" in the W:MoS: here for more links and contexts. Thanks. Got to go soon. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not hard at all, really. :) I aim for consistency. I'll have a look at it tonight. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally international date formatting is preferred, since he is from Australia seems even more appropriate. Benjiboi 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen no other articles in Wikipedia where "international date formatting" (abbreviated with numbers and not months and full years) is "generally" "preferred"; in fact, almost every article I've read and worked on and seen has dates in reference citations in Wikipedia:Manual of Style format for dates of birth and death in leads: month, day, year. These changes have no "preferred" policy or guideline statement that I know of and I want to see what you are using as a statement of "preferred" usage in Wikipedia. "Since he is from Australia" is not relevant to a subject who has reached beyond national boundaries [by this time, the time of and after his death]; in terms of "international" relevance, "international" date style is not what is being talked about; it is choice of version of English in English Wikipedia that one is referring to: whether to use American English or UK English, etc. If the subject reaches beyond national boundaries in interest, I prefer to use American English, as more people around the world use American English than use UK or British or Australian English (that is a point made in the discussion I've already cited in Wikipedia's guidelines for versions of English. You are mixing up apples and oranges. The subject lived in New York in the U.S. at his time of death, as he had done for a few years recently, and he died in New York; he is being buried in Western Australia, and the interest in the subject is worldwide. But international interest is not equivalent to use of "international dates" style in Wikipedia; that is chosen as a preference in one's signature, for e.g.; but month, day, year is generally what one finds in references and footnotes and in the texts of articles in Wikipedia, and the 6-2-08 or 6-2-2008 format is horribly confusing, especially for those expecting month, day, year as per usual Wikipedia article style. I suggest reversing those changes as they do not match the rest of the article and are creating vast problems (such as "when?"). --NYScholar (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Notice also that the format of dates in the Australian tabloid The Daily Telegraph matches normal Wikipedia birth-date format of month, day, year: See the section of EL for quotation of its title with that format for dates in it.
So the argument pertaining to how Australia would present the dates seems incorrect (belied by that Australian source). --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The British (UK) newspaper The Times obituary for Heath Ledger (note 2 in current article) also uses normal order of dates paralleling Wikipedia's Man. of Style format for birth and death dates in leads and infoboxes: month, day, year. Many British newspapers and publications use this format rather than reversed format of day, month, year too. (I don't know why, but there seems to be a shift from the latter to the former (in some British dating of correspondence too that I receive); maybe it's thought more modern. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It'd be normal for a uk newspaper to say "February 14th 2008", but I doubt any UK newspaper would use "2/14/2008", they'd use "14/2/2008". Hope this helps, I haven't seen the article you refer to. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I have no clue. Just live here. As did Heath Ledger, but never mind that. Do whatever you like, I have more productive editing to do. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
We might be getting semanticly bogged here. If you look at how the date is presented as part of my signature, "7 February 2008" is what I mean by international date. As far as I know this is common throughout the UK and is what I recommend. Benjiboi 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I know what you are advocating, and I oppose it.
Aside from the fact that you yourself (and some others) are from the UK and favor that style, there is no reason to use "UK" style in this article for dates. To do so conflicts with Wikipedia style requirements for dates in leads, texts, and, when using citation templates, in dates: they post accurately as month, day, year only if you write them properly: 2-7-2008 for February 7, 2008; to do otherwise will result in incorrect Wikipedia dating.
  • The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires uses of month, day, year in leads and infoboxes for birth-date dates; even the Australian and London newspapers use this format in their dating of issues (quoted above).
  • The format you use in your signing of Wikipedia posts has nothing to do with what is appropriate for articles. See the discussion of avoiding cultural biases in choice of English version.
  • For a subject of major international cultural interest (not local cultural interest), one uses the version of English with the broadest use in the world; that is not British (UK) English; it is American English. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and its emphasis on avoiding cultural or national identity of editors as a rationale for the version of English used in English Wikipedia. The style of citations also governs what kind of date format one uses; Wikipedia defaults to month/day/year in changing however you place the dates into that format. One has to use a "|" to change that, and to do so without any rationale makes no sense.
  • Note: MLA format, in contrast to Wikipedia MoS, does use reversed dates: e.g., The New York Times 7 Feb. 2008 (in notes and bibliographical formatting and in texts); my own customary style for Humanities research writing is to use MLA format, so I am very familiar with using that style.
  • But we (per consensus--Wikipedia's own citation templates have been chosen, though still inconsistently applied) are not using that citation style format in this article. The rationale for avoiding use of the additional comma in MLA format is that one cannot confuse a letter (e.g., the "s" at the end of "Times" and the beginning of the date where the number for the day of the month is used]; there are actually good reasons why different formats choose different date formats and "international" is not the rationale; it has to do with punctuation rules.
  • There is no aspect of this article that justifies changing the dates throughout in the text or in the notes citations from normal order used in Wikipedia (Manual of Style) or changing the version of English being used from American English to British English. There is no reason to use a minority version of English in an article on a subject that goes beyond local UK/Austral. interest in English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very clear that the birthplace of a subject does not dictate what version of English one uses in a biographical article about him or her. RE: UK usage: Heath Ledger was not British; he was Australian, and the Australian newspaper cited above (The Daily Telegraph (Australia) uses month/day/year order, as already pointed out. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See American English; British English; American English and British English differences, particularly re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates (re: confusions that the changes would introduce in citations coding); and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English re: versions of English and importance of avoidance cultural biases in choice of versions for articles.
  • If editors who live in Australia or in the UK are trying to impose their cultural biases on this article, that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and its warnings. The birthplace of an international star does not lead to choice of version of English of his/her birthplace or type of dates used in the article; the readers of this article, e.g., are not predominantly from Australia, or the UK, or the U.S., etc. They are English-speaking/English readers from around the world. (See relative numbers of users of each version of English.)
  • If one is stressing the "international" nature of a subject and interest in it/him/her, then one chooses the version of English (and dates in Wikipedia style) that are most prevalent (and least subject to confusion), not least prevalent (and most subject to confusion).
  • Wikipedia's "UTC" time/date stamping in signatures is a dating/timing method of based on international time, and even that has choices built into "preferences." One's own location (in the UK) has nothing to do with what date styles used in citations and texts of articles; it just relates to one's own "user" "preferences in how one post one's signature in talk pages, etc. --NYScholar (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that properly wiki-linked dates get automatically converted to whatever date format logged-in users have selected in their preferences. See the table here to see how they convert out. The only impact the format we use in the article will have is on what date format is displayed to anonymous readers of the article, in which case the most appropriate format is date/month/year.
Whilst it is true that some people in Australia put month first, then date, then year, this is only used when spelling out the name of the month in full (e.g. "December 13, 2007"), and never when using an abbreviated form (i.e. "12/13/2007" makes no sense here).
As for your statement about a "minority version of English", the correct form of English for this article is Australian English, and the use of the "dd/mm/yyyy" date format is actually the majority, and the US use is the minority. For instance, see the list of countries using some form of dd-mm-yyyy (I count 89 countries) compared to the list of countries using mm/dd/yyyy (I count 5 countries, including Canada which also uses dd-mm-yyyy).
On a slightly related note, you have been flooding both this talk page and the main article's history with related, incremental edits. It would be preferable if you used the preview function to get your comments together and coherent instead of posting numberous comments one after the other in quick succession. - Mark 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[Indeed I was unaware of that. I had always had day month year preferences and the dates still showed up in articles as month day year, but I just changed the preferences back and forth and the dates shifted in the article and citations. Now I'm not sure, what will show up, since the dates showed up in month day year order even when I had preferences chosen of day month year. I have cleared the cache too, bec. that may have led to the inconsistent pattern. --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]
[That point about "the correct form of English for this article" is not supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style and is still in some dispute (see later section below, where others address this claim). At this time, I just hope for consistency. But if the article is going to be in Australian English, I will have to keep checking that article about how that version may differ from British English (which I am familiar with).] --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound as though we use a foreign language! For the extent of this article, I doubt you'll see any difference between the two. Relax. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[I do apologize; I use show preview, but I don't always see everything anyway and have to come back to make corrections, since I don't like leaving typographical errors in my own comments or work. --NYScholar (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

Penultimate

penultimate penultimate penultimate penultimate. how many times does one have to use the same word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.159.250 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The word is used twice, once in the lede and once in the supporting text of the article. Removed one usage and replaced w/ title. --NYScholar (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Penultimate means second to the lowest. Not best. Do you really mean his second to the worst performance Jbesr1230 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)JBE

Penultimate means next to the last, not next to the lowest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The way penultimate is used in the lede is poor: "A few months before his death, Ledger had finished filming his penultimate performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight." makes it sound like he is to appear as the Joker again. Can the wording be made clearer? "...while playing the Joker..." for example. Ob1db (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Penultimate means "Next to last." "A few months before his death, Ledger had finished filming his penultimate performance, as the Joker in The Dark Knight." A comma is all that is needed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed "penultimate" from the introduction. I'm recommending that someone also remove the second "penultimate" that appears later in the article. I hate to put it in these terms, but let me be blunt--this is a stupid word to have in an encyclopedia entry. It seems like people get confused sometimes and think that these articles are supposed to be press releases. The more dramatic the article appears, the lower quality it ultimately becomes. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to have strong opinions about a word someone may have to look up, but the word is used legitimately and appropriately. I did not put the word in the article originally, but I support its use. Why should a legitimately used word be changed because you'd never heard it used before or your personal impression of it is something else? You are the only person whom I am aware has ever changed it and you changed one instance of its use and not the other. I switched which word it was that removed, and then you come back to remove it again? Did you actually read what you made it say? "A few months before his death, Ledger had finished filming what would be a posthumous role"? That is counter-logical. He had finished filming a role, therefore it was not' a posthumous role and in fact, a person would not be filming a posthumous role. It may have been a posthumous release, but not the role itself. What you see above was posted months ago by two new accounts that didn't understand the word. Another objected to it being used four times. Three editors corrected those misunderstandings. You cannot with any authority make a statement claiming that most people don't know the word, or understand a word based on your opinion and that two new posters didn't know it. The page has been viewed over 1979700 in 2009 alone. The other 1979697 views didn't have an issue with it. Please stop imposing your viewpoint or lack of familiarity of one word onto the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between using a word correctly and a press release. That seems like quite a leap. I also don't understand why an encyclopedia, which is supposed to enlighten and educate, should deliberately avoid using a valid word just because some people may be unfamiliar with it. God forbid that anyone should improve their vocabulary while visiting Wikipedia. We have Wiktionary to help people, so people can only remain confused if they choose to. Perhaps the word isn't needed, but nobody has suggested that it may be superfluous. I'm in favour of readability, but not of looking for the lowest common denominator at which to aim our content. If we are to tailor our articles to suit those who "get confused sometimes", I don't think we're doing them a service, and we are probably underestimating the majority of our users. Rossrs (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "nobody has suggested it may be superfluous." It was suggested to be superfluous on this talk page over six months ago! Read the above comments. Also, let me defuse the passionate statements that you and Wildhartlive have put up here about this word making sense for the article.

Here's what wisegeek.com has to say in regards to penultimate: "Penultimate is a word subject to common misuse. Many people use penultimate to mean ultimate or greater than ultimate. In fact, penultimate means second to last, or next to last. Thus it is not the ultimate, but the next to ultimate."

You can find that at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-penultimate-mean.htm. The Columbia Guide to Standard English by Kenneth G. Wilson says almost the exact same thing. You can find that at Google Book Clubs. Need more proof? The following pages have "penultimate" listed as one of the most commonly confused/misused words in the English language:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0200807.html "Easily Confused or Misused Words" (infoplease.com)

http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/confused_words_nopq.html "250 Often Confused False Cognates (Words) In English" (alphadictionary.com)

http://upwordlymobile.com/web/pages/confusing-words.php "Grammar, Usage, and Writing Tips - Confusing Words" (upwordlymobile.com) http://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/2008/05/penultimate-rev.html "Quirks of the English Language, Penultimate (Revisited)" (Nancy Friedman's Blog)

http://anarchiblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/ultimate-usage-of-penultimate.html "The Ultimate Usage of Penultimate" (anarchitect.com) http://btr.michaelkwan.com/2009/01/22/grammar-101-misusing-penultimate/ "Grammar 101: Misusing Penultimate" (Beyond the Rhetoric) http://www.insidepr.ca/index.php/inside-proper-english/ "Inside Proper English - PR Words to Banish" (Insidepr.ca)

This is just a small slice of what you will find on the internet in regards to misuse of this word. Try googling it if you don't believe me. So Wildhartive, I think I can fairly say that it's not an appropriate word.

And Rossr, thanks for your response, but I have to humbly disagree. The goal of Wikipedia is not to improve people's vocabularies. People come to this site to find quick and easy information, not to reference a dictionary so they can discover new words. Also, I wrote press releases professionally for over six years, so I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about with that statement. Can we finally let this go? The word doesn't work. That's all I'm saying. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for letting it go but I still don't think the problem is solved. "A few months before his death, Ledger had finished filming his most recently released work, as the Joker in The Dark Knight." I read that as saying it was recently released, before his death. It wasn't, and I know that isn't what you mean, but that's how it reads to me. If the sentence was written as ""A few months before his death, Ledger finished filming The Dark Knight - that would be more accurate. It would probably be better to say "Several months after his death, The Dark Knight was released" because the previous sentence mentions his death, and it's awkward that the very next sentence jumps back to before his death, when the sentence could easily move forward by rewording it. I doubt we even need the sentence. I think we've all been side-tracked by the word "penultimate" and not noticed that the sentence itself doesn't have a strong point. The Dark Knight is mentioned in the first and second paragraphs, and then again in the third. Is it necessary?
I think that Wikipedia should be aiming at a higher level than it often does, but I didn't suggest that its goal was to improve people's vocabularies. I said the goal was to "enlighten and educate", and I related improvement of vocabulary as a possible benefit or positive side-effect. It's a subtle difference. Still, I now see your point about the word being misused and misunderstood, and fair enough, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to fix that. I may also have missed where it was described as superfluous, and if so I apologise. I see a comment that it was used too often, (but not that it shouldn't be used at all), a comment from someone who misunderstood the meaning, another who said it made the sentence confusing, and then your comment that it's stupid. All I was saying is that if someone had said "we don't need it" and left it at that, I would probably have agreed, and that's basically what I've arrived at regarding the sentence - "we don't need it".
Also, I have to say, I won't ever ask you to write a press release for me, as you have spelt both my name and Wildhartlivie's name incorrectly - twice.  ;-) I hope you take that in the good-humour in which it is intended. Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, point taken. There really was no reason to waste a sentence of the intro that "The Dark Knight" was his second-to-last film (unless of course somebody wanted a reason to say "penultimate," lol), and then cite three sources for something painfully obvious.
However, if you click on the first article referenced, it is clear that something should be mentioned about "The Dark Knight" coming out just after his death. He died during editing, so they had to promote Ledger's performance in an $180 million film on the heels of the controversy surrounding his death. I think we can all remember how the two events were constantly mentioned together, not to mention the eerie-ness of us having to watch the Joker on the big screen knowing the actor playing him had recently died. So I changed the sentence to better reflect this, and give it a reason to be in the article. If you can rephrase it even better, go for it.
As far as the whole "press release" goes, we do have to be on the lookout for professional PR people putting unnecessary things in various articles to paint their clients in a specific light. Anybody can and should be able to be a wikipedian, but we all need to make sure that the integrity of the articles is maintained. It's a point I am not shy about bringing up. Anyway here's to moving on. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence now has a stronger purpose, and I'll have a look at it again when I have more time, mainly to ensure that it reflects what is in the article. Regarding "press release", well yes, it's something we need to be mindful of. A well intentioned fan is equally capable of extreme bias but can be twice as scary. Rossrs (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding being on the lookout for PR people posting unnecessary things, yes, and that is something that people do regularly and take issue with it when it is discovered. Having said that, your comments below about the number of sources being used in this article makes stronger assertions about this article and that possibility here. That is an unfounded claim and I referred you to other pages, such as Michael Jackson, where there are also a great numbers of references. When high profile events occur such as Ledger's or Jackson's deaths, a lot of content gets added, all of which is required to be adequately sourced and there is really no question about the reliability of the sources that have been added to this article. This article has been very stable since the Academy Awards concluded in the winter and nothing in the way of hyperbole has been added. It's fine to be wary and watch for such issues, but it's not a good idea to suggest strongly that this is occurring without support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Next to last? Well, by that deifnition "The Dark Knight" was his penultimate performance: his last performance would be the first half of Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.12.237 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently it is a word that bothers somebody, in case, you know, someone might have to look it up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

It is revealed in Vanity Fair [[1]] that Heath was actually married to Michelle Williams. KChamplin (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about them being married. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

==

Heath Ledger did not date Julia Stiles during and after "10 Things I Hate About You". It was Joseph Gordon Levitt she dated. If one listens carefully to the DVD commentary, one of the participants wonders aloud what "Joe" thought about "that kiss" (an outtake of Heath Leger planting a big kiss on Julia Stiles) and the others add that the situation had been awkward at the time as they didn't know whether they could publicly acknowledge the relationship between Stiles & Levitt; they added further that both actors went to Columbia and had dated for 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.143.45 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Zane

Why is there no mention of Lisa Zane? http://www.people.com/people/heath_ledger/biography

There is a small error on this article

Heath Ledger was the third actor to receive an award posthumously. The missing actor is Raul Julia from the movie Street Fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.100.16 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are probably several other actors who received awards posthumously, but this article says Ledger was the second person, after Peter Finch, to win an Academy Award for an acting role posthumously. Raúl Juliá was never nominated for, nor received, an Academy Award. He did receive a Saturn Award nomination for Street Fighter but did not win. Juliá did win three posthumous awards for his work in the television production of The Burning Season. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many sources

For an article that so many people are updating, it's pathetically difficult to read. It seems like every other sentence has three or four references next to it. I found this very distracting, and it interrupts the continuity. If your goal in contributing to Wikipedia is to have your article or book referenced, all I can say is I hope the administrators catch on to this and limit your access. If not, then please clean up the references you cite so that the article is a little more readable. Thanks. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks so very much for your bad faith assumptions. The thing is, if you ever bother to read any good or featured articles, especially those that cover a hugely high profile death and reaction, you're going to find a large number of references. Have a look at Michael Jackson. There is nothing whatsoever in these references that would lead you to claim that anyone is stacking references in or any other article with something a contributing editor has written. Do you actually believe that reporters for major newspapers spend their time sticking in references on Wikipedia to promote their work? If so, then either offer proof or don't make such claims. Bad faith. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Man, are you all over me or what? Yes, people do this on Wikipedia, especially when they are trying to promote a book. I'm not wasting my time "proving it." Why do we need to have six references for one statement? It does make it hard to read, and I don't see what the real benefit is. If it's a contested statement, then maybe, but even there I think three sources is enough. And yes, you've mentioned the "bad faith" thing about 20 times since my first post. I get it. Keep in mind that on the "bad faith" Wikipedia page it also says to "be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet. . . ." Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I'd note I made this post last night at around the same time as my other post but it was apparently overlooked. When you come on to a talk page and use wording as strong as "If your goal in contributing to Wikipedia is to have your article or book referenced, all I can say is I hope the administrators catch on to this and limit your access." That's a bit more than expressing the thought that such things happen and steps into asserting that something like that has occurred here. That's a strong statement beyond saying "Editors need to watch out for people who might have WP:COI issues". "If not, then please clean up the references you cite so that the article is a little more readable" seems to me to be implying that something WP:COI or improper was going on. The references cited are cleaned up and properly formatted and in an article where there is clearly a potential to violate WP:BLP, which has been at issue on this page especially after his death, the burden to be certain every point of fact is cited is tantamount and if more than one exists, then it only serves to better support the statements. Since you pointedly made these statements on this talk page, my comment about supporting your statements is in regard to this article. If you are saying that has occurred on this article, then either support it or don't make random statements about the potential of something happening as if it has. It's a serious accusation when it is made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"It's a serious accusation when it's made." That is exactly why I left it as a GENERAL statement. I'm not accusing anyone specifically. AND I'M NOT MAKING RANDOM STATEMENTS!! I'm making an observation of an article, posted on the TALK page. This is also the only page that newcomers to Wikipedia can participate on, as in the people not established enough to edit a locked page. Hence people that have no idea what the heck WP:COI means.
Also, did you really need to say that "the burden to be certain every point of fact is cited is tantamount and if more than one exists, then it only serves to better support the statements?" Sure, but to a point. Let's get real. The fact that Heath Ledger had completed half of his work in Dr. Parnassus does not need six references. When you have more than two up there, it's time to question whether it's worth distracting the reader to have [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] following the one easily established fact. That's my point. And I also think you've taken this out of context when you say the high quality articles always have a large number of references. I'm not saying they don't! I'm simply talking about the [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] so many references for the one sentence. The high quality articles I happen to be stumbling across may have a lot of sources, but they are kept much neater than this one by not going overboard with the "reference-per-statement" quotient. Maybe the Michael Jackson one is as well, I haven't looked at it yet. I'll do that and get back to you. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, well, well. I looked at the Michael Jackson page. You may want to do the same. For nearly all of the factual statements, there is but a mere [ref] for each one, with an occasionaly [ref] [ref] here and there. Proves my point exactly. Thanks for bringing it up! Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not actually going to spend much more time on this. My issue with your statements has to do with postings that mostly certain can be construed as claims that someone is stacking the references on this article to bolster something he or she has written, just by how they are worded. If you believe that's happened here, then please cite which ones those would be. And for the record, WP:COI is a clickable link to explain something - that's why they are clickable. New posters to the page aren't much interested in a discussion like this. I don't have time or the inclination to go look at the Michael Jackson page, I did so before I posted the link. Please don't start trying to set some sort of arbitrary limit on how many sources are used for a statement in an article. Nothing is out of context, you complained about how many sources are used and I responded about the issues that occurred at the time that Ledger died that led to multiple sourcing. However, I'm not interested in continuing anything that includes oneupmanship statements that start "Well, well, well." Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is challenging the statements you are making, and trying to get back to the original point of the posting. This article looks sloppy due to the number of references listed at certain points in it. Let's make it look nicer and more readable. The "well, well, well" comment was to point out that the specific page you cite as being high quality is an example of the specific improvement I am recommending. I'm sorry if I am not more tactful about it, but it is time to take this page up to the next level and do a little more editing. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"King Rat" music video

The video has now been released. Would somebody be so kind and update this article as I don't have the right to do so. Please note that Terry Gilliam did not animate the video. See the King Rat (song) article for sources. Please also update or better replace or delete footnote 165 as it also mentions Gilliam's involvement and other outdated info. All the relevant info has been included in the King Rat (song) article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.34.154 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can and will update the release of the video, but I'm hesitant to delete the reference that mentions Terry Gilliam based on the reference given on the song article, which only says, uncited, that his name wasn't mentioned in the credits. However, I will remove the mention of Gilliam's role in it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article intro

The current intro, consisting of 3 full length paragraphs, seems incredibly long. I'm on a 1280x800 screen with about 650 pixels in height of my browser window and I cannot see the NavBox without scrolling. I think it needs to be shortened to just include that he was an actor and what roles he was best known for. There is just too much information in the intro that is likely repeated below (I have not checked that, however). Thoughts? Jaj43123 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what browser you're using, or what your personal preferences on Wikipedia are, but those effect the display. The article is written per Wikipedia specifications, which include WP:LEAD. That guideline says "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible." So yes, information in the lead will most certainly be repeated in the main body of the article. It shouldn't contain anything that isn't in the article. The WP:LEAD#Length says "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful: ... > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs." By the article size, the lead is exactly within size specifications. If you'll look at any well detailed and referenced article, such as Scarlett Johansson or Michael Jackson, you'll find similar leads. An article lead that only says someone is an actor and what roles they're best known for is inadequate by quality standards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still do not like the length of it but if that is the standard here on Wikipedia (by looking at other articles, it does not seem to be the usual intro length, like I said), then so be it. Jaj43123 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It says in the opening that he also died from AIDS complications due to being homosexual with three sources following it. Not only do none of those sources mention AIDS, I'm pretty sure from his dating history that he was not homosexual (at least not openly). Just an FYI Hendrixfan24 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) No, it doesn't and I'd suggest you limit yourself to one registered account, and not try sliding in such comments with a new username. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

I am a Heath Ledger Fanatic and I have some suggestions that I would please like to be added to this page.

Please note that these are direct quotes from HEATH LEDGER: HOLLYWOOD'S DARK STAR by Brian J. Robb

'Sally Ledger had named her son after a diminutive of Heathcliff, the central character in Emily Bronte's tragic romantic novel Wuthering Heights. (It was her favourite book, and she'd previously named his older sister, Katherine, after the novel's Cathy)'

'Back in his youth, swimming was Heath's best-loved pastime as he learned to snorkel and surf in the nearby sea. Alternatively, he'd spend time with his father at the race track, learning all he could about fixing cars.'

'He was really good at field hockey as well. you get these predetermined ideas: I thought he was going to be on the Olympic field hockey team!' says Heath's Father Kim.

'Field hockey was the other activity that put the young Ledger head and shoulders above his fellow pupils - so much so that he became a small-town school hockey star and won several trophies. 'I don't like telling people I played field hockey,' he later admited. 'It's real big in Australia for guys, but in America I say I played and everybody goes, "Oh, you girl!"'

I have more I would please like to be added that I will post later.

Thanks Heaps

Heath Ledger Fanatic NovaSparks (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is quite long already and we really need to be cautious that might be added would be of encyclopedic value. I'm not quite sure how his childhood activities are relevant to the career that made him notable. It's very easy for things to become only trivia additions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit?

Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Actor of the Year
Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Actor of the Year

The above lines both appear in the Notes section of the Film table in his Filmography. I cannot see any difference between the two, I believe them to be duplicates.

If they are duplicates, one should probably be removed. If he was somehow awarded twice for the same thing, some sort of disambiguation caveat should be mentioned.

72.16.164.254 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodybag photo?

Is the picture of his body in the bodybag really neccessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdylan92 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thereis no picture of "his body in the bodybag". There is a picture of a bag on a gurney being removed to an awaiting ambulance. There is no reason it can't be included. It isn't gross, it isn't graphic and it does provide an image related to the death. Wikipedia doesn't censor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's his body in the bag on the gurney, waiting for the ambulance. I know it's not gross, or graphic. It just seems like a unneccessary addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Bobdylan92|Bobdylan92]] ([[User talk:Bobdylan92|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bobdylan92|contribs]])

No, I'm not an idiot, thanks for the question though. Don't be obtuse, we know it's a bodybag. There is no reason it can't be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the idiot remark, but how am i being obtuse? You were the one saying that there was no picture of his body in a bodybag, when there clearly is. The picture stays, fine, it really doesn't matter to me. It was just an observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.183.34 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My point was that we cannot see his body, which literally is what "the picture of his body in a bodybag" read to me. That it is within the realms of non-controversial journalism and is a type of photo frequently shown in news, was my point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The bodybag photo, as depressing as it may be, definatly does relate to that portion of the artical. Possibly even giving you a feeling of what it would have been like to have been there. What I would like to point out are the confusing times that are mentioned here. I realize that the times are not suppose to be exact but they seem to be way off. "At about 2:45 p.m."---"Ledger was found unconscious in his bed..." Then further down," At 3:26 p.m., "[fewer] than 15 minutes after Wolozin first saw him in bed..." Now perhaps I am being anal on this next one but in a situation like this the time that things happened are always important. "At 3:36 p.m., Ledger was pronounced dead and his body removed from the apartment." Now, this is the reason I put this into the bodybag section. In the photo, it is definatly night. It cannot be 3:36 p.m. It looks late at night but it has to be later than 5:36 p.m. I do believe. Maybe, "and his body removed from the apartment a couple of hours later."? Just to keep us folks who have a knack for seeing all the bloopers in movies and whatnot from thinking, as Dr. Henry Lee might say, "something wrong".Rickao40 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Wikipedia policy, it's inclusion is definitely of poor taste and rather unnecessary; it adds nothing to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.107 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim Ledger

I don't think Kim Ledger ever married his second partner Emma```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.0.46 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro confusing on drugs

The intro (or whatever the term is) says that Heath died due to "an accidental combination of prescription drugs" which seems to imply he was prescribed them. Yet later the article makes it clear he was not prescribed the drugs in question by his doctors. This should be clarified. --Alanhogan (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The term 'prescription drugs' does not at all imply that that they were prescribed to Ledger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.119.93 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't "pharmaceutical drugs" maybe be a better way of putting this? I agree that it could be confusing. Anyone disagree with changing this word? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do. That wording is redundant and doesn't reflect sources regarding his cause of death. The drugs found were prescription drugs and there is no evidence they were not prescribed to Ledger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro vandalized

third paragraph of intro reads: He died at the age of 28,[3][8] from an accidental "toxic combination of prescription drugs and Aids complications due his Homosexuality." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.61.69 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How interesting that you would note vandalism that was only on the page for a minute and was done 30 full minutes before you posted here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very long minute then, seeing as the vandalism is still there. Someone please sort it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dis maddie (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

This article is, in my opinion far too long for an actor of Heath Ledger's quality. Just because he died young and in one of his last roles he put in a great performance (as the joker) we should not forget that this guy was hardly James Dean and really has had a minor impact upon the film and entertainment industries. I suggest that this article be dramatically reduced and I suggest to those who seem to have an over-zealous drive to extend articles pertaining to hansom hollywood stars that they extend Christian Bale's page as he is a far greater actor and is on well on track (remember he is only in his mid-thirties) to becoming the greatest screen actor of all time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyaubreydevito (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please Wikipedia amend the entry for Heath. It states that he was the first actor to win an Oscar posthumously but this is a mistake. Peter Finch won Best Actor for the film Network (1976) posthumously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fast Eddie in HK (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not say that. It says "He was nominated and won awards for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight, including the 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 says the Australian Film Institute Award for Best Actor International. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}}

Heath Ledger's younger half-sister Ashleigh Bell, was born in September 1990, not in 1989. 202.124.89.225 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't transclude templates in the header! It makes a very confusing mess! As for her DOB, do you have a source for that? If you do, I'll happily make the edit for you. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Career - 1990s

"After sitting for early graduation exams at 16, Ledger left school to pursue an acting career.[15] With Trevor DiCarlo, his best friend since he was 3, Ledger drove across Australia from Perth to Sydney, returning to Perth to take a small role in Clowning Around (1992), ..."

He was born 1979, so how could he possibly leave Perth at the age of 16 and return in 1992? (--84.119.48.134 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

He did the part years before he left Perth, the show, like the two jobs he did after it, were shot in Perth. Then he went to Sidney and returned to Perth short thereafter before he packed his car and went back to Sydney.. to work. It's in one or two of the listed sources, I'd start with Willis. 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.76.126 (talk)

Edit request from 121.220.33.250, 12 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Heath also stared in the movie lords of dog town(2005) and was the head figure of the movie which was up there with two hands. 121.220.33.250 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Lords of Dogtown is listed in his filmography already. I'm not sure what you're requesting be changed. If there is a specific change, please make a new edit request and state exactly what part of the article should be changed, and how. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Body bag (1).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Body bag (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dark Knight Best Line Awards

Ledger was also nominated for two more Scream Awards, both for Best Line; "I'm gonna make this pencil disappear" and "Why so serious?"

Why aren't they added in the list of awards in the Dark Knight section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.204.30 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Award On "Lords Of Dogtown"

The Central Ohio Film Critics Association awarded Heath Ledger Actor Of The Year for his role in "Lords Of Dogtown". Please add that to the notes of the movie in the table. Here are the references:

120.144.42.170 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seperate article for his death?

I've noticed people like MJ get a seperate article for their death. So i think Heath's death may have enough info for a seperate article. Anyone else concur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.70.42 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Heath Ledger.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Heath Ledger.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

addition of Alex Breslau

Around 25th November 2011, "chef Alex Breslau" was added to the short list of people who discovered Heath's body on 22nd January 2008. I can find no justification for this addition as no reports of the time list such a person as being present, only the housekeeper, Teresa Solomon, and the masseuse, Diana Woltzin. If no supporting evidence is forthcoming I shall remove this reference. Josedley (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)josedley 14 Feb 2012

Delete extra cites

There is a lengthy quote ostensibly based on an interview he gave Empire magazine about his preparation for the performance as the Joker. It had three cites, which doesn't make sense - only the one for Empire should be included. If the quote is based on more than one interview, the introductory sentence needs to be changed; it it was cited by other sources after the interview was printed, we don't care.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises Coaster

On his filmography, it states he lent his voice to the Joker for The Dark Knight Rises coaster. I'm pretty sure he died before he would've been able to participate in the ride, but because of his star status, I doubt he would've participated anyway. Probably a simple mistake by a fan who went on the ride and thought the Joker sounded just like Ledger, but it could've easily been an impersonation. I don't simply want to erase it from his filmography because, of course, I don't know if he was part of the ride or not, I just doubt it. - Dpm12 - 6 September 2012, 8:02 PDT

I've removed it; I agree, it's unlikely it's actually him. It can be re-added if there's a reliable source for it. It's probably just clips from the movie (dunno, haven't gone on the ride), in which case it's still covered under film work, and wouldn't need to be addressed as a separate entry. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian-American?

Did Ledger have American citizenship? If so, then referring to him as "Australian-American" is appropriate, however if he didn't have American citizenship he should be referred to as Australian only. Starswept (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Starswept

He did not have US citizenship, hence my correction.Josedley (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't die of an Overdose

Why is he listed as dead of an accidental overdose? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say he died of accidental posioning? Two way time (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Death?

There seems to be no information about his death in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.76.105 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Can we change the "diazepam, alprazolam, and temazepam" under second paragraph of Autopsy and toxicology report into: "diazepam, temazepam, and alprazolam"? If, that is, there is no specific reason the current order is being used. The reason I request this is so that it is easier to compare to the list of drugs on the paragraph above, keeping them in the same order compared to the quote and that will help get the message (that multiple within the list are of the category) across a bit easier.

139.102.163.13 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: fix inaccurate wording "accidental intoxication"

The wording in the intro, "... from an accidental intoxication from prescription drugs...", is incorrect. As stated elsewhere in the article, the death was ruled an accident, but it was caused by abuse of controlled substances. The death, not the intoxication, was an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.122.37 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopsy: The Last Hours of Heath Ledger

unprescribed:

oxycodone, hydrocodone

prescribed:

diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

For his credit in A knigth's tale, shorten it to just "William Thatcher" as the "Ulrich von lichenstein" bit is unnecessary and he is not credited with both names on IMDB or the wiki page for A Knights Tale

174.114.225.144 (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Please change "posthusmously" to "posthumously" regarding the The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, because the latter is the correct spelling. 108.41.8.251 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Good catch! /wia🎄/tlk 04:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Heath Ledger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Heath Ledger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about adding a "Method and Style" section.

Thinking out loud. Like the headline mention, if possible, there should be a "method and style" section just like other good or featured articles have on actors and artists. This is, of course, dependent on fair and valid sources. With out any, there will be nothing. With, it can and will be something. I think "method and style", if possible, belongs to the "Legacy" section. Would that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforRight (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

People who has worked with the actor praised him for his creativity, discipline and professionality.


Replace with "People who has" with "People who have..." because it is gramattically correct.


Thanks 96.241.174.215 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistency in tense

So I can't edit this article for some reason. There's a problem with the tense in one of the paragraphs:

[quote]Although Gilliam temporarily suspended production on the latter film, he expressed determination to "salvage" it, perhaps using computer-generated imagery (CGI), and dedicated it to Ledger.[/quote]

The two highlighted verbs do not correspond for tense. I think it should be written as:

Although Gilliam temporarily suspended production of the latter film, he expressed determination to salvage it, perhaps using computer-generated imagery (CGI), and dedicate it to Ledger.

--98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

Can you please fix up the IMDb link in the external links section?

From 5132 to 0005132. Thanks. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2016

The last two edits by Garkinive are borderline vandalism, please revert them. Kolmilan (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

edit request

can you add that he faked his death and has been living as a lumberjack in oregon for 9 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.172.160 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

"with his ashes interred later in a family plot at Karrakatta Cemetery, next to two of his grandparents.[125][129][130] Later that night" 

this information is incorrect. While Heath was cremated at Fremantle Cemetery and his ashes were collected from there by his family. However they were not interred in the family grave at Karrakatta. Your source [130] references the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board summary of record information - where it states that the ashes were 'taken by administrator from Fremantle Cemetery' - this is the Boards term for collected. IF the ashes were interred in a grave at Karrakatta it would say 'FAMILY GRAVE Karrakatta Cemetery' as well as the grave location.

There is a memorial for Heath at Heathcote Reserve located on Duncraig Rd in Applecross WA 6153 - his ashes however are not placed there. What happened with Heath's ashes is unknown. 167.30.37.52 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  Not done unsourced ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

Hi there - the wikipedia page for Heath Ledger states that his ashes were placed with his grandparents at Karrakatta Cemetery. This is not the case. The link to the cemetery page clearly states that the ashes were collected by family and removed from Fremantle Cemetery. A public memorial was established for Heath in 2009. It is located at Point Heathcote Reserve in Applecross. Link here: http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/arts/display/90269-heath-ledger

The reason I mention it is that the cemetery receives countless calls and visits from people wanting to visit his memorial but there actually isn't one in the cemetery. 167.30.37.52 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The cemetery page makes no mention of his ashes. -- Dane talk 03:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Heath Ledger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

We are told that Ledger died of "prescription drugs". Then we are told that it is not known how he obtained two of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Chess

I'm not sure how much to say about his chess strength, but I'm tempted to make it a little longer, because the false claims of his chess strength keep coming up in the news. Here are a few references which I might incorporate. First. some of the (almost certainly) exaggerated claims:

Better sources:

  • He played junior chess in WA, blog of Joel Benjamin.
  • '"ridiculous and false claims, disproved multiple times, about the late Heath Ledger winning a State chess title and being close to Grandmaster strength." Tweet by Ian Rogers (chess player).
  • “He didn’t seem to be such a good chess player,” recalls Rivera, “but I’m not sure …”. Inside Heath Ledger's Sleepless Nights, People Magazine, Jan 23 2008.
  • A forum post, which obviously isn't a reliable source by WP standards but I suspect is true, says, "I have just heard from Norbert Muller who was the Main Man in Junior Chess for many years and he does remember Heath playing in a couple of U10/U12 divisions of the WA Junior but he is 99% confident that Heath did not win any prizes." Heath Ledger dead, chesschat.org
    • Here's a reliable source quoting the same person: As a kid, Ledger was a chess player. "He played younger groups ... and may have played in the state tournaments, even the state championship," Norbert Muller, a spokesman for the Perth Chess Club, said. But, he added, "I don't really remember him performing that well." Heath Ledger In Retrospect: '10 Things' You Didn't Know About The Actor, MTV.com, Jan 24 2008. ("State championship" almost certainly means state junior championship).

(updated) Adpete (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

He is an eighth generation descendant of Samuel Moss Solomon whose sons Emanuel and Vaiben were transported as convicts in 1818.They were part of the large number of Jewish convicts transported to Australia. Large numbers of the Solomon family followed as free settlers. Reference " The Descendants of Samuel Moss Solomon " by Jenny Cowen, publishes 2019 ISBN: 978-0-9945173-1-9

"The Descendants of Samuel Moss Solomon" by Jenny Cowen published 2019 ISBN: 978-0-9945713-1-9.The geneology of ledger's mother is beyond dispute.It is non controversial and beyond dispute.

GavinSilbert (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)GJC Silbert QC

I cannot find the book using the ISBN you provided. Also, can you please provide a quote from the book where Ledger is mentioned? Dr. K. 01:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is the book. It is a aelf-published book produced for a familiy reunion, hardly a wp:RS. --T*U (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Good find T*U. Thank you. At the Solomon and Associated Families Reunion in 2018 Jenny Cowen was instructed by those present to update and print in book form the pedigrees of the descendants of Samuel Moss Solomon and Abraham and Julia (nee Isaacs) Solomon . This doesn't sound too encouraging for the authenticity of the author, self-published as she is. This looks like a print request, not an authorship. Dr. K. 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Change link to Elliot Page's article?

Under the 'Directorial work' section, Elliot page is mentioned by his deadname, "[...] with Canadian actress Ellen Page proposed in the lead role". I think this should be updated to reflect Elliot's current name, but not sure how best to re-phrase the sentence in line with Wikipedia policy. 134.225.251.79 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#RfC:_updating_MOS:DEADNAME_for_how_to_credit_individuals_on_previously_released_works, so I'd leave it as it is currently written until we have some kind of consensus. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f Al Baker (2008-01-23). "Police Give New Details on Ledger Death". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-23. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ James Barron, "Heath Ledger, Actor, Is Found Dead at 28", The New York Times, January 23, 2008. Retrieved on February 6, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heath_Ledger/Archive_4&oldid=1142763163"