Talk:Roger Ebert/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cannot eat or drink

Ebert mentioned on his web site recently that as well as losing the ability to speak, he also can no longer eat or drink. He talks about this here: [1]. I was going to add it into the article, but I see it has been semi-protected since last spring. Would someone else add it, please? --64.231.232.224 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

suggested change to semiprotected text ... see between >>> <<<

Condition as of 2010 As of February 2010, Ebert has a full-time, live-in nurse attend to him when needed. Although doctors have asked him to allow them >>>to<<< make one more attempt to restore his voice, --StDonohue (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Although doctors have asked him to allow them make one more attempt to restore his voice," to "Although doctors have asked him to allow them to make one more attempt to restore his voice," or change to "Although doctors have asked him to let them make one more attempt to restore his voice," --StDonohue (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to already have been done. Intelligentsium 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add

• Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2006 (November, 2005) ISBN 0740755382

By Roger Ebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Rodriguez (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states that Barack Obama was a senator in 2004:

During a 2004 visit to The Howard Stern Show, Ebert predicted that the >>>then-junior Illinois senator<<< Barack Obama would be very important to the future of the country. --DrewMB (talk) 01:34, 01 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.182.23 (talk)

Additional updates

If someone able to edit the article could add some of the current information from Ebert's appearance on Oprah here, that would be good. Information that could be added include the computer system that uses Ebert's voice, his noticeable change in appearance, and the fact he still has a jaw of sorts, albeit reconstructed, which is a fact that has been debated. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, much of the section about his later surgeries and current health — in fact most of the second half of the "Personal life" section — is copy-pasted from the Esquire article, incorporating entire sentences in their original structure with only minor word changes. The whole section requires a rewrite to remove the appearance of plagiarism, or the quoted passages should be displayed as quotes and properly attributed with page numbers. 98.211.124.111 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ebert has become one of the most popular influential Twitter personalities. Could someone with permissions please note this. It is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Standards

Is it possible to determine his criteria for judging films? It might be surmised that he decides according to purely social or political standards, rather than artistic.Lestrade (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

The way to determine such criteria would be to rely on sources, and I think the section on his personal tastes does that fairly well. Do you think it's missing something? Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Skeptic? Secular Humanist?

I know he's an agnostic, and I know that secularhumanists/skeptics can be agnostic, but where has he said that he was a skepic or secular humanist? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Where the cited source indicates he did. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero Stars?

I've removed the section of a list someone made of movies Ebert gave zero stars to. It doesn't add anything to the article. The article is supposed to give a overview, not list a ton of reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Plugging Ebert?

Is there any specific reason why Roger Ebert's personal reviews are littered everywhere in Wikipedia for countless movies, and not many other reviewers get such a privilege? Is this a cultural thing I'm missing because I don't live in a country where his show is on? You'd think Wikipedia would have more tact than to just plaster one reviewer's opinion on every single movie he has reviewed. 218.215.55.128 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was asked a couple years ago. And yes, it's more of an American cultural thing: Because of his previous television shows, because that his reviews are printed more than 200 newspapers across various regions in the United States, and because Forbes Magazine named him as the number one influential pundit in the United States, Ebert has become America's best-known, living, most influential film critic. And therefore it becomes natural for most Americans, including American Wikipedia editors, to include his opinions as if he was a de facto authoritative figure. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This was also recently discussed here as well. DrNegative (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recentism

The guy had a long and distinguished career. Does a hip injury merit a whole subsection? The existing information borders on WP:RECENTISM but adjusting the layout a bit might reduce that impact of it.Cptnono (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nightscream (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Why are the citations [1] through [6] listed at the bottom of the page yet the article starts at citation [7]? There is no other mention of citations [1] through [6] to be found. User:80.5.12.72 21:54, 5 July 2010

Those first six cites are for the "Influenced" section of the Infobox in the upper right corner of the article, which are only visible if you click "show" on it. When "hidden", clicking on the footnote links in the References section doesn't work.

For future reference, new Talk Page sections and post go at the bottom, not the top. And please make sure to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. (I added the time stamp, however for you after the fact.) :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Part of Ebert's Bio

As a person who graduated from college in 1967, I would have loved to have started my career then. However, like millions of other boys, I was drafted. Perhaps Ebert was too overweight to be drafted, or had some other health problem, but it is a certainty that Ebert had to do something about the draft because the lottery was not in effect then. For a young male in the late 1960s, ignoring the issues of Vietnam and the draft is akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No original research. Please support your proposed inclusions with reliable sources. DrNegative (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, new sections go at the bottom, not the top. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

Under Spouse(s) in the sidebar, Chaz is listed as "Chaz Hammelsmith".

Perfunctory Googling suggests that her maiden name is in fact "Hammel-Smith". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.204.229 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added Mr. Ebert's newest book, The Pot and How to Use It: The Mystery and Romance of the Rice Cooker (ISBN 0-7407-9142-7), to the bibliography section. I happened upon it while reading an article on Gizmodo, and noticed that it was missing from his bibliography. Please let me know if the description is inappropriate; I tried to keep it as concise and accurate as possible. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The books listed need their years of publication included. --71.174.160.206 (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Childhood radiation treatment possible source of his cancer?

From Roger Ebert's Journal entry, "Where I draw the line" of 25 November 2010:

We're great in this country about doing things that are "good" for children. I had radiation beamed into my ear as a kid, to cure an ear infection, and look at me now. A small event in childhood can have a domino effect in your life.

Don't know if he's written about this more extensively elsewhere. --71.174.160.206 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

The current lead photograph is cropped such that it looks as if he's had a bad accident and his arm is wrapped about his neck. WHPratt (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's someone else's arm, as it's attached to the shoulders of someone next to him (which it is). I don't see any way around that, unless/until someone finds a better image that can be used. Nightscream (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. It's obvious that both of Ebert's hands are in front of him (even though they're out of the frame), and that the third hand belongs to someone else. –BMRR (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The same pic, uncropped, appears farther on down, and explains the hand (it's Peter O'Toole's). I wasn't complaining, just commenting. WHPratt (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What about using the original, uncropped photo in the infobox? I'm not sure what the guidelines are for infobox photos, but maybe that would be less visually jarring than the cropped photo with the mystery hand. :-) –BMRR (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I know what the arm-behind-the-head reminded me of: one of the corpses in the classic film Deliverance! Ebert would understand. WHPratt (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Any else think his article should be updated with a more recent picture? I mean come on, 3 of the 4 pictures are from the early 2000's. How about one with his wife? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobra4455 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Style of critique and personal tastes" section needs more secondary sources

The "Style of critique and personal tastes" section is written mostly by cherry-picking Ebert's own columns. This section should be based on secondary, independent, reliable sources that discuss Ebert's critique, views and tastes, not on the analysis of Wikipedia editors of his columns. Fences&Windows 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

What is "Forbes has described him as "the most powerful pundit in America"" doing in his first paragraph? It is simply something that he has been called, and has little to do with the rest of his bio. Forteana (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I moved it to the paragraph on some of the accolades he's received. Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How did Wikipedia forget this?

I'm not sure exactly how this happened but Wikipedia forgot to include that Roger Ebert is a big fan of Wikipedia. I just think this sort of information might be useful to anybody who was trying to learn more about this acclaimed film critic. Maybe I'm wrong though and it is useless information. Just a thought.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.154.190 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No one forgot; it's just that there's no relevant place in the article to put it, since the article is a summary of all the most salient material article on the subject. Such a fact is, in my opinion, more relevant to the Wikipedia article on itself, which is why I indeed added it to that article some time ago. Thanks, though. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request

{{edit semi-protected}} Please clean up the references by using the toolserver.org link available in the {{Barelinks}} template located at the top the Roger Ebert#References section, and reproduced here:

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py?client=Template:linkrot&overwrite=simple&citeweb=true&page=Roger_Ebert

Thank you. 67.100.127.44 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: the page is already categorized as needing link rot cleanup. The edit request template is meant for specific changes where you provide before and after text. — Bility (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Style of critique and personal tastes

Ebert eschews science fiction, horror, and fantasy films, especially those that are related to video games.

Looking at his personal page at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/COMMENTARY/50808002 on the 23rd of March 2011, we see that 19 out 56 films that are his "all time worst" are in the science fiction, horror, and fantasy films category. That means that 34% of his all time worst are in this category. Are 34% of all films made science fiction, horror, and fantasy films? Looking at the sidebar for films that are playing this week and are reviewed (50 films), the films that he has ranked 1 star or less are Battle: Los Angeles, Certifiably Jonathan, The Green Hornet, Just Go With It, and Red Riding Hood. 3 out of these 5 (or 60%) are science fiction, horror, and fantasy films.

One has to wonder how the heck Stargate made his list all time worst list, since it was wildly popular, made a ton of money, and had several television spin offs. Ditto with Armageddon which was very popular with the movie-going audience. More curious is how the heck Battlefield Earth (which wasn't the greatest movie, but wasn't the worst either) made it to his list, yet Tank Girl (which was a much worse movie, when compared side-by-side) somehow didn't make the cut.

Regardless of the previous paragraph, there's definitely very little love from Ebert for science fiction, horror, and fantasy films as a whole and it seems that this fact should somehow be included (in a sentence or two) in the wikipedia section entitled "Style of critique and personal tastes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.139.123 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:IRS. All material added to articles requires a reliable, published source to be cited in the article in support of it. Personal interpretations of Ebert's lists is Original Research. There are probably plenty of films in those genres that have been favorably reviewed by Ebert; the remaining 66% of that list are in other genres, like comedy and drama. Does that mean Ebert eschews those as well? Why single out only the 34%?

Also, please make sure you sign your talk page messages. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring by only a last name in a paragraph about two Eberts

From the personal life section:

"Ebert is married to trial attorney Charlie "Chaz" Hammel-Smith.[47] Chaz Ebert is now vice president of the Ebert Company and has emceed Ebertfest.[76][77] Ebert suffered from alcoholism and quit drinking in 1979. He is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous and has written some blog entries on the subject.[78]"

A sentence that starts with "Chaz Ebert" is followed by "Ebert suffered", which appears to refer to Roger Ebert. It may be technically correct but it's awkward and ought to be changed IMO. Ben Atkin (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. –BMRR (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebert - Career

Ebert's career section should be updated to reflect his new television show, 'Ebert Presents At the Movies', and his continuing position as film critic at the Sun-Times. Ebert seems to have limited involvement on the new show, but he does appear every week in a short segment. This is especially notable as he has lost the ability to speak. He has a very active web presence as well, including a popular blog and twitter feed, which has won him a Webby Award as Person of the Year in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenylphree (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I should sign this. Phenylphree (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead Photo

Request a change in lead photo (if and when available). Roger Ebert is looking down and his facial features are not clear. Plus Peter O Toole's hand is prominent and hence distracting. (Entire pic is reused later in the article) - Sbohra 06:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbohra (talk • contribs)

As a BLP (biography of living person), one would need to either find a FREE image on Flickr or upload a photo taken personally of Ebert for a change to be made. --Chimino (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Screwed up reference

Ref 21 is screwed up and is in bright red. Manny may (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor who added that line attempted to provide a ref, but for whatever reason it was not formatted properly (it only had a ref name without a full citation template). I added a citation needed tag; hopefully someone can add a working ref. –BMRR (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Roger Ebert.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Roger Ebert.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ebert blames his cancers on childhood radiation treatments

In this excerpt from his new autobiography, Life Itself, Roger Ebert writes:

The radioactivity in the iodine [Ebert's thyroid cancer was being treated with], I was told, was about 5% as powerful as the monthly radiation treatments I, and thousands of children, had been given in the 1950s for ear infections and acne. Those treatments paid off half a century later in a boom for the formerly rare thyroid cancer.

A few years later, I went in for a routine scan to check for any new problems. This time, the news was not good. My doctor sent me to a specialist, who explained cancer had been seen in my right lower jawbone. It wasn't the same cancer as affected my thyroid and I guessed exactly what it was. In 1988, a cancer had been found in my right salivary gland. ... I had been shaving over the lump for some months in the 1980s before my doctor palpated it and sent me to the specialist who was impressed; this cancer was so rare he'd never seen one in 35 years of practice. ... My tumour grew less rare in the years to come – the childhood radiation had probably caused it. Because I was born four or five years earlier than most of the boomers, I was the canary in their coalmine.

To make that sequence clear, it was: (1) a rare salivary gland tumor, successfully treated, then (2) the thyroid cancer, then (3) a recurrence of the first cancer. --96.233.85.244 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great article

This is a great article. So much so, that I am surprised that it has survived this long on Wikipedia. -- 76.104.59.252 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In May 2007, Ebert blogged that he had received a bouquet of flowers from actor Rob Schneider, with a note signed, "Your Least Favorite Movie Star, Rob Schneider". Ebert took this as a kind gesture despite his negative review of Schneider's Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. Ebert described the flowers as "a reminder, if I needed one, that although Rob Schneider might (in my opinion) have made a bad movie, he is not a bad man, and no doubt tried to make a wonderful movie, and hopes to again. I hope so, too."

This bit, in section Thyroid cancer, disrupts the otherwise focused flow of the section and seems so overblown, out of place and completely banal that it should imho be removed. It really does not add anything of encyclopedic value to the article. --213.168.116.80 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fans at his website have remarked his public appearances have been inspirational to cancer victims and survivors around the country.

The same goes for this bit. I don't see how this is at all encyclopedically valuable. --213.168.116.80 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Let's be bold and do that. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if that change is reverted and you end up back here trying to generate a consensus. Celestra (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

Change 'Champagne-Urbana' to 'Champaign-Urbana'. 192.17.176.153 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Minor spelling correction only. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Books written

Hi, I'm new to this so be patient.

The article says "He has written more than 15 books..."

Scrolling down, the bibliography lists 14 books. Why not just say that he has written 14 books instead of the more than/less than phrasing?

Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.13.185 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinhold Timm

So Ebert's birth name, in spite of what you can read on other sites, wasn't Reinhold Timm? Okay, but how did that rumor or misinformation get started and what's behind it? Why do so many Internet sites contradict yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Roger Ebert: "Ebert was the last great silent critic. We will not see his like again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.48.23 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Health and Personal life?

With news of his death, would it be appropriate to merge his health issues in with his personal life? Drivec (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Health section over detailed

It should be trimmed down, now that he's died. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Date of death; April 3 or 4?

There seems to be some confusion over this, and obviously some misreporting. NPR [2] says April 3. The Chicago Sun-Times [3] says "Thursday", or April 4 (I didn't notice the "Thursday" bit in there at first.) Not sure which is correct, obviously...but those seem to be the only two refs that aren't just referring back to one of the two. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

...and now NPR says "Thursday" as well, so I guess that makes it April 4. Silly media. (Edit: The NPR ref is being whacky and flipping back and forth between "April 3" and "Thursday" now, but the Chicago Tribune also says Thursday [4] and attributes it to a family friend, so that seems most authoritative.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

He died on April 4, 2013 not April 3, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing book

"Two weeks in the Midday Sun: A Cannes Notebook" on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.196.121.15 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

More photos

Is it possible to find more photos? CC-licensed from flickr for example. Or ask permission to relicense --74.202.39.3 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Death template

I readded the recent death template because there are bound to be ongoing changes in the article. Yes, the circumstances around his death are known but there are sure to be various tributes, statements and such that may be useful to the article that will likely be added in the next few days - and being an "eyesore" isn't really a good reason to remove a template. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That issue comes up every now and then -- some people don't like that particular template, or templates in general. szyslak (t) 18:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced content regarding his final reviews

I made this edit. I have no idea why, but someone put the content about Ebert's final reviews in the Health/Hip Fractures subsection; I moved it to the end of the Career section because I couldn't find a better place to put it. However, as my edit summary states, I'll leave it to other editors to decide if the content even belongs in the article. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We need his article protected because he will be famous including his \death

{{Edit protected}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otisfrog (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 April 2013‎ (UTC)

This is not the proper way to request edit protection. I don't know that there is need to protect this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"We need his article protected because he will be famous including his \death"? What does that even mean?? I think Otisfrog is editing at happy hour. Haha. And for the record, there are several admins watching this article. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Recent Death Template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently an edit war regarding the removal of the template, as the template was in place prior to the removal by an IP user, it should stay in place until consensus is reached. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck? No one has actually responded to anything I've written, just continued to revert. You can't just continually revert something without providing an explanation. To reiterate: (1) the template detracts from the content of the article and (2) the template is not useful for this particular article—nothing about the circumstances of Mr. Ebert's death is going to change. Just because a recent deaths template exists, doesn't mean we slap it on an article for a week for the lulz. I'll quote again: "Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose." 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Please avoid the use of profanity in the discussion. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The template is generally used for famous people who have died in which more details will come out in the coming days. Roger Ebert died 2 days ago and there is still information regarding the impact and reaction to his death, so the template is clearly useful in this case. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The template says nothing about impacts and reactions to deaths of famous people. "Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known." The impacts and reactions to the deaths of Kennedy, MLK, bin Laden, are still ongoing, why should the template not be used there? The perceived usefulness of this template does not justify visually polluting the page. 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Ebert's cause of death, time of death, place of death, etc., are all known and well-documented and are not subject to change. The template is intended for suspicious, unusual, or unknown circumstances surrounding a death. 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously still editing, do you intend to respond? 124.148.212.42 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

124.148,212.42, please behave in a civil manner. Posting angry comments ("What the fuck?") and reprimanding other editors for not responding to you quickly is inappropriate and counterproductive. Solarra has been nothing but pleasant and editors have no obligation whatsoever to reply to comments in a certain timeframe. Or ever. So coming back a mere 27 minutes after you posted a comment and getting upset that someone hasn't replied yet is, frankly, outrageous. And monitoring someone else's editing for that purpose is a little bit, er, stalkerish. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience as I was researching various recent deaths including [6], [7], [8], and [9] validating your claims. I have removed the Recent death template, and commend you for your diligence. That being said, in the future if you have an edit reverted, please open the discussion on the talk page immediately instead of starting an edit war. I wouldn't have not even noticed the removal had it not been for the edit war between you and other editors :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the interpretations you two are giving about the template's purpose are out of context. Please read the guidelines in their entirety. First, it is to be used "in cases of extraordinary public attention" where the risk is high that the information presented may not be final. That clearly applies to this article. Ebert is arguably the most famous American film critic of all time. In fact, he's so famous that this article is currently being featured on Wikipedia's home page. The template usage rules allude to its placement when "many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day". Finally, the articles Solarra presented are completely invalid comparisons because, in relative terms, those individuals have very low notability compared to Ebert. In fact, I'm confident that most readers have never even heard of Carranza, Copper, or Infantino. So it's like comparing apples to oranges. (By the way, you linked Copper twice.) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because dozens are editing and just because this article is on the main page doesn't mean that "the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events may change." The man wasn't Whitney Houston, he died because of a cancer that everyone including himself knew about. None of the information about the circumstances of his death is changing. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the usage instructions in their entirety. You're missing the most important points: it's a featured article on the home page and is still being heavily edited. So there's a lot of readership and editing still happening. Just wait until things slow down a bit. Btw, I know he's not Whitney Houston because I heard him sing once. It was terrible. :p But a subject does not have to be as famous as Houston to validate the use of the template, although Ebert certainly is extremely famous in his particular field of entertainment. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Several hours ago, I asked a very experienced editor/admin for his opinion and he agreed that the template was appropriate "for now".[10] However, I see that there have been no edits in the past four hours, so I have removed the template. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the template for now, after even further research I have found that generally without fail, the recent death template stays on articles linked on the main page, at least until they are removed from it, in addition, per the input above, minus 124.148.212.42 (talk the consensus seems to be that the template remain at least for the time being. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra, you seem very nice and I know you are trying to be helpful, but you have been extremely inconsistent on this matter. First, you reverted IP 124 and restored the template,[11] then you posted an argument opposing its inclusion, and removed it,[12] and now you have restored it yet again.[13] Therefore, I think it would be best to allow an experienced, uninvolved editor make the decision. The article has had zero edits in over four hours (other than for template adds/removes). Thanks. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of current event templates, of which {{recent death}} is one, is to inform readers that breaking news is not always highly reliable. (In the case of recent deaths, hyperbole in obits and such is a special risk.) Such templates should only be used on high profile articles. In this case, there is no doubt about the second requirement, and I see no particular reason why the general precaution against potentially inaccurate info wouldn't apply here. Thus I conclude that it is proper for the template to remain here for the next few days. (Four hours without an edit is not much, for the record.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hi Thaddeus. Thanks for coming over. ;) The only reason I removed the template was to show my absolute willingness to be flexible with the other two editors on this matter. That's why I waited several hours to see how active the editing would be. The article has never gone four hours without an edit (since Ebert's death), so I actually do believe that's a significant amount of time, relatively speaking. Of course, as shown above, I strongly advocated originally for keeping the template in place because, at the time, the article was still being heavily edited, in addition to of course being featured on the home page. So if there were still a lot of editing happening, I most certainly would say the template should be there. But the heavy activity appears to have suddenly faded away. In any case, I see you restored the template with the edit summary "if only a couple edits in next 24h, then remove".[14] Sounds good. Thanks for your input! 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ebertfest

Resolved

Perhaps mention should be made of Ebertfest? Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See the "Film and TV appearances" section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

I removed the reactions section, then looked through the edit history, didn't realize there was some kind of edit warring going on there. I think we should develop some kind of consensus here, and I'm strongly in favor of a solution where Reactions is removed. This is not Ebert's obituary page. It's not a tribute to him, it's an encyclopedia. I have *never* seen the page for a dead person with a long list of quotes from random people (Barack Obama? Really?). It's unbelievably unencyclopedic.0x0077BE (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to expand on my post a bit. this is Princess Diana's death page - no such list of quotes, and her death was incredibly high-profile. Steve Irwin has a reactions section, but it's not a list of quotes memorializing him. It's a proper story about the impact his death had on people. I think someone can do that kind of thing, which is encyclopedic, but this is unacceptable. Also, since this is a fast-moving page that is extremely high profile right now, I'm going to remove the reactions section again in 1-2 hours if there's no significant objection. I don't want to start an edit war, I just don't want the flood of people seeing this page to see it in such a state of disrepair. 0x0077BE (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It was way too long and I have trimmed it down. It could/should probably be trimmed more. However it is normal practice (and basically a requirement for front page "In the News" inclusion) to have some reaction info. Usually it is a paragraph with 2 or 3 quotes incorporated into it. If the list format used here bothers you, I suggest you write something better, but wholesale removal if not really helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that wholesale removal is not helpful. These are puff quotes memorializing him. There's nothing there to form the backbone of a paragraph. What would it even say? "Barack Obama thought he was good at his job. So did Harvey Fierstein and Oprah. His wife will miss him now that he is dead." It's not always true that having something written is better than having nothing written. 0x0077BE (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See Stéphane_Hessel#Death for a recent example that appeared on ITN (or even the version of this page that was in place at ITN posting... Wholesale removal does nothing towards building a consensus version, that is why it is better to make incremental improvement instead of just saying this is crap and removing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that older revision is a massive improvement over what is there now. I'd support switching to that version rather than the list of quotes as it is now. Eventually someone can remove the pointless fluff from his wife and put up something substantive, I suppose. 0x0077BE (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have cut the quotes the their essences and made it into paragraph form. Hopefully that adequately addresses your concerns... By the way, Diana has a whole article on her death, so that's probably not the person you want to be comparing Ebert to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit low on actual information, but it's definitely a better starting point than a list of quotes about how good he was at his job (which the whole rest of the article actually does a way better job at saying). Just saying a bunch of celebrities gave quotes, maybe mentioning that IMDB put up a banner, that sort of thing will go a long way, but I suppose there's time yet for more of that kind of thing to actually happen. As for Princess Diana - that's exactly who I want to compare to. I chose those examples to show what encyclopedic content about someone's death looks like. The list of quotes that was there (and to some extent the summarized form) are not real information - they were just eulogies. Diana's death was a huge news story, people took time off work, they lined up in the streets for her public funeral. The same thing with Michael Jackson - you don't have a quote from Quincy Jones about how great a musician he was on Michael Jackson's death page. He probably said it a bunch of times, but it's not good information - everyone can tell how good Michael Jackson was from all the other stuff in the article. When there are quotes in there, they are from people like David Cameron - and the point isn't what he said, but the fact that the British Prime Minister thought it worth commenting on at all. I certainly applaud your efforts on this article - I don't have the time right now to get this right, so I'm glad there's someone trying to get this into shape. Presumably we'll either see or not see some heavy memorial stuff going on later in the week and that can supplant the somewhat more fluffy quotes we have in there now. 0x0077BE (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

0x0077BE, although I agree with some of your points, you must've overlooked the Tributes section on Michael Jackson's death page, which contains many quotes from celebrities. I did remove the "the pointless fluff" (as you described it) from Ebert's wife. Quotes like that from a non-notable relative or friend, etc. clearly don't belong in an encylopedia article; this isn't a tribute or memorial page. However, including some quotes from highly notable people is appropriate, and I think ThaddeusB has done a great job in dealing with the content to present it in an acceptable manner. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you should be comparing Ebert's death to a similar case (highly notable person dies late in life in a predictable manner). Diana, Jackson, and Irwin all died young and in unusual circumstances such that their deaths themselves were big stories. Nonetheless, all three articles do indeed have small quotes from notable people. Less "fluffy" quotes, perhaps, but the public reaction is certainly still there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, please "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject".

Deep commiserations. This guy was one of the most prominent people in 20th century cinema and from reading so many of his reviews he was an incredibly intelligent and likeable guy. Whenever I edited a film I always looked for his review first. He will be remembered as the greatest film critic of all time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Agreed. May he rest in peace. Funny, I was justing viewing a Nectopedia entry on him two days ago. :( Feel bad now. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) If there is such a category, Pauline Kael will be remembered as the greatest film critic of all time. Roger did have a great sense of humor, like when he said of his wife "She fills my horizon", we can see what he meant, lol. R.I.P. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC) "Greatest" (or "best") is of course highly subjective. But I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree that Ebert is the most famous/well-known American film critic ever. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC) The vast majority of people know more about Roger Ebert than they ever will about movies. But that's just the celebrity-centered age we live in. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Just a note to Dr. Blofeld, not an edit. I knew Ebert at the University of Illinois half a century ago and he was the same opinionated person he appeared to be on TV and in his columns. But he had the nasty habit of trying to destroy you personally if you didn't agree with him. You can see this in his disagreements with Roeper after Siskel died, and in the uncivil comments on his blog. Distinguished movie critic he was; famous film presenter he was; accomplished author he was; but nice guy? I don't think so. But what the h---, his funeral is tomorrow at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, for those who can attend. RIP, Roger, despite all our arguments. See you at the movies.American In Brazil (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)American in Brazil For what it´s worth, and that may not be a lot, I want to add a note to what I said above. I knew Ebert when he was 20 and 21. He was certain that his view of the world was right and others were wrong. But that was also true of our generation of the 1960s. He was already an accomplished person who was the editor of the U.of I. student paper, The Daily Illini, in his senior year and president of the U.S. Student Press Association. Of course, he went on to become the distinguished critic that he was. His body of work is awesome - more than 200 movie reviews a year for more than four decades and 15 books, altho some were compilations of his reviews. Even so, it was an amazing output. He was also an astute technologist, who saw the future and went there - his Twitter blog had more than 875,000 subscribers and he became wealthy not only from his own considerable writings, but also as an early investor in Google. Further, he faced a long uphill battle with cancer and not only displayed his fight publically, but faced it with courage and perseverance. His final columns show that he remained upbeat until the end. Perhaps my comment above did not take into account the possibilities for all of us to learn and grow. The obituary in the Chicago Sun-Times quoted a comment near the end of his memoirs. It is fitting to repeat it now: “'Kindness' covers all of my political beliefs,” he wrote, at the end of his memoirs. “No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn't always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.” I guess I knew him before he found out. American in Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.49.201 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

At the Movies

The lead contains the sentence:

"...they co-hosted the PBS show Sneak Previews, followed by several variously named At the Movies programs."

I wikilinked At the movies to At the Movies (U.S. TV series), which is an article that specifically and exactly covers the shows referred to in the sentence, and fixed the wording ("variously named" should probably be hyphenated and would be expected to be followed by several or no names, not one name). I was reverted with the comment that the link was unnecessary because the issue was clarified later in the article, where there are links to articles about the individual shows.

First, I don't think that's helpful to people who want to read just the lead, and isn't normally a justification for not linking something. Why make them hunt for the link(s)?

Second, the relevant links in the Career section point to the same article I linked to. Some do have their own pages, but they are just redirects back to that article.

Third, many of the shows to which the sentence refers do not actually contain the phrase "At the movies" (e.g. "Siskel & Ebert", "Ebert & Roeper", several "...& The Movies" variations). So, the target article, and the phrase in this article's lead, seem incorrect.

The shows all have Roger Ebert and movie reviews in common, so I'd suggest moving the At the Movies (U.S. TV series) article to something like Roger Ebert movie review programs and changing the phrase in the lead of this article to something like "...followed by several similar programs." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I see everything being fine as-is, so no changes are needed. Contrary to your claim that the article you linked to in the lead "specifically and exactly covers the shows referred to in the sentence", it actually only linked to one of multiple versions of the At the Movies franchise, which therefore made it out-of-context with the sentence. Moving the articles to an Ebert-titled article would again be completely out-of-context and therefore inaccurate. For the record, one of our resident expert grammarians explained that "variously named" should not be hyphenated, as it had been, due to a rule involving words ending in "ly". 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I did link to the wrong article. The article I'm saying that it should link to is the one referred to in what I wrote above, though (At the Movies (U.S. TV series)). OK with regard to the hyphenation issue – I wasn't sure – but the phrase still doesn't sound right as written, for the reason stated. Anyone else have an opinion? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reactions clip

Why was the Reactions clip that I put in the death section removed? I thought it would make the section look less bloated, there's two different things going on, the talk of his death and then suddenly the reactions, there should be some kind of pause in between those two paragraphs. --Matt723star (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

By "Reactions clip" I assume you mean a Reactions subsection ("Reactions" sub-heading). There was a debate about the quotes via the "Reactions" discussion above, plus the edit summaries. At one point, there was a long list of high-profile celebrity quotes that were indeed part of a "Reactions" subsection of the "Death" section. In fact, I happened to be the one who created it. But it was agreed that the content should be reduced (because many of the quotes were essentially saying the same thing) and put into paragraph form, and that the Reactions sub-heading should be removed so that the quotes paragraph would simply be a part of the Death section. An experienced editor/admin wrote the quotes paragraph in its current form and the other editors involved were satisfied with it; there were no reverts. Feel free to add your thoughts to the above thread regarding this topic. For the record, I don't agree at all that the section looks "bloated"; it's just a short paragraph about the death itself followed by the quotes paragraph, which is in standard form. If you can get clear consensus to re-add a "Reactions" sub-heading, I wouldn't object to it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)