Talk:Natasha Richardson

Involved?

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)

"According to a statement from Mont Tremblant Ski Resort, Richardson fell during a lesson on a beginners' trail." "She did not show any visible sign of injury, but the ski patrol followed strict procedures and brought her back to the bottom of the slope and insisted she should see a doctor," the statement said.

Richardson, accompanied by her instructor, returned to her hotel, but about an hour after the fall was "not feeling good," the statement said. An ambulance was called, and Richardson was taken to a local hospital before being transferred to Hopital du Sacre-Coeur in Montreal. From there she was transferred to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwood5000 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did she fly in a plane while suffering brain trauma?

Is that info accurate?Lemniwinks (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, we still don't know why. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just curious; not questioning here) Where did that information come from? Does anyone have a link saying that she flew a plane? L337*P4wn 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Oh, okay. I think I had a case of mistaken headline. I thought it said she "flew" the plane, rather than flying "in" a plane. Whoops! L337*P4wn 00:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Heh heh, thanks. :) L337*P4wn 00:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have though the last thing anyone with a serious head injury would want to do is fly. So I can only assume she was all but gone when leaving Montreal. However, she still needs to pass immigration etc so one wonders about one rule for celebs and one rule for the rest of us. Can you imagine me arriving on a flight into LAX virtually brain dead, what bureaucracy would I encounter? Gloveman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

she was transferred to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. she was flown. "An ambulance was called, and Richardson was taken to a local hospital before being transferred to Hopital du Sacre-Coeur in Montreal. From there she was transferred to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inwood5000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Richardson was accompanied by her husband, who had traveled to Montreal from Toronto as soon as he received word of her accident. We can probably assume that he managed all custom-related issues involved with transporting an unconscious patient over international borders. Evixir (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Quote from Neeson's publicist

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)

The quote's since been cut out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Small language thing

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)

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)

BTW, you sure she died in NYC and not in Quebec?

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)

• Until pronounced dead by an M.D., I think you are not legally dead - wasn't Karen Ann Quinlen somewhere in that brain-dead state for years until she "died". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, that was a persistent vegetative state, not a brain death. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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)

←It is not our job to be "sure" of where she died, or to research the difference between "brain dead" and "dead". It is our job to review reliable sources and write our article according to what they say. All reports are that she died this afternoon (3/18) in New York City, reported by numerous reliable sources after confirmation by a family spokesman. That's the beginning and end of what we should be saying in this article, unless in the coming days other stories come out in reliable sources - and if that happens, we'd have to evaluate the notability of those stories to her biography. The rush to declare her dead on Wikipedia before there was official confirmation was ghoulish and decidedly unencyclopedic. We're not here to get scoops, we're writing an encyclopedia. And shocking as it might seem, the time lag between a person;s death and our inclusion of it in their bio is utterly unimportant. Tvoz/talk 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Didn't she die of an epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head? The cause of her death is common knowledge, yet it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Is this an oversight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agr0223 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears it was just added a short while ago, once a reliable source was available. Risker (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Well yeah, immediate cause of death vs underlying cause of death. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories

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)

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)

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)

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)

She also didn't die in Canada which would invalidate her inclusion in the category. (Sellpink (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC))

Language variants for spelling - UK or US?

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)

I'm all for maintaining the status quo per WP:RETAIN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(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)

Support {{British English}} 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)

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)

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)

Note that the article has been marked with the {{dmy}} 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)

I agree, British English for this article. Tvoz/talk 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding date formatting, again strong ties to the UK would dictate {{dmy}}. 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)

Another missed tense?

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)

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)

For me "had two sons" would imply that they no longer have two sons.KTo288 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sensitivity is called for

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)

Life support

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)

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." ([1]) – so not terribly authoritative. Cycle~ (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added a Liz Smith article. That should take care of it. Let me know if you want more. --Crunch (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Reliable sources and ensuring the article only reflects what sources say

Folks, there are problems here. The BBC reference, a good and reliable source, does not say that Richardson suffered a head injury or any words to that effect; adding that into the lead is inaccurate use of reference sources and amounts to WP:OR.

Even more concerning is the use of a Liz Smith column as a reference source for statements regarding life support. Liz Smith is a gossip columnist. The MSNBC reference source explicitly states that their information comes from Liz Smith. These are not reliable sources for anything that goes into the article. Risker (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I just added CBS News and ABC News as sources just minutes ago. Together with the BBC source, I think this should be sufficient. Dmarquard (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that none of those sources specifically describe her injuries or state that she was removed from life support. Risker (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm, let me correct that. Both the CBS and ABC news articles mention "head injury" in subheading titles, but neither actually say it in their stories. Not quite sure what to make of that. Risker (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

CBS News and ABC News at least confirm a head injury. Do you suggest the line about the removal of life support be retracted until more details are released? Dmarquard (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Already retracted, I see. Sounds good to me. Dmarquard (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the BBC reference most certainly does say head injury, twice, in the section headings, which was specifically what you said about the ABC and CBS articles. I would not have added that had I not actually read it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that they have updated the report recently to add that to the section headings (it wasn't present for a long time). This becomes an interesting question. The section headings are "editorial" decisions, just as headlines are (i.e., they aren't considered facts in themselves), and they're not supported at all by the text of the reports themselves for all three sources (BBC, ABC and CBS). Intellectually, I agree with the inferences drawn; however, the facts that support the inferences aren't there. Risker (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The CBS News article explicitly says "head injury" in the first paragraph. Wildhartlivie (talk)

It does now, it didn't two hours ago. (I note CBS doesn't time their updates, as the BBC does.) Good decision to rearrange the refs so that CBS is used for the lead. Risker (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Liz Smith and gossip column status. Each citation should be evaluated on its own merit and while Smith is commonly known as a gossip columnist, her documented friendship with the Redgrave/Richardson/Neeson family makes this reference probably more reliable than simply gossip. Note that mainstream news, like MSNBC picked up Smith's report. Doesn't it make more sense to use Smith's original statement at least in addition to the re-reporting by MSNBC et al? --Crunch (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo news link

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)

First ambulance sent away

I am wondering why this information [2] was removed? The sources say that the decision to not allow the first ambulance and paramedics to attend to her might have cost her her life,"The retreat may have ultimately cost Ms. Richardson dearly" so I don't see how it could be excluded under WT. Even so, it could be lessened rather than removed altogether. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevance. The sources are expressing their own opinions, and matter not a whit to us. If there is an inquest, and this "information" then becomes relevant, it can be included. Until then, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a forensic treatise. --Rodhullandemu 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think that is a non sequitur. The details pertaining to the medical attention, as reported by reliable sources, are already a part of the article as they should be. Maybe, however, you would prefer to leave out the quotes of the medical personnel? Certainly you can't want to exclude the reports that paramedics arrived early but were sent away without seeing her, do you? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perspective. This is an article about her whole life: 45 years. Minor detail surrounding her death is just that: minor detail. The question to be asked is "how does this content assist the reader to understand the subject of this article?". I don't think it does. You might just as well put in what her favourite colour was. --Rodhullandemu 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your prior objection was releated to this aspect being too technical(a forensic treatise); now you're saying it is too mundane. Here are the sources [3][4][5] I completely disagree with your analogy. Usually readers need to know and want to know the details of someone's death, especially if there was something out of the ordinary in reliably sourced reports concerning the medical attention given or not given. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been added back anyway. OK, let the tabloid ghouls have every minor, trivial, blow-by-blow account of this sad incident. This is a fucking encyclopedia, and I suggest these people go and read a real one to see how it should be written, and The Sun to see how it shouldn't. You're on your own. --Rodhullandemu 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is far from a traditional encyclopedia. You would be correct if wiki was a traditional encyclopedia, but honestly it's just not. And hasn't been for sometime. I'm not sure of the exact definition for wiki, but people do seem to come here for all those tiny details. A real encyclopedia is sourceable. I don't know of any college that let's you source wiki....just to put it in perspective. 98.227.241.45 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In some ways WP is better than a traditional encyclopedia, because it has live links between articles to enable quick navigation between topics; it also updates "on the fly", as it were, so is more up to date than a paper encyclopedia which is out of date the day it goes to print. Where WP isn't better is that anyone can come along and add any old rubbish to articles- and they frequently do; that's why we have a policy of verifiability, and cite sources. We also have a neutrality policy, which some older paper encyclopedias may not, since they farm out articles to academics who may have a particular axe to grind in their own topic area. But nobody is pretending that WP is anything other than a starting point for research, and colleges who disallow sourcing from here directly are acting perfectly correctly, since they understand the differenced between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Rodhullandemu 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously extremely relevant and newsworthy. Put it back in. --Crunch (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, it is. Never mind, some proper editors will be along shortly. --Rodhullandemu 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rodhull on this - the tiny details that are presently in the "death" section do not belong in this biography - they are inconsequential in the story of her whole life and career. What is relevant is that she died as a result of head injuries incurred in an accidental fall. For example, the name and quote from the director of the ambulance company that did not treat her is completely unnecessary for this article. If that belongs anywhere, it's in the Wikinews article, so I'd suggest it be moved there and removed from this encyclopedia biography which appropriately links to wikinews. This section should be significantly reduced. Tvoz/talk 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you may be one of the "proper editors" Rodhull said would be coming along.This:[6] Death section is about 10 times as long as the one here, so I think a better reason needs to be given before deleting the 2 sentences relating to a part of the event which a RS says "could have cost Ms. Richardson dearly" would be expunged. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a piss-poor argument to support a contention that because one article does something, so should another. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't claim to be a proper or improper editor, I merely gave my opinion on this. The comparison to the section regarding Natalie Wood's death is particularly poor - not only because it's completely irrelevant to this article as Rodhull correctly points out, but also because in fact much speculation has swirled around the circumstances of Wood's death for many, many years, so those details could easily be seen as legitimately part of her biography. But that has nothing to do with Richardson. Tvoz/talk 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh get lost troll. The relevance is obvious, though the details about paramedic names are overkill. 83.108.241.202 (talk) stallu —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

And who are you calling a troll? Tvoz/talk 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New report: Richardson "refused medical attention" from First Responders (ambulance)

I am wondering if there is a consensus that anything from today's Toronto Globe and Mail front page article [7] is worth adding? It gives a time line for when the first ambulance arrived (17 minutes from the time of the fall) and when she was sent to hospital (4 hours later) and also says that Richardson refused medical attention from the first ambulance. I think it's relevant to the section about her death that she initially refused medical attention. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite necessary in order to accurately describe the circumstances of her death, in regard to time line especially. I'll add it for now. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant, in my view. It would be sufficient to state that she fell and initially declined medical attention [link to some article that says that], but shortly after was admitted to Hospital X then transferred to Hospital Y, and later to Hospital Z where she died. We do not need to act as apologists for the ski hill or the ambulance services here, and I think your time line above is off as well.

Richardson is noteworthy only because of her career. Thousands of people fall on ski hills every day of the winter, hundreds suffer injuries, many suffer head injuries, and some of them die from them. The fact of her death is relevant to the article; the minute detail of it is not, as it is not in any way related to her noteworthiness. Risker (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Only in response to your comment about the frequency of ski injuries (I would not have brought that up myself as it is OR), I don't doubt your general references to skiing deaths but I would bet very,very few, if any, would have happened on a beginners' hill while in the company of an instructor. Regarding another point, I don't take these details in any way as apologising for the ski hill or ambulance; to me they are just reported details of the event of her death. Regarding your final point,I am wondering,however, whether her death and the manner of it might not,indeed, be related in a little bitty way to her noteworthiness.I have never heard of her before. Only in response to your comment, I do know that Larry King last night had ski and medical experts talking about the brain,skull,impact, necessity for fast medical attention, and helmets and stuff like that in the context of the details of her death. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

17 minutes and 4 hours. interesting. if she had agreed to take medical attention in 17 minutes from the fall, she may not have been dead. In this regard, I wouldnt say, the timeline might not be totally irrelevant. --Docku: What's up? 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.grantevans2 that her death has turned out to be a tragically notable aspect of her life. Thanks to Natasha_Richardson#Filmography I realize that I'd seen her ages ago in Nell, but I think that the unusual circumstances of her death have brought about a resurgence in her fame. Perhaps her death will turn out to be a cue to seek immediate medical attention for even the most trivial-seeming head injuries; perhaps her death will, indeed, save lives. I've heard plenty of discussion to this effect on the news, and I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of sources pick up on this theme. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And here we go: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any star's death becomes notable for a short period of time following it, and it's more the rule rather than the exception that news sources examine facets of the death of a notable person. If it is a death in a car accident, safe driving is examined. If it is from drug use, then that becomes a news focus. Sure, they take opportunity to use the death as a example of how to avoid a similar fate, and that's fine, but unless the means by which she died results in something beyond the moment of her death, then I'm not so sure that each article needs to delve into how the news used it to generate new stories that are only tangentially about the Wikipedia article's subject. Richardson's death has brought an increase in her mention in the news, her fame has always been notable. It really is beyond the scope of this article to do an analysis or examination of "what if" discussion, and while it most certainly is tragic, I don't see the need to explore "what if" she hadn't believed she was fine, or "what if" she hadn't refused medical treatment, or "what if" there had been a trauma center specializing in head injuries nearby. Unless a "Natasha Richardson Trauma Center" opens, or a "Natasha Richardson Helmet Law" is passed, I think it is more pertinent to the article to report her death as if it were any other article, refrain from engaging in either memorializing or tabloidizing her death. I don't believe any of that sort of coverage is encyclopedic. I work on a lot of actor biographies and they are often filled with too much extraneous detail that, in 1 year, or 2 or 5, become undue weight on one particular aspect. I sympathize with the Redgrave and Neeson families, and I think this death is tragic, but once we start including all the news reports that use her death to make other points that don't really matter now, it overwhelms her death itself very soon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Her death is certainly significant, and the outlines of what happened - that it was a skiing accident - are appropriate. But the details of the ambulance's comings and goings and which hospitals she was brought to, and the like are not appropriate for an encyclopedia biography. That's what Wikinews is for, and that article should be updated if it hasn't yet been, so that our link yields the latest news material. But those details do not belong here. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I find Cosmic Latte's RSs compelling regarding the focus of her notability. What's there now (about the medical treatment) is not too much detail for an encyclopedia in my opinion; it's only 2 additional sentences (4 in total) I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And the name of the ambulance supervisor is notable for Richardson's biography why? Tvoz/talk 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I just took it out. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if it's already been mentioned but she also didn't wear a helmet in the first place... 174.115.22.232 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary overreferencing

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)

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)

Error in dates

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)

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)

Could en dashes also work? Calebrw (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Funeral protest rumors

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for that - I'm considering the wording... Tonywalton ^Talk 11:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Second image

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)

Church

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)

Actually, St. Peter's Episcopal Church, where the funeral was held, is located on Deep Hollow Road in Lithgow, New York. [14] I don't know why so many news reports placed it in Millbrook. Here are a couple that got it right [15] [16] 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Image

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)

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).

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)

Please go back to the previous image. The coloured glasses in the current one obscure her face. I know the previous image isn't perfect, but it is significantly better and much more recent. Risker (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Front Page Timeline Article

[17] 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)

More sources

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)

Another article, this one in the Vancouver Sun: Canadian healthcare didn’t kill Natasha Richardson: doctor. Mindmatrix 02:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lead section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

English Born American Actress

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)

Actually, being an American citizen would make her an 'American' by definition. The Madonna analogy doesn't work since Madonna has never been a British subject, unlike Richardson who had dual citizenship. (Sellpink (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC))

categorization

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

Profile photo so to say

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)

It's reaĺl unflattering...please replace it Nrjuly94 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Was she a beginner or expert skier?

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)

Factual error in article

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Natasha Richardson 2007.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why she died

An head injury 81.101.56.207 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)