Talk:Natasha Richardson

message: It seems from the articles I have read that she lost her balance and fell. If it turns out that she was alone in having this accident, I suggest that it is not optimal to say she "was involved" in an accident. I know, "she had an accident" is not literary enough...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.109.41 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Involved?

message: Is that info accurate?Lemniwinks (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, we still don't know why. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: On the BBC and Sky they are reporting that she had a scan in the Canadian hospital and that the doctors discovered they could do nothing for her, the flight to New York was so that she could see her family for the last time and allow them to say goodbye.KTo288 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it. :) I found the above discussion helpful, so it was probably worth discussing anyway. Acalamari 00:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did she fly in a plane while suffering brain trauma?

message: Honestly, I don't think the quote adds much to the article. While it's nice to use quotes, I think this is one of those cases that WP:QUOTE talks about in terms of "lack of importance". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote's since been cut out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from Neeson's publicist

message: Would someone with the power please change "wounds" to "injuries" in the last sentence of the first section.  The current language makes it sound like she bled out rather than suffering severe brain trauma/damage.  Injuries is the word being used in all the news stories anyway. Ajgwm10 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "traumatic brain injury" since it was linking there anyway, and it's apparently what she sustained (though the reference might need updating). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Small language thing

message: When I read the NY Daily News today, the headline announced her as being brain-dead already, and that pretty much means "dead" as in kaput, gone, not there anymore.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that was a persistent vegetative state, not a brain death.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: x2 That's a good question. I think it should remain NYC though, as that's what the newspapers are saying. I'm sure a source will come out stating when brain death is suspected to have occurred, at which point we can include it in the article. But since the media are defining the point of death as being when her body died, we should stay with that for now. As to the definition of dead, I believe they generally call it the time when cardiac arrest occurs; see clinical death. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Correct; we are not journalists. Bear in mind that Adolf Hitler died in 1945, and we only reported it in the last few years. We can, and should, wait until we have the facts, and just the facts. --Rodhullandemu 02:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if she was already brain dead in Canada, legally you aren't pronounced dead until you have no pulse or heart beat. So until she was actually taken off the machines and "pronounced" dead, she was clinically and legally alive. So the report is correct in saying she died in New York.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.42.176.201 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It appears it was just added a short while ago, once a reliable source was available.  Risker (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused because I swore I saw an article saying her family "pulled the plug". I remember it specifically because I was shocked they had done it so quickly. So I'm confused how she died any other way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.241.45 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, immediate cause of death vs underlying cause of death. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BTW, you sure she died in NYC and not in Quebec?

message: I've added Sport deaths in Canada, based on where her fatal accident happened. Should Accidental human deaths in Quebec also be added, as that is where her fatal injury happened, even though she died in NY? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Sport deaths in Canada should be removed; looking at the explanation in the category page, it's intended for people who died as a result of injuries at a sporting event. Richardson was skiing for recreation. As to the accidental human deaths, I'm not sure. There's no explanation in the category page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There really isn't a category Accidental human deaths in Quebec is there? Anyways, I think Sking deaths is a good start, but I am sure this will be "corrected". Cheers, Tom 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like 11 folks in that category. Not sure why that category struck me as odd. Anyways, not sure if this belongs as pointed out above. Tom 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I am seeing the inklings of editing conflict with respect to the language variant to be used in this article. Natasha Richardson was a naturalized American citizen and had her primary residence in the US for over 15 years.  She was born in the UK and is a member of a well known performing family whose roots are in the UK.  Please, let's have a discussion on which way this one should go before we have more edits to the article simply to change English variant.  Risker (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for maintaining the status quo per WP:RETAIN. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: (E/C) I see her, as do the vast majority of the press that I have seen, as a British actress. CNN reported her death as "British actress has died after a ski injury," all of the British press are referring to her as a British actress from a British dynasty. I can see the argument though with regards to her naturalisation in the last 15 years. Ultimately though, I think that international format is more suited to the article especially given that is the status quo. Regards, Woody (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support  here due to the above-mentioned strong associations with the UK, especially of which she was a citizen for most of her life. Dl2000 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I support the use of British English for the article, seeing as she was born in Britain to a British family, and retained a British identity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article for Madonna be in British English? No! I've added a template to this page saying that this article is written in British English. Most editors concerned about this article have apparently agreed that this should be the case, and I see no reason to change it. And I'm American, Texan, even! Belasted (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the article has been marked with the  template, which identifies it to bots as an article which uses the date-month-year format. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, British English for this article. Tvoz/talk 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding date formatting, again strong ties to the UK would dictate . Even if the nationality association was unclear, MOS:DATE indicates the first date format introduced should prevail, in this case dmy from 2004 Dl2000 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Language variants for spelling - UK or US?

message: Should "...Richardson and Neeson have two sons..." be "...Richardson and Neeson had two sons..." (the latter style is preferred on Neeson's pages)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.212.201 (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She still has two sons. Like Henry VIII has a page on Wikipedia. The tense is determined by the object's status. The problem is they no longer have them together. As had would still be valid even if she were alive it might be preferred--Mongreilf (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For me "had two sons" would imply that they no longer have two sons.KTo288 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And "they" indeed no longer have two sons, as sadly there is no longer a "they" to have them. However "had two sons" would read as if neither Richardson nor Neeson were still alive ("Henry and Anne had a daughter called Elizabeth"). Hmmm.  The "have two sons" leapt out at me as well, though. I think this needs re-wording, but I'm not sure how... Tonywalton Talk 01:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another missed tense?

message: ::I think a bit of sensitivity is called for here. A woman has just died, leaving behind a grief-stricken family. Words like "gone" and "kaput" should be strictly avoided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensitivity is called for

message: Do we have a source for life support being removed.  I'd say it's highly likely that this is what happened, but I couldn't find a mention of it in the cited reference, nor in the other reference regarding Richardson's death.  Cycle~ (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only mention I could find of it was from the Wikinews article (which doesn't mention it, but a reference does): "Rumors about her possible death first emerged on Monday after several media outlets reported she was brain dead and was being transported to New York City so her family had the opportunity to say goodbye before life support would be turned off." () – so not terribly authoritative.  Cycle~ (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: See below.  Liz Smith is not a reliable source, the reference source you're using explicitly says it's a gossip column.  Risker (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Life support

message: I have to leave for the day and just thought I'd note that the Yahoo news link added recently won't be a permanent link and should either be archived or replaced with a permanent one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo news link

message: While referencing sources is very important, the number of sources used to cite claims made in the death section is just ridiculous. At most, two sources should be necessary to back up the claims made in that section. See WP:CS#Over-referencing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed down the death section because the overreferencing was getting gratuitous. All the statements made are supported by the references used, but I've eliminated 14 completely unnecessary references that just made the refs section appear huge. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary overreferencing

message: Richardson is listed as appearing in "Nell" in 1994. Also, that she met Neeson while filming Anna Christie "in late 1994". Neeson and Richardson appeared in "Nell" together. Not sure of the dates but the article seems to indicate they met her after Nell was filmed, which is of course is not correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHARVE31 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It says, "She married Irish actor Liam Neeson, whom she met when the two appeared in Anna Christie, in late 1994." Without the relative clause, we have, "She married Irish actor Liam Neeson in late 1994," which is correct. But the pluperfect tense might make things even better, so I've added it here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could en dashes also work? Calebrw (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary - see my fix. Just had to move the date to the beginning of the sentence and separate out the children: In 1994 she married Irish actor Liam Neeson, whom she had met when the two appeared in Anna Christie. The couple had two sons, Micheál and Daniel. Tvoz/talk 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally off the subject, but I just had to say that I have a poster from their Anna Christie appearances that I bought when I saw it that both signed at the stage door after a performance. Sorry, I know it isn't quite appropriate to post anywhere, but it's hanging on my wall next to the computer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in dates

message: I'm removing the part about rumors of a protest at her funeral per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM and to some extent WP:XBALL. To put it succinctly, I think we should wait until things develop before adding them to this article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a ref from the BBC regarding the funeral (as a past event, so no crystal balls) . This is purely factual with no rumours of any protests. I also think the mention of the lights of Broadway being dimmed is notable as it's a rare thing, per this link Feel free to revert if that's not acceptable. Thanks for your help with the ref tag, Woody. Tonywalton Talk 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to mention in the sentence that it's significant/rare. Though that's kind of tough to do without sounding promotional. I'd almost wanted to remove the line about the dimming because it sounded rather insignificant. But as your source indicates pretty clearly, it's quite rare. Very interesting, bravo on including it! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - I'm considering the wording... Tonywalton Talk 11:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this? "Theatres on Broadway and in London's West End dimmed their lights in an uncommon (or unusual?) mark of respect to Richardson's theatre career". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Funeral protest rumors

message: The second image in this issue is superfluous. It pictures Richardson at the UK premiere of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, but there is no mention of this event in the article (nor should there be). This image, which originally was in the infobox, was replaced with an image from Wikipedia Commons by User:Tabercil and situated lower in the article, resulting in an unsightly gap in the text. Given it isn't necessary and relates to nothing in the article, I am removing it. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second image

message: A friend of mine is from Millbrook and she said there is no "St. Peter's" there. Richardson was buried in St. Joseph.- JustPhil 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, St. Peter's Episcopal Church, where the funeral was held, is located on Deep Hollow Road in Lithgow, New York.  I don't know why so many news reports placed it in Millbrook. Here are a couple that got it right   209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since she's a celebrity, the media probably gave an incorrect location so that they could indeed have a private funeral. I heard Liam Neeson was there.- JustPhil 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's interesting. If you check out the St. Peter's website, the address they give is in Millbrook. And if you check it on Google Maps, it says the location is in Millbrook. It's not a misprint or wrong information, it's just weird. It might be worth altering the article to say "St. Peter's Church near Lithgow, New York" instead of "in" any particular location. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Church

message: ::I don't know why the former image was removed. It showed Richardson closer up; it was taken recently, and IMO a much better photo than the current one in the info box.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. She looks like Robin Gibb in that picture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Gibb
Gloveman (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been mulling over the image change for a while, and honestly don't like either one. To me, neither :File:Natasha Richardson 1999.jpg nor :File:NatashaRichardson.jpg particularly look like Richardson when compared to various media photographs made in the last year or two. While we'd typically prefer :File:NatashaRichardson.jpg as it's nine years more recent, it's pretty blurry and low-resolution. But... what choice do we have now? All we can hope for is that someone will release a nice, high-resolution pic of her under a free license. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I got to agree with the majority: please change it to the 2007 picture. Yes, I agree with the other that it is not perfect (low res, etc), but it is the recent pic of her. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, going along with the concerns expressed in this discussion I've switched the image back. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Are we sure the one from the Prince Caspian preview really is her ? It doesn't look like her to me ! -- Beardo (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check out the original on Flickr, I believe that's Neeson behind her. To be honest, it's a suboptimal image- I think it's the lighting which makes it look not like her. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's never occurred to me that it is not her. It's a bad angle, her hair is shorter, but there's no doubt she is on Liam Neeson's arm and that is her smile. Actually, I think the other photo on the page (in 1999) looks less like we're used to seeing her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's hoping someone comes forward with a good pic and releases it. Maybe the Neeson or Redgrave family would do so at some point, though not likely considering our requirements for free license images... a lot of people balk at permitting derivative works or commercial usage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I read it all and found nothing new, appropriate, for the article. It includes transcripts of the discussions between ambulances and hospitals/dispatchers. I suppose with all these details someone might want to separate out all of the reports related to her death into a separate article but I,personally, don't think its notable enough for that until/unless the lawsuits begin. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Front Page Timeline Article

message: These sources may prove usable for adding info to the article:
* The five-hour scramble to save Natasha Richardson (The Globe and Mail) - decent review of the incident
* Brain injury no accident, MD says (Toronto Star) - not much content, but it does highlight several questions: why didn't Richardson wear a helmet?; should helmets be mandatory?; should an examination have been mandatory?; as well as Quebec's lack of air ambulance service. This may be useful in an "Aftermath" section related to her death.
I'm sure there are other resources for this. Mindmatrix 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article, this one in the Vancouver Sun:  Canadian healthcare didn’t kill Natasha Richardson: doctor. Mindmatrix 02:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate wanting to add this information, but it's important to beware of excessive recentism, especially in this case as it's way too soon since Richardson's death to really say anything about its impact. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: I have reverted the inclusion of some family details in the lead. What level of article summarization should be in the lead? TIA --Tom (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to re-read the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. In terms of the lead, read WP:LEAD then have a look at some Biography FAs/GAs (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon etc). According to LEAD The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The lead summarised the salient points of her life; briefly mentions where she was brought up, who she married and what occupied large portions of her life: the Aids charity. One of the reasons for that was her father's death which therefore makes it a very important point of her life. As such I believe the lead should be reinstated. Woody (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably be for including her marriage since it is to another "famous" actor. The rest of what you describe, where she was brough up does not rise to the level worthy of inclusion in the lead compared to the body of her work/life. Did the Aids charity work really occupy a large portion of her life? Anyways, what do others think? --Tom (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't re-inventing the wheel stuff, you can see what other good-quality articles have in their lead. The AIDS charity was a very important part of her life, on a par with a large part of her work. A good-sized biography article should have a good two paragraphs for a lead, it was a good two paragraphs that summarised the important points of her life. I do understand that ultimately it is subjective as to what is "important" and we have to avoid putting undue weight (and everything else listed at WP:LEAD) but I don't think the current setup gets it right. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am starting to come around :) At this point, I would not revert you and will defer to others. Anyways, cheers and good luck with this. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: this implies she was only in England here for a year or two, she was here until she was an adult, she  was an American citizen but this doesn't make her American, Is Madonna an 'American-born British singer'? no.  --81.158.49.148 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: English Born American Actress

message: Would this article qualify as appropriate for the :category:Sport deaths in Canada? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: categorization

message: Hi, I'd just like to comment that the first photo of Natasha is kind of unflattering. I just thought maybe Wikipedia could replace the current photo with a better one. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolene18 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile photo so to say 

message: It says under the "Injury and death" section the following:
"On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell while taking a beginner skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, Canada about 80 miles (130 km) from Montreal."
I have a problem with the assertion repeated constantly in the media that she was taking a beginner skiing lesson or that she was a beginner skier, because according to a friend of mine who met Natasha a few times (my friend has met a whole number of famous people), she was quite an experienced skier.  It might be true she was taking skiing lessons of one sort or another, and I heard on 60 Minutes last night that she was on a beginner trail when her fatal accident occurred, but that does NOT mean that she was a beginner.  I think that the word should get out to the entire world that she was an expert, not beginner, skier!!!  -- Therav (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was she a beginner or expert skier? 

message: Hello,
In this article on Natasha Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson the following misinformation appears in the Film section: 
"Director Paul Schrader signed her for the title role in Patty Hearst, his 1988 docudrama about the heiress and her alleged kidnapping."
Patty Hearst was not allegedly kidnapped; she was in FACT kidnapped.  That fact has never been questioned or in doubt at any time.
Thank you.
A reader  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.105.33 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error in article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: An head injury 81.101.56.207 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why she died