Talk:Heath Ledger

Archives
2004 - 2007 January 2008 February (A) February (B) February (C) February (D) February (E) February - April May - present

lynching rewrite needed

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

Seasick from reading it. Can someone intelligently rewrite this? I'd feel silly doing it as I am not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.2.107 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's mom

I recently learned that heath's mom was a race car driver. Does anyone know what type of racing she was into wheter it was single seater / open wheel racing or other types of racing? I think this may further enlighten the article regarding Heath's early life.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was his father. The name Kim can belong to a man or a woman. Katharineamy (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumors?

How is this part of the "biography" not "rumors?" (Yet it has been left in the article, whereas the more recent information has been deleted):

In September, 2007, Williams' father, Larry Williams, confirmed to Sydney's Daily Telegraph that Ledger and Williams had ended their relationship. Subsequently, Ledger was reportedly "seeing" or "dating" supermodels Helena Christensen and Gemma Ward and former child-star Mary-Kate Olsen.

Notes

--NYScholar (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling for this content to be removed? If not, let's close this section. Banjeboi 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote "Quote of the Day" - Support Votes needed

Support votes needed by Registered members of Wikiquote for Heath Ledger to reach Quote of the Day for 18 July 2008. This is the release date in the USA for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight (film). The quote was made just before his death as he reflected on how he would wish to be remembered when he did die. Support votes with a score of between 1 and 5 will help it to be considered for usage as Quote of the Day located here at Wikiquote: [[1]]

When I die, my money's not gonna come with me. My movies will live on for people to judge what I was as a person. I just want to stay curious. ~ Interview for London's Sunday Telegraph magazine, November 2007[2]

Boylo (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI the deadline is approaching so input from others on choosing a quote is welcome. Banjeboi

Votes still needed

Only a few more votes are needed for Heath's quote to appear on the frontpage of Wikiquote on the day of the release of The Dark Knight so get your vote in now before its too late.

Ranking system:

4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. 3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used. 2 : Good - some desire to see it used. 1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used. 0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

Boylo (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote of the Day

With support it made Wikiquote of the day for July 18, 2008 : Wikiquote of the Day Boylo (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! By the way that voting process was hard to understand. Banjeboi 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Last Days of Heath Ledger"

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

Article Hijacked by publicist?

"The Last Days of Heath Ledger"

What is this self-serving garbage?

A posthumous fictionalized account of "The Last Days of Heath Ledger," by Lisa Taddeo ("an associate editor at Golf Magazine and an aspiring fiction writer, [who] spent four days in restaurants and cafes and parks near where Mr. Ledger died,")[100] has raised some controversy prior to its print publication in the April 2008 issue of Esquire.[101] It covers Ledger's final four days, from January 19 through January 22, 2008, the day he died, whose entry is subtitled "The Final Curtain."[100] According to Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism at Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia, "The risk of a piece like 'The Last Days of Heath Ledger' is that the work winds up in a literary no-man’s land. The biggest problem I see is you are sacrificing the biggest strengths from each of the genres. You are losing the veracity of journalism, and you are losing the imaginative license of fiction. You run the risk of ending up with something that is neither true nor interesting."[101] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronstock (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't agree that this is "self-serving garbage"; I wrote the passage that you have removed from this article. I am not in any way Heath Ledger's or anyone else's "publicist", and the reason that I included it is because it was a pertinent controversy in the media that is relevant to the subject of the article. The statements are supported by the sources, which are reliable, third-party publications, and it is about a publication in Esquire, a notable third-party publication. I don't see any reason that information about this published "fictionalized account" is not "appropriate for this article"; its inclusion is consistent with both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. Please cite some relevant WP:POL that justifies excluding this information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Text

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

Discussion

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

Propose relocating award nominations out of first sentence

Hi, I propose that we relocate the long list of award nominations out of the first sentence. Rather than starting off with "Heath Ledger is an XXX-, YYY-, ZZZ-, and QQQ-nominated actor", I argue it would read better to start off just saying "Heath Ledger is an Australian actor...", and then weave in the nominations throughout the lede. Thus, we would hear "In 1999, he was nominated for the XXX and YYY awards for his lead role in FILM NAME...", and later in the lede we would read that "In 2004, he was nominated for the ZZZ and QQQ awards for his supporting role in FILM NAME2". I argue that starting off with awards or nominations is a style that is more associated with press releases or promotional blurbs than with typical encyclopedia writing style.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Quite sensible. His nominations could be written just as proposed with a chronological emphasis. Banjeboi 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The first sentence is extremely awkward and peculiar, as it stresses nominations when he actually won some awards; "award-winning" (with subseq. dev.) or "celebrated" (by both some awards and multiple nominations for awards) is briefer and more accurate. The awards are already listed in the infobox and the nominations, along with the awards, are already listed in the filmography section. If one scrolls way back to earlier editing history, one can find versions of the first sentence without that awkward feature. Offline after these comments. --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please correct typographical error

{{editprotected}}

There is an extra space (line) between the sections "Memorial tributes" and "Controversy over will" which has needed deletion since this article was fully protected. Could an administrator remove it? Thank you for this assistance. --NYScholar (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: titles of films are not italicized until they are "published"; completed and released and/or screened publicly; some of the titles in the article need to have quotation marks around them, not italics; The Dark Knight has already been screened (is, in effect, published; its release date is mid-July); Gilliam's film, however, is not expected to be released until 2009; it is still a work in preparation and thus "/" are used for its title. Please make such corrections in the lead and throughout the article's text and, if applicable, the filmography, if possible. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there somewhere in the MoS that says this? I've not come across this request before (and I don't edit a lot of film/actor articles). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm logging out for an extended period of time, but I just saw this; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type refers to published works; one needs to consult Style guides for how to handle unpublished works; it is common in style guides pertaining to language, literature, and the media (including film/cinema) not to italicize unpublished works in the list; works in preparation (books, long works, films, etc.) are generally placed within quotation marks until after publication, indicating that they are works in preparation/in progress/in production. Unreleased films are in that category, except when already screened (hence finished, completed, published, public works). Newspapers like The New York Times have their own style manuals; in the case of the Times, it generally uses quotation marks for films and not italics (even when they are released already). Wikipedia could be clearer on this point; in all the articles on film and film professionals that I have worked on (a lot), most editors are aware enough to place titles of unreleased films/unfinished films within quotation marks; due to this oversight in Wikipedia, however (if it is an oversight; hard to tell), there are contradictory practices in punctuating titles. I always use quotation marks around unpublished works that, when published, otherwise would be rendered with italics (previously, underlined). Italics generally mean "published" or made public. Another example: Titles of Web sites are italicized when put on the Web; if just "under construction" and not yet uploaded to the Web, their titles would be within quotation marks. For more information, see, e.g., The MLA Style Manual, which has information pertaining to films and other media. --NYScholar (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NYScholar, I had read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type as well trying to find an answer for you (and forgot to come back here to post, glad I saw it pop back onto my watchlist :-). Wikipedia definitely needs to be clearer, that bit of MoS doesn't explicitly say "this is for published works", or "this isn't for unpublished works", it just says "this is for films, etc..." I also clicked on several prolific actors' pages (under the assumption that they are highly watched/edited) and the majority in my random sample had the same formatting (italics) for films "yet to be released", as far away as 2011 in some cases. I will go ahead and make the change as you've requested at this point, you make a strong case, but I would not be surprised to see it changed back/requested to be changed back by someone else. Enjoy your break, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, because it's in the lead, I'm goinig to leave it without more compelling evidence. I just clicked on 15 more random "actor/actress" pages, of similar length, including 3 FA articles, and they all are using italics for future films. It may be wrong, but it's prolifically used right now on Wikipeda, and without a guideline somewhere that explicitly states that it's wrong (our guideline is not clear, we agree on that), I don't want to abuse my admin editing privileges. Hope you understand, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand (given previous exp. w/ such discrepancies between conventional bibliographical style formats and Wikipedia's) that you will follow what the WP:MOS section(s) say (often there are even contradictions in various parts of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). In every article I've worked on over the years, I've followed scholarly conventions of "proper" punctuation of literary and media works, however. (My userboxes on my user page explain that when I encounter discrepancies in Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, I follow standard scholarly practice.) Leaving as italics now is okay w/ me; but I really do wonder what Wikipedia's editors who worked on the MOS do intend for punctuating titles of unpublished/works in preparation/unreleased films. Thanks for your attention. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about a lot of the things in the MoS, some of it rather bizarre...but that's a whole 'nuther talkpage. I appreciate your understanding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

References clean-up needed

If looking for something to do ... some of the references need work. There is extensive notes within a few that don't seem needed and at least a few other of the links are not to the actual online article but to the publication's main page instead. When possible we should link directly to an article. Banjeboi 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

"Secret Love Child"

Any objections to me deleting the information about Heath Ledger having a "Secret Love Child" who will split his inheritance? Seems like a ridiculous tabloid story to me that doesn't deserve to be mentioned. I'll be deleting it soon if no one objects. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I object. It didn't get in there unless it was sourced and the sources actually do support what's written. With Ledger's worldwide film and notoriety we should be vigilant and accurate. If it turns out this story is false in some way we should sort it out. Banjeboi 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Wasn't he {going to be} nominated for an Oscar or something based on his performance as the Joker? I seem to remember something being said about it but I honestly don't remember the facts :\ I think if it's true, it's worth mentioning in the article. [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball so we can wait until the Oscars are announced or possibly if a reliable source declares his performance makes him amongst the strongest Oscar contenders. I would keep an eye on Dark Knight (film)#Reception as that's where the best information, IMHO, will be dug up and redigested. I see there is already some talk about Ledger being considered for the first-posthumous award since 1976 so that might help. Banjeboi 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's death and the additive drug toxicities responsible

With the debut of The Dark Knight there will be renewed attention on Heath, his amazing talent, and of course the cause of his death. It's so very important that people learn that drugs don't have to interact to cause harm and loss of life. But this tragic accident can help save the 4,000 people who die each week due to adverse drug effects. We never hear about most of them, only the celebrities in the public eye, like Heath. In the section on Heath Ledger's death we would like to post a medical informatics graphic, with corresponding text, that reveals the causative factors underlying Heath's tragic death from the additive toxicities of the medications he was on. Our medical informatics software (www.pharmasurveyor.com) generated this graphic from data licensed from First Data Bank, used by over half of American hospitals in their clinical systems and pharmacies. Also, the Stanford University Professor of Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology, Dr. Terrence Blaschke, who was interviewed by Newsweek following Heath's death, is a member of PharmaSURVEYOR's medical advisory board. The medical informatics graphic we have in mind can be seen at www.heathledgerdrugs.com .

We'd like some feedback on this idea and suggestions of how to do it in accordance with written and unwritten Wikipedia policy and conventions. ErickVonS (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this article has to stay focused just on Ledger and what you're referring to may be more suitable to a related article that focuses on drug interaction using Ledger as a high-profile example. You may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk as well as they field questions like this all the time. Banjeboi 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Banjeboi. I see that there are two related articles to adverse drug reactions (Adverse_drug_reaction and Adverse_effect_(medicine)). I will look into adding our content there and then return here to provide a link back to those sections. Btw, are you the main editor of the Heath Ledger article? ErickVonS (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And no, I'm not the main editor here - I think NYScholar has done the most work, but anyone can edit and certainly anyone can comment here in the talk pages. Banjeboi 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stressing the comment above: "anyone can edit and certainly anyone can comment here in the talk pages" – as long as they follow the policies and guidelines in the top headings and at WP:POL, one of which is to focus in article talk pages on discussing editing the article, not on discussing the subject of the article (Heath Ledger). I am offline most of the time now, so please do not assume that I am still the "main editor" of this article; I am aware of WP:OWN and I know that I do not "own" this article. Occasionally, when I am online otherwise, I check it out of concern for accuracy of citations and proper documentation of statements (due to past vandalism and other problems), but I do not keep it on my "watch list".

In the winter of 2008, when the media reports of the heightened interest in abuse of prescription drugs as a result of Ledger's death were first coming out, there was a reliably-documented statement in this article about that, but some user or users removed it. One would have to go back to around February 2008 to examine the editing history for such past source(s) included to support the development those users later removed. (I will be offline after these comments (above and below). --NYScholar (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous films

Ledger's death affected the marketing campaign for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight[10][5] and also both the production and marketing of Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and both directors intend their films to celebrate and pay tribute to Ledger's work in them.[10][8][9][57] Although Gilliam temporarily suspended production on the latter film,[9] he expressed determination to "salvage" it, perhaps using computer-generated imagery (CGI), and plans to dedicate it to the memory of Heath Ledger.[116][82] In February 2008 actors Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell signed on to take over Ledger's role, becoming multiple incarnations of his character, Tony, transformed in the "magical" world of the film, in part as a "tribute" to Ledger.[117][118][119][115]

Should the "tribute" be changed to just plain tribute? As it stands it seems sceptical/ironic. Should Wikipedia pass judgement over the sincerity of the named actors? --Reidar Chr. L. Guttormsen (couldnt remember my username) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.48.48 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, and have removed the quotation marks in the last sentence. I can see why they're there (to emphasise that the words are taken from direct quotes) but I agree that it doesn't look quite right. Presumably someone was cautious about violating WP:NPOV, but I don't think there's anything non-neutral about calling something a tribute if that's exactly what it is. Terraxos (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

These are direct quotations; the phrases come from the source cited in the first note citation: "tribute" is from the title of the source and "magical" is from the text of the source; these are not so-called scare quotes; please examine the source before removing direct quotations from it. that it doesn't "look quite right" is not a reason to remove properly-used quotation marks from a source that is being used to document a statement. --NYScholar (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact phrase from the source cited is "memorial tribute"; I added memorial before tribute. The quotations are properly punctuated now. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotation marks were not being used to "emphasize" anything; they are direct quotations from the source as per WP:MOS. Please see the difference between direct quotation punctuation and so-called scare quotes, which these are not. --NYScholar (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Today I thought of another way to present these quotations, extending one so that the confusion of those posting above might be eliminated entirely. Hope this suffices. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors - Depression/Drug Use

Several (tabloid) sources claimed Heath was suffering from Depressions and/or some drug abuse, especially after the end of his relationship to Michelle. Several interviewers I have read about confirm that he looked very worn out in interviews in September 2007. Was this all just speculation or should some of it get included here? Ferrante Albrizzi (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The same magazines also swear that Bat boy is real, Oprah is married to the loch ness monster, and JFK was a Republican. Got any real sources? Otherwise, I surmise it will stay out of the article. Keeper ǀ 76 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of infobox?

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

I don't know if the E! True Hollywood Story of Heath Ledger counts, since its noted that he did have a relationship with HG, but I don't know if she was a "domestic partner". I found this and People magazine is really a reliable source, but not sure if it counts much. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Insert the names of the person's long-term domestic partner(s), meaning a partner(s) in a committed romantic relationship where the couple live(d) together, whether legally recognized as domestic partners or not. Use the format:

FirstName Surname (Year–Year)

If still together, use "present" in place of the end year. Separate multiple entries with a line break (<br />).

Thanks. Offline again after this response to comments above. --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the Youngest???

Heath Ledger was the youngest person ever nominated for a best lead actor Oscar at the time he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. Although, he most likely weren't (I feel he should but that's just personally opinion), if he were to be nominated for his role of the Joker in The Dark Knight, I believe he'd be the youngest to win if that were to happen. But I'm not sure on that part. But if he does somehow get nominated for the Joker (which was the best acting performance so far this year) would he be nominated as a lead actor or supporting actor? The movie is the Dark Knight and Christian Bale played Batman, the main character, who is referred to as the Dark Knight. But I think they may be pretty close in screen time? Who knows, let's wait and see if he gets the nomination first. But anyway, Heath was the youngest nominated for lead actor Oscar.