Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:08, 24 February 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Television Mid‑importance Heath Ledger is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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

Article suggestion

I would expand the movies discussion as that is what he's most known for. Each of the movies before Brokeback Mountain can point out what character, anything notable and what, if any awards. Benjiboi 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify I would expand on notable movie roles only not all of them and in doing so help illuminate how he developed as an actor. Benjiboi 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The wake

Is it really necessary to quote corny journalism as 'fact'? Here's a less emotive report, if it must be included at all. It was a wake, on Cottesloe beach, in warm weather - it was bound to end up in the water. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If anything, that source is more "emotive" and it corroborates the source already cited: its lead reads: "After a tragic, tear-stained day of reflection and regret, Heath Ledger's wake turned into the sort of party he would have loved." Both sources are very similar in tone. --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect, only less emotive. There's no mention of "washing away pain" or whatever the phrase was. "A party he would have loved" is a huge difference. If you don't want to remove the trite "washing away" reference, I'm happy to do so. If you insist on including the wake in the article, a statement that it took place is surely enough. I'd much rather plain facts than some journo's squirm-inducing embellishments. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV on it, not mine. I see no "less" emotiveness (emotion) in "tragic, tear-stained day of ... regret" than the other. They are very similar and from very similar sources, news items posted on the web from a site cited over and over again throughout this article. Perhaps you need to reconsider the source of your objections: I don't think it's the article(s). --NYScholar (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The source of my objections? For pity's sake! But if you are going to get personal with me, have you any idea how totally frustrating it is dealing with your objections? Over and over and over? And over. Maybe it's time you took a break. As for article statements, I'll go for fact over frilly, every time. There was a wake. Enough. •Florrie•leave a note• 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I see nothing "personal" in my comment to you above, I see no "frilly" characteristic in these articles. It is a fact that people have "emotions" and reporting on their expression of them is no less "factual" than reporting on "unemotional" reactions. The policy in Misplaced Pages is WP:V not "fact"; I suggest that you compare the policies and guidelines pertaining to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and WP:V as well as the related comments pertaining to living persons (all of whom were on that beach, some of whom are mentioned by name in this article on HL) as it pertains to WP:BLP#Well known public figures; I see no problem in citing this report which extends the section beyond the memorial service and creation to what came later as part of the Ledger "Memorial tributes"; I also think that the material is reliably sourced and verifiable (corroborated by 2 third-party published sources, with authors' names), and that both articles are sources for the statement. If your objection is to the "facts" that are being reported in the article that is not to say that those facts are not facts. They may not be facts that you want to read about, but perhaps others do. I found the reports interesting.

Also, Ledger's ashes are being interred in the family plot (mentioned earlier--the other cemetery deleted ) next to the graves of his grandparents. I haven't time now to add the source, but it is in Google "News" for Heath Ledger. --NYScholar (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the earlier reports weren't wrong (and going on your comment below, truth doesn't matter anyway, right?) There are Ledger grandparents in various forms at Karrakatta. Memorial rose garden etc. I've not yet seen any report that says Heath's ashes will be spread/buried in part or in full at Fremantle. The ashes may not be left at either cemetery, they may be spread elsewhere and a memorial placed at Karrakatta (or Freo). Misplaced Pages isn't a news service and it isn't a crystal ball, so we'll have to wait for confirmation (if that ever happens). •Florrie•leave a note• 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "fact" you intend "objectivity", "objectivity" is also not Misplaced Pages core policy; it is "verifiability" and "neutral point of view": "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Please see links in WP:POL. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the bit about his funeral. It seemed to imply that two of Ledger's grandparents are buried in the family plot at Fremantle Cemetery when in fact the plot in question is at Karrakatta. But we don't know they've actually done anything at Karrakatta, so it's a bit speculative. - Mark 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the actual sources cited. The source that I quoted states Fremantle Cemetery is whre those particular two grandparents have ashes buried (there are more than one set of grandparents); earlier sources specified a family plot with two grandparents already interred there (no mention of ashes) at Karrakatta; the sources seem contradictory; we can't depend on original research; what we state has to be supported by the sources. Since the sources don't agree at this time, we might need either to make that clear, or to omit the statement; "verifiabiility" and "not truth" is Misplaced Pages core policy as stated above. The source cited is quoted accurately. --NYScholar (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The source coded as "swim1" in ref name= ("Entertainment:Top Stories: Star Swim at Heath Ledger's Funeral: Ledger wake Held in Perth" ) by 2 authors named Michelle Cazzulino and Stephen Corby" mentions only Freemantle Cemetery by name prior to the sentence:

Ledger's ashes will be interred in a family plot at the cemetery, next to those of two of his grandparents.

"the cemetery" in that sentence in this particular article refers back to ref. in previous paragraph (at 3 lines up) to "Fremantle Cemetery" in "Following the service, 10 family members were given a poliice escort to Fremantle Cemetery for the cremation."

Now that report may be inaccurate; but it is a third-party published report from a reliable source, and we don't have anything other than earlier reports of grandparents in a family plot in Karrakatta Cemetery to contradict it (yet). There may be more than one family plot; more than one cemetery; more than two grandparents buried, though all that speculation is unlikely. If and when we have access to updated information we can post it; right now, this is what we have. Again, one can simply delete the ref. to burial at this point. (See current event template, partly incorporated in the recent death template.) When reliable verifiable sources for current-event information changes, updates can be made. --NYScholar (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply deleted the added direct ref. to the place (name of cemetery) of burial; since that appears to be in dispute given the contradictions in sources cited in the article. (The original ellipsis that I had supplied are for that part of the sentence in the source: "at the cemetery" (referring in that source back to Fremantle Cemetery). --NYScholar (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this link is of use - it says he was cremated at Fremantle Cemetery and is from the cemetery's own records. If you compare with this, it would seem he has not been interred in a plot at this stage. Orderinchaos 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Children parameter

Every parameter on the template has an explanation (see Template:Infobox actor). That "Children" parameter is meant for children that are notable on their own right and not because of who their parents are. The parameter is not made for a number ("one daughter" with...). There are numerous examples, like Angelina Jolie, her children are far more notable than Matilda Ledger, and yet, because they don't meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria, they are not mentioned on her infobox (see also Brad Pitt). Another example would be Jon Voight, he has two notable children, therefore it's ok to mention them in the infobox. I really don't see why i'm being reverted, just read the description and check out other big actors articles.--Yamanbaiia 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those things I guess. I was just checking Arnold Schwarzenneger's infobox and the Governor's infobox apparently doesn't have this restriction. I don't quite understand the arcane rule for the actor infobox that states that children have to be notable. I know this is not the place to discuss it but what if an actor had notable and non-notable children? Including the notable children only would be misleading. And why doesn't the infobox designer do us all a favour and put notable children in the field instead of just children, illogical as it may be, at least it would guide the infobox editor without the hapless guy having to read the manual for every entry they may wish to modify. Anyway this being one of these things please do what you may. I have no clue why we wouldn't want to account for an actor's famous children and not the not so famous, not to mention the different treatment for the governor's infobox, but so be it. Dr.K. (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way I commend you for your flawless etiquette. Dr.K. (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, Template:Infobox Musical artist doesn't mention children at all. I think this is because infoboxes are meant to consistently summarize these artists lives, and a list of names (like in the case of Justin Chambers) is not really useful. Thanks for the compliment by the way (*hug!*) --Yamanbaiia 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thank you for all your effort and your clarification. The compliment was well deserved. And (for the first time ever) return hug. Take care. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Nearly every biographical and news source cited in this article stresses the surviving two-year-old child of the late Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams (the identity of her mother also related to her notability). This is the infobox of a recently-deceased actor. The reverting of the information does not acknowledge the notability of the child as rendered by the many, many third-party published sources citing her as a survivor of the late subject, including all the obituaries cited and citable. As time goes on, as has been pointed out in previous discussion, one expects that the child will still be notable due to continuing interest in her future welfare and life as a result of the fact that her father died so young, when she was only two. (That is, she will continue to be to some degree in "the public eye"). There are references to her in the public statements made by Ledger's immediate family members (e.g., his father) and by Williams, all cited in the sources noted in this article: the quotations were deleted but they appear in the sources when accessed.
• (ec) The examples (both neg. and pos.) given above are different due to the unusual circumstances of Ledger's premature accidental death and the frequent mention of the child in almost every article about him since he had her and since he died. I think that a little leaway in this instance of the infobox for this now dead actor makes greater sense than omitting the information that he had a daughter (with Williams), since she comes up so frequently in the sources cited in the article and it is helpful for readers of the lead and infobox to see that right at the start of the article.
• (ec) Sometimes common sense needs to prevail in deciding what and who are "notable" enough for mention in an infobox. To me the child seems notable for more reasons than that Ledger was her father; she is notable also because Michelle Williams is her mother, and because her father died when she was very young, rendering her a frequent subject in sources; those aspects of her notability are the subject of numerous reliable third-party sources cited in this article (and many more that would be redundant to cite), including the public statements issued by various parties after the subject's death. For similar infoboxes that do list children and their number (and the other parent if there is more than one spouse or partner listed), see Template:Infobox writer. Moreover, in addition to being an "actor" by profession, Ledger had other real-life roles when he was still a living person, and, to him, "father" was notable enough to mention in his published interviews during Williams' pregnancy and after the birth of Matilda Rose Ledger, who is mentioned by name (Matilda, Matilda Rose) frequently in such sources and in those published after his death.
• (ec) With regard to WP:BLP (see template tag at top)--a possible rationale for the diff. between children included in infoboxes of other living persons--writers, politicians, other public figures: In my view, it does no harm to list her existence as "daughter (with Williams)" in the infobox or throughout the article (current version): there is no violation of WP:BLP due to the use of reliable third-party published sources documenting her (current and likely future) notability. It would seem that a rationale for not including the names of all the (living) children of all actors is a presumed potential violation of WP:BLP; for this subject (Heath Ledger) and this daughter, I do not see any violation of WP:BLP, since she is mentioned (by name as well as by relationship) throughout the article already as well. If she is notable enough to mention in the article, she is notable enough to list in the infobox (in my view). --NYScholar (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I was replying to the previous thread and as I was submitting the edit I got hit with this avalanche of information. Good points though. Dr.K. (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not the reason why non notable names are not added, but because infoboxes are meant to be a summary of notable information regarding the person. Why is there not a height or weight parameter? because this information is not that relevant to the subject's own notability.

You say that "..third-party published sources documenting her (current and likely future) notability.." what makes you so sure that she will be notable for something else than being Williams and Ledger's daughter? Being mentioned on the press does not make her notable, neither does the fact that both her parents are famous actors, Maddox Jolie-Pitt would be about 150,000 times more notable than "Matilda Ledger" if we were basing notability on a google search or magazine's covers. The fact that Ledger has died is irrelevant to Matilda's notability.

Common sense should indeed be used, but not when the template's description is so clear and when adding a number or a non notable name would only make Misplaced Pages a bit less uniform.--Yamanbaiia 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly in the "don't mention her by name" camp here. No-one is arguing that her name isn't verifiable or that she hasn't been widely named in the tabloid media, but I do believe that minors who are non-notable in their own right deserve to have some privacy and protection. WP in not a tabloid newspaper and we shouldn't use standards there (which effectively is just "newsworthiness") as justification for our own standards. Per also Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm. On the weekend there was a story about a fake death-threat against one of the Pitt-Jolie children. I would hate that we contribute in anyway in exposing another innocent for no good reason. As for speculation about future notability, that is crystal ballery and poor justification for the here and now. —Moondyne 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Her name is not currently in the infobox; previously, after the name was deleted earlier, I added "children" parameter: "one daughter (with Williams)"; that was more recently deleted and the section regarded this matter posted here by another user. Her name was mentioned explicitly in the article long before I began editing it (probably prior to Ledger's death, when WP:BLP strictly applied. Her name is used in public statements by Ledger's father and by Williams, which are cited in the sources for this article, and the name is given over and over in source citations used in the article, including by her late father in his interviews (citable and cited sources).

To imply that this Misplaced Pages article might "contribute in anyway in exposing another innocent for no good reason" by virtue of the mentioning of her name already in the many sources cited in the article is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a core policy in editing articles in Misplaced Pages, as is WP:V#Sources: verifiability. There are repeated references to the name of the daughter (some quoting Ledger) in the article. This section applies only to including the parameter of "children" in the infobox (scroll up); the same parameter already exists in infoboxes of many celebrated people ("celebrities", public figures, in their Misplaced Pages articles. The article is not a "news" article; it is a biographical article about a recently-deceased celebrity actor, and it is common for the existence and the names of children to be in such biographical articles. See other articles: e.g., John Lennon, whose infobox is a musician box and longer than HL's and does not include his children's names, at least one of whom is an already-notable musician in his own right. It may be because there is so much else in the John Lennon infobox that such information about (notable) children is omitted from it (I haven't time to examine that article further to read its talk page) and also bec. "children" may not be a parameter used in musicians' inboxes (I don't know, I haven't time to check), though it is definitely a parameter used in writers' infoboxes Template: Infobox writer (as mentioned above), and many musicians and actors are also writers; John Lennon was a noted writer of lyrics and also an actor in films, and Heath Ledger was also involved in producing music videos and short films, though I don't know what his involvement was in the "writing" or composition of them (if any). Perhaps others want to look into finding sources that are citable for adding such matters. --NYScholar (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I acknowledge that her name is no longer in the infobox. I am suggesting that she sholdn't be named in the body also. I know that I'm likely to be in the minority here, but thats just my opinion.

NYS: Please, please, please, try to shorten your posts and keep to the point. I suspect no-one is bothered to read every word you bombard us with. You've been asked to do this numerous times before by numerous other people. Is it so difficult? —Moondyne 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what you are trying to say here NYScholar. It's simple really, the function of the "children parameter" on the Template:Infobox actor is to list notable children, not quantity (one with...) and not non-notable. Are you saying that Ledger's child is notable because of Ledger's recent death and extensive coverage?--Yamanbaiia 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slanted toward cause of death

Considering he was only 28 when he died and it being such a mysterious death I think its noteworthy to have extra attention toward it. Anytime someone young dies it is a big, big story. So I think its more relevant to have more attention placed toward it. Maybe in a few years someone can scale things back. -Airtuna08 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's no shortage of info about his death at this time, no worries. Benjiboi 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo credit

Please leave the photo credit to Howie_Berlin. According to the e-mail that I received from Mr. Berlin giving Misplaced Pages the rights to use the photo, he wants to be attributed for his work. This e-mail is in the OTRS queue as well. Thanks. miranda 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems odd at best but if the good folks at OTRS do indeed support such a practice then please amend the photo file page to explicitly state that and then also add hidden text for the next editors who wonder why we're making this exception. Benjiboi 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put this note. Please do not revert me. miranda 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Flickr page and the OTRS ticket, it seems to be a standard CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. The credit is given on the image description page as is standard procedure for licenses that require attribution (almost all of them), I see nothing that says we have to give credit in the article. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you wish. I don't care anymore. miranda 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of rude to remove the name if Miranda told the releaser that he would be mentioned under the picture. This Berlin guy released the picture less than a week before Ledger's death in total good faith, couldn't we ignore all rules and leave the name?--Yamanbaiia 10:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rude perhaps but less problematic for establishing precedents for whose photo's are attributed. Again, if OTRS clears such a practice it should be noted as such on the image file so we can note here in the hidden text as the issue will arise again. Benjiboi 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it can also establish a precedent for Miranda (and all those like her that contact users on Flickr) of not keeping up to her word.--Yamanbaiia 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing conflicting stories here. Miranda is saying "According to the e-mail that I received from Mr. Berlin giving Misplaced Pages the rights to use the photo, he wants to be attributed for his work." which suggests that that was his terms of attribution. If that were true, then we would need the credit in the caption. But Yamanbaiia is saying that Miranda told the owner that he would be attributed in the article. The email sent to OTRS doesn't include Miranda's original contact with the owner, but it also doesn't include anything by the owner saying he wants to be attributed in the article. Which is it? Mr.Z-man 19:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but if someone releases a picture under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, isn't that it? Adding more restrictions after the release simply won't fly. Does the creative commons license say that the author must be credited in the actual article or on the actual picture? If the license does not specify that the pic creator must be credited in the article, the case is closed. No subsequent communication by email or otherwise can modify the Commons license after the fact. That would be counterproductive and confusing. Dr.K. (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean can you imagine an addendum to these licenses whereby you get a clause: "GFDL or Creative Commons are in effect except as modified by the owner as per special email request"? How could you possibly implement such a thing? What if everyone else wanted to strike the same or better deals? It simply won't work. Dr.K. (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if Miranda told this guy "your name will appear under the picture", the name should appear under the picture. If this wasn't promised then there's no problem and he shouldn't be credited on the article, since like you all pointed out, he released the picture, etc.

Ps: I've seen this happen before, see Colin Firth.--Yamanbaiia 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The pic you quoted already has problems. Its license may not be compatible with Commons use. The additional deal may make its status even more doubtful. I agree that if Miranda promised this person something it would be nice to keep the promise. But the question still remains if such promise could or should be made and under what conditions and for what purpose. It also raises the question of users' authority to negotiate such deals. The facts of the negotiation are not clear therefore I don't have a clear picture. Dr.K. (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree here. Free is free with no strings. I'm dealing with image drama on another article and the consensus seems to be that no image is better than images with issues as we have a global audience and free images are preferred and articles are less fab but fine without images. Also we should be quite clear that is someone gives commons an image the whole world can use it for whatever without restriction; otherwise they could be directed to load it on wikipedia only. I also think we should be getting the owner of an image to do the actual uploading so issues such as this are mitigated and we might even encourage them to load other images as well. Benjiboi 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GFDL and Creative Commons etc. are sufficient in most cases. If we start attaching strings on them, the strings (conditions of use) should be clear otherwise these licenses will quickly cease to be as free as we think they are. Plus author acknowledgement should be made clear as where it is expected to appear. I thought it normally appears on the picture page. Now the possibility arises it can appear in article space. Before long article space might look like a commercial site. I can imagine corporate sponsors uploading GFDL licensed pics at Commons so that their corporate name can appear in the article. This for sure needs furher investigation. Dr.K. (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing is complex enough without further non-standard licensing clauses being appended. The {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license allows for attribution and stating that on the image page is generally sufficient. —Moondyne click here! 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) Precisely. Not to mention complications arising from clauses attached through non-transparent means such as private communication. Dr.K. (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). - if they actually do specify terms for attribution, we have to follow them to use the picture, hence the issue. However, the email to OTRS basically just says "I changed the license on the Flickr page," nothing about special terms. Mr.Z-man 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the attribution done on the image page or on the article page? Dr.K. (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Our convention is to do it on the image page, but if the owner said to put the attribution in the article, we would have to do so. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I always thought that attribution was just that, but now I realize that the location of the attribution is a separate issue. This raises some questions regarding editors' names appearing in article space. If, for instance, a Misplaced Pages editor specifies similar terms then editor names might start appearing in mainspace. If it can be allowed for external contributors I don't see why this would not be allowed for Wikipedians as well. Dr.K. (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about opening this can of worms. First, the license says CC-BY-SA, he will be attributed according to the pic. page according to the arguments above and not by my suggestion. Second, I am not getting or searching for any more freely licensed photos for this project anymore. Sorry. :-) miranda 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Australian television articles
• Mid-importance Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists