Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

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)]