Talk:Heather Mills/Archive 1

Move

I moved this from Heather Mills to Heather Mills McCartney. The old page name was just mildly outdated, I felt I should rectify this. Vague Rant 08:09, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I changed "proclaiming" to "presuming." "...proclaiming to represent..." seemed an awkward and inaccurate usage. "claiming" instead of "proclaiming" would also work.EllenT 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Offensive

"fairly colourful" past?

I agree. I definitely sense a POV from this article. Avigon 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i don't think that you can say she was a Porno star from a book that was published 18 years ago. i think you should give Heather the benefit of the doubt.

It's probably best to stick to the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Some of the references to her modelling career don't stand up as fact.--Escaper7 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sir Paul" vs "Paul"

calling him Sir every time, may be correct but sounds very odd, very British, and puts him on a different plane than her. I find it offensive and elitist. If you look at other articles of knighted individuals they are called by first name, last name, both but not always "Sir Firstname"

weird if ya ask me, I just changed one, because i did not want to appear to be vandalizing, but if we could bring balance here that would be great

When men are knighted the address of "Sir" replaces the address of "Mr.", unless they choose not to. Therefore one should use "Sir" only where one would otherwise use the title of Mister. So Mr. John Smith becomes Sir John Smith and Mr. Smith becomes Sir John. For some reason, American news networks overuse British titles, and frequently get them wrong.

It is incorrect to use royal, noble or other addresses for people of those ranks if they are not used for people of all ranks.

"Sir Paul" does not exist, it's a media mistake. He is "Sir James" - Sir James Paul McCartney MBE, he should be refered to by the name he is commonly known as, "Paul McCartney," never "Sir Paul" Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it is. I only put it there to get you out yer pram again:) Cheers oh fishy one! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldent it be Sir mccartney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.190.65 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Motorcycle Accident

I was under the impression that Heather was struck by a police motorcycle while jaywalking. "Crossing the street" makes it sound as if the accident was totally the fault of the officer, when in fact it was not.

She certainly wasn't "jaywalking", as such a thing doesn't exist in the UK (as our article on it points out). Proteus (Talk) 22:14,

Mills life is complex, controversial and full of litigation, there have been many lawsuits and much publicity seeking. Thing around her seem to quickly become chaotic, as this entry shows. The police motorcyclist was cleared (in court) of careless driving. At some point he launched an action against her for anxiety and stress. He has since retired "because of injuries suffered in the accident". http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/mills.%20leg%20loss%20cop%20speaks%20out

At around the time she met McCartney, she was still suing the Metropolitan Police for damages. She stated her action was in retaliation for the action taken by the police motorcyclist. Seven years after the accident, the Metropolitan Police settled out of court for a sum of £200,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/711402.stm She

3/22/07, Heather Mills appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and stated that her leg was severed at the scene of the accident, not amputated subsequent to the accident (she said she could actually see it in traffic). Due to the way it was severed, doctors could not reattach it. She also mentioned her head was split open which was not mentioned in her list of injuries. Another note, the said plate for her pelvis was due to its being crushed in the accident.

even if the leg were severed, she could still have it amputated "below-knee" amputation. This may sound odd, but form a surgical point of view, the bone needs to be cleaned up and often shortened, tissue needs to be removed and a flap needs to be brought over the stump so that healing can be optimized and a prosthesis can be fitted. That is, even is PART of it were severed, another part "below-knee" (pronounced baloney) will need to be amputated.

Read this

I think the allegations being made in the UK press about Heather Mills' background are a bit questionable, but the national press have in-house lawyers and deep pockets. If it were to turn out that some of the comments being made about her are libelous, and they are repeated on Wikipedia that effectively repeats the libel - and saying 'alleged' is not a sufficient defence. That's why I've removed the line 'alleged prostitute' (which doesn't make sense anyway). If anyone wants to revert it, I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy document on libel; and the libel article on Wikipedia for more information. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a running commentary of every 'story' reported about her in the papers. Any statment must be attributed or verified (see link above)again, this is standard Wikipedia policy.--Escaper7 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The libel laws are a joke. Note that she isn't actually sueing, she's just threatening to sue at a far off date. My guess is that she never will. You couldn't get a much more obvious example of rich people using the law for intimidatory purposes. 62.31.55.223 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but I do have the full statement from Stephen Taylor, and it says she will defer starting proceedings until after any divorce arrangements are made, all we need to do is provide a balanced account of thing we know to be verifiable; so let's stick to what we know and can verify, after all this is not chat room, or blog, it's simply an account of a person.--Escaper7 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal warning issued

Further to my above comments please read the above discussion before making any changes to this article now the legal warning has been made on her behalf.--Escaper7 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

As this article is being controlled on her behalf by legal threats it is pretty much worthless and needs a semi-permanent neutrality warning. 62.31.55.223 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs rewriting - the story from the NoW is still sourced in this article, now the story moves on with solicitors' response and that provides balance.--Escaper7 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With a NPOV boilerplate now attached to this story it's open to anyone to add their views on NPOV, and for a resouloution to be discussed and applied in line with the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy document. As I've said above, I don't think there's a problem with this article. If anything, the article is perhaps biased against Mills McCartney because there are several things listed as trivia that need a citation. Please add your comments directly below. Escaper7 11:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The rationale for the POV tag, "this is the official version as approved by Heather Mills, and it looks like it will have to stay that way for some time. The libels laws are dreadful", does not hold. What specifically is disputed? --Ezeu 10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine, the POV tag was placed by one person, no-one else has entered the discussion, so I agree with your decision to remove it, as that seems to have formed the consensus. Thanks for looking at thisEscaper7 11:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace

In her book Out On A limb, Heather states that her birth certificate says she was born in Aldershot, Hampshire. I've checked on the index of births and there is a Heather Ann Mills registered in Aldershot in the 1st quarter of 1968, with a mother with the maiden name of Finlay. It could be that she was born in Washington, but not registered until later when the family was in Aldershot (her father, Mark Mills was in the army). There is no mention in the book of the family being in Washington until later in her childhood (before that the family lived in Libanus, Wales; Arnwick, Scotland; Rothbury, Northumberland; Seaton Sluice, Tyne & Wear; Seahouses, Northumberland). By getting the birth certificate this can be cleared up. Watch this space. Mark —The preceding comment was added by 143.252.80.110 (talk • contribs) 15:54 (UTC), 16 June 2006.

Her birthplace is described on IMDb as Aldershot, so it should be changed.Escaper7 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point - Washington should be Washington, Tyne & Wear, not Washington, Sunderland

I've checked the birthplace using a database of national and regional newspapers. She was born in Aldershot according to quotes from books, and The Telegraph and a few other newspapers. Since no one has added to this discussion, I'm going to change it as it's been more than a couple of weeks since this was first flagged.--Escaper7 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now seen her birth certificate. Her place of birth is Louise Margaret Hospital, Aldershot. Father Staff Sergeant 23847256 John Mark Francis Mills (known as Mark Mills), Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Mother Beatrice Mary Mills (nee Finlay). Mark

Reason for targetting?

Heather Mills is like Diana Spencer was: she courted journalists and publicity at every single available opportunity, yet demanded 100% privacy when it suited her. So we saw how wonderful/beautiful/generous/caring/brave she was, but when journo's started asking questions about the stories going round about how she took on the identity of another identically-named person for personal and professional gain she cried foul. I remember the day she and Paul McCartney were engaged: both stood outside their home and lapped up the attention from press and TV for hours - it carried on for weeks. We were invited to follow them wherever they went on 'good' causes. Then all of a sudden they separate because the press do not allow them to live private lives. What private lives?! This is why the tabloids have turned. Wrong, yes, but not without a cause. 86.17.246.75 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Heather, Lady McCartney"? I don't think so.

Why is the initial reference to "Heather, Lady McCartney" instead of to her actual name? If, indeed, she is even entitled to be called "Lady Heather," it's only as a courtesy, and anyway the correct form would be "Lady Heather McCartney" (McCartney is a name, not a title). She is not a noble and neither is Paul McCartney. He's not "Baron McCartney." He's only a knight. So that "Lady McCartney" is not a real title anyway. I'm changing it pending a better explanation. Acsenray 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See Order_of_the_British_Empire#Precedence_and_privileges: "Wives of Knights may prefix "Lady" to their surnames". So Lady McCartney (or Lady Mills McCartney?) would be correct. --duncan 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that they may do it. It's simply a courtesy issue. It's not a real title. The article should begin with her actual, legal name.Acsenray 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It does. Proteus (Talk) 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfectly ok to me with every possible naming convention covered - the title of the article makes it clear who she is--Escaper7 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Naming Diana as Prince Charles's first wife makes it clear who she is. It doesn't make it a suitable form of address. I am a little confused (and i'm not an expert) but I would think that calling her Heather, Lady McCartney would be in accurate. I should imagine The Lady Heather McCartney would be the more accurate or Lady Heather McCartney. I was under the impression that Heather, Lady McCartney implied that she was divorced (refer tothe divorced wives of peers). Take for example the former Duchess of York. Prior to her marriage she was simply Sarah Ferguson, on her marriage she became HRH The Duchess of York and following her marriage she reverted to her own name and former title as Sarah, Duchess of York. Surely as the former wife of Sir Paul McCartney she would be known as Heather, Lady McCartney. Therefore, why is she known as Heather, Lady McCartney in this article although she is not yet divorced. She is still Lady Heather Mills McCartney and should be referred to as such. Calling her Heather, Lady McCartney is like calling Diana, Princess of Wales HRH The Princess of Wales. It is inaccurate and should be ammended.

Actually, referring to her as "Lady" with her name given name afterward e.g. "The Lady Heather McCartney" or as "Lady Heather" indicate that she is the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl. As the ex-wife of Sir Paul McCartney (or any other knight) she is correctly Heather, Lady McCartney. During her marriage she would have been Heather, The Lady McCartney note the use of the predicate 'The.' - Queen Brandissima

The form of address for women who are divorced from peers is based on legal precident set by Cowley v. Cowley. Many women now adopt their new husband's name upon remarriage. However, the ex-wife of a peer (or prince) may retain the style of address used by a divorcee even is she were to remarry and divorce a dozen times. E.g. Sarah, Duchess of York could marry Mr. John Doe and remain Sarah, Duchess of York with her current precedence even if she and Mr. Doe were to divorce.

I should, however, point out that Heather Mills made a statement some time ago that she was reverting to her maiden name and that she would no longer use Heather McCartney or Lady McCartney. It's her personal preference. She may use Heather, Lady McCartney anytime in the future that she chooses, but we should list her as Heather Mills if she has reverted to the use of her maiden name on all occassions. - Queen Brandissima

So, when she marries her next rich victim and steals his name for a few short years, does she lose the "Lady" associated with McCartney?

Porn

The porn allegations earlier on in the article and later under Criticisms should be merged. Also the bit about her losing her leg under Trivia should be merged into the earlier section on this. Ben Finn 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily so - for the early part of her career she was a model so it's necessary to say that. Criticisms deals with lots of issues about why she has been criticised, important because those issues may have affected the couple's marriage.--Escaper7 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the term "hooker" mean something different in the U.K. than the U.S.? Saw a British tabloid refer to her as an "ex-hooker" which would mean in Yank English she was once a prostitute...

no, that's exactly what it means in UK English too.--duncan 06:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you exactly mean by "Yank" English? Does it take too much time to write out "American English"? Erikkukun 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Being pedantic, you could say that a hooker is a person who is the middle of the scrum in Rugby... :)--andreasegde 14:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Journalist?

In Trivia: "Mills was a journalist for the Newcastle chronicle, for which she wrote an on-going column". In Criticisms: "For example, Private Eye alleged that before she was famous in her own right, Heather Mills pretended for some time to be a newspaper journalist (as there is a journalist of the same name)"

I wasn't able to find any source for her writing for the Chronicle (certainly nothing on their own website); has someone perhaps confused her with a proper journalist of the same name, as implied by the Criticism part? --duncan 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This part really should be removed. Heather was never a journalist. This was a different Heather Mills-- who by the way has gone public in complaining about how Heather Mills McCartney took credit for her work and claimed to be her. 38.2.108.125 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Wheen met Mills the model when she was claiming to be Mills the journalist. Unfortunately for Mills (the model), Wheen is personal friends with Mills (the journalist)!! 86.17.246.29 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Ross said Heather is such a liar, he wouldn't be surprised to hear she has two legs. - Kittybrewster 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this edit as it is still unverified months later.Natalie West 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady

Naming convention: now changed in line with other wiki articles on lords and ladies - please discuss before changing this again.--Escaper7 13:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wives of peers (Forenames Surname, Rank (of) Title) and wives of knights (Forenames, Lady Surname) follow different rules. Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how it is now, looks like it's correct as she's the wife of a knight: Heather, Lady McCartney, or perhaps Heather, Lady Mills McCartney. Compare with Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher. She's a baroness in her own right, so I think it's correct for the Mills' article. Any thoughts? Escaper7 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. (To be more precise it's "Forenames, Lady Husband's-Surname", so she can't be "Lady Mills McCartney".) Proteus (Talk)

Her title seems to be getting repeatedly changed, hence the latest reversion. Please enter the discussion before making any further changes. Escaper7 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Until she loses the title through divorce, she can be called Heather, Lady McCartney but not Lady Mills McCartney. She has her title by marriage, not in her own right. 38.2.108.125 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of Princess Michael. Also, as McCartney is a pretty common name I'd definitely only ever would refer to her as Lady Paul McCartney. Oalexander-En 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In the States she seems to refer to herself as Heather Mills, but that may be in part to the fact that we get confused with the whole nobility business. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady my ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Divorce

I carefully unpicked the meaningless par about 'official' divorce and incorrect spelling of behaviour. It's tautology to say that a divorce can be officially filed for, resolved or whatever it was. Also whoever keeps adding the Anti fur campaign image please stop - it may come from a URL but links directly to a jpeg. That's not inline with Wiki policy on images, and it represents a very one sided POV of her. The line about divorce I added (definition) is taken from and linked to the Wiki divorce article using the exact legal wording so please don't keep changing this otherwise we'll all be messing around with three reversion rule thing - let's just concentrate on exapnding what we know and adding detail - like attributing Sir Paul's quote. Escaper7 10:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) BTW: "People magazine" People magazine where? The USA or the UK they are different!

While "denied allegations" should not be placed within wikipedia articles, it probably merits to judge articles on a case by case basis. I am referring to Mill's allegations of domestic violence by Paul McCartney. These allegations are contained within her divorce papers, and merely reporting what she has stated in her divorce papers, doesnot amount to have taken a partisan view. Since these allegations, whether actually true or not, because they are contained within legal papers and because they are being subject to intense discussion, it is necessary to atleast mention about them (along with Paul McCartney or his sources' denials). Here is the news article (Daily Mail had published these leaked charges) [1]. I request the wikipedia admins to reconsider this point. rahul regula 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, this is an encyclopaedia not a blog, forum, or news story; therefore it's not necessary to list every twist and turn, go into detail, and definitely NOT list accusations. Read through all the entries on this talk page to see how people have felt about the various legal issues. Also, today, it has emerged from media friendly lawyer Mark Stephens, speaking on BBC News, that the 13 page document is possibly a hoax as it does not have her signature, and was sent anonymously to a newspaper. As I've said before: national newspapers have deep pockets and in-house lawyers to examine their copy, and fight any allegations. With biogs on Wikipedia - of living people - it's best to avoid difficult legal issues, and don't take the deletion of your edits personally, even though you may have found it frustrating. The previous editor removed your edit just as I was about to anyway, but don't be put off. Escaper7 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you think these papers (if genuine) got into the public domain? Who do you think leaked them and why? Wikipedia is not a place for gossip. Of course her allegations are not NPOV. If they are in legal papers before the family court they should not be discussed outside those proceedings. If they are subject of discussion, they should not be. The only relevant point is that it is acknowledged by both that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. - Kittybrewster 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sainsbury's Incident

According to an article in The Sun Heather was refused entry to a Sainsbury's supermarket due to her shoplifting history some years previously. Sainsbury's give Mucca the boot Sainsbury's have now issued the statement, “We can confirm Heather Mills McCartney would be most welcome to shop in any of our stores.”

Trivia section

I think some of the trivia seems a bit odd and, well, untrivial. I'm thinking mainly about her being a homeless child, stealing food and clothes to survive, and the circumstances of her mother dying. Shouldn't this stuff be in a bit about her early life? I always thought of trivia as curious but ultimately of little importance. Dw290 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On other Wikipedia talk pages, the consensus is that there is no place (or need) in an encyclopaedia for a trivia section. Personally I think a good half of this article is trivial, and would bin it. I don't contribute to this too much these days because it struggles to maintain its NPOV and has been edited by so many people, it has about five different 'tones'. Maybe it's time for a major rewrite? Escaper7 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Divorce petition

The link to The First Post [2] looks very suspect. I've never heard of it but it describes itself as being: ...owned by First Post NewsGroup Limited and is backed by private investors who are involved in the development of new media opportunities... I think it should be removed - any thoughts? Anyway, the authenticity of the petition (see above) is in question. Escaper7 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the First Post from time to time, it seems reasonably reliable online news and opinion. I have no reason to doubt it's credibility.--duncan 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure - mainly because the original version of the petition could be a hoax - apparently it was never signed by herself - that came from media lawyer Mark Stephens on BBC News last week. It also raises the question of relevance. There seems to be two schools of thought on this (Wiki) article. One that is a general biography: "she's getting divorced", and one that details every twist and turn, includes gossip and incorrectly sourced material. Escaper7 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers sued

The Press Association and BBC News have run stories that she has started legal proceedings against the D.Mail and Evening Standard, so it's probably worth continuing to discuss major changes to this story before making edits. See: [3] Escaper7 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be clarified somewhat. I can see no evidence that she has issued legal proceedings, just that her solicitors have issued a statement to say that legal proceedings will be taken. This compares with Mishcon De Reya's statement that she would sue papers over statements that she worked as a prostitute, but would defer these actions until after the divorce, and previous statements issued on her behalf in a similar vein. DavidFarmbrough 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

David, see today's article in The Guardian.[4] Philip Cross 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've subsequently seen the whole statement - it says proceedings have started against D.Mail and Eve Standard, with the Sun to follow. Escaper7 04:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

she is sewing the Newspapers. and i thought she didnt have a leg to stand on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Heather cant sew anyone as she dosnt have a leg to stand on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

War of the McCartneys

Is there merit in having a fresh article about the McCartney divorce allegations and the propaganda battle? Something like War of the Waleses. - Kittybrewster 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My gut instinct is no, for several reasons, most as per my comments above in the various sub-headings. Such an article would be plagued by vandalism, and I'm not sure how you can have an article based on allegations. And quite often on Wikipedia, editors think that by adding the word "alleged" it makes any following accusations legally sound - and of course it doesn't. However, it might be possible to create such an article when all the facts are known, and the information publicly available, in the meantime, they remain allegations. That's my view. Escaper7 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment my impression is that Heather has sought publicity and to put about "her side of the story" and that Paul has said very little. And that Heather is losing the propaganda war as a direct result. - Kittybrewster 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the word alegedly stops your ass getinf sewed in court. because you are not saying one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Escaper7 Re: page protection

We generally try to avoid having pages protected for too long, as that violates the principle of Wikipedia as a whole. If the vandals return, please request protection again. BTW, it should be noted that I was the one that requested protection in the first place. I have had this page on my watchlist for some time and I will act to re-protect quickly if the vandals start acting up again (including protection or reversion). Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What a smart girl..

The McFartneys

I read in a newspaper today that Heather Mills wants a South Park/Simpsons style cartoon based on Paul McCartney's family, dubbed The McFartneys, to be made, portraying Paul as a lazy, Homer Simpson style character. Google has nothing on it yet; there are no real reliable sources at this point in time, but it'll be one to watch for developments on.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is now returning many more results on the term, but it could just be a tabloid rumour.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Large change needs checkup

I noticed that 81.154.168.72 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) made a rather large set of changes. They also broke the heading trying to put in a redlinked picture, which has me worried about their other efforts. I would have reverted, but I don't know enough to feel comfortable doing so. Shenme 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks as though the article has been progressively altered (for the worse) since Youngamerican's edit on 22 Feb. As well as the rather bizarre image that has replaced the info box image, the disambiguation section at the top of the article has been removed. I propose reverting it back to Youngamerican's edit - then adding the bot/maintenance edits again. I haven't really been watching this page recently so I'm not across all the changes/discussions. Escaper7 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct page name?

When should the article be moved to Heather Mills? How should she be addressed in the article, as Mills or Mills McCartney? Will she remain Lady McCartney after the divorce is final? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would, in fact, support a move to Heather Mills at this time, as she seems to be using that name now. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not been following this too closely of late, but was asked to comment by another user - for what it's worth, refs to her name should be changed at the point when divorce proceedings are complete. I don't know what happent to her title when she is divorced, presumably she loses it as it wasn't she that was honoured but her husband. Escaper7 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rosicrucian 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If she went my Heather Mills McCartney as a married woman, that should remain until divorced. However, if she professionally continued to be known as Heather Mills, that would be how I think it should go. --Blue Tie 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She now uses "Heather Mills" professionally, so the move was made per WP:COMMONNAME. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She will remain "Lady McCartney". Divorced wives of knights retain their titles until remarriage. Unlike with the divorced wives of peers and baronets, the title is not prefixed by their first name. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikicommons Image

I understand we generally should use Wikicommons images over others, but this one seems to be intentionally unflattering, and not particularly representative of the subject of the article.--Rosicrucian 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefull we can get a GFDL-friendly image of better quality soon. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be removed, it's awful and doesn't look right on my screen. Escaper7 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. I suspect that it might be of questionable copyright status itself. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Longer term semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article and included a template for articles that need longer-term protection due to daily edits that are in violation of WP:BLP by anon users. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version and if anyone disagrees with this action, I am 100% cool with having another admin reviewing it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it being a semi-protect, it was easy enough to weed out the anonymous edits that were drekking up the article anyway.--Rosicrucian 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Why isn't this page at Heather Mills? That is the name most of the world knows her by, regardless of what her actual "legal" name is. Bob Denver is not at Robert Denver; Cher is not at Cherilyn LaPiere. Making the McCartney page the primary page seems silly.--68.167.204.121 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:COMMONNAME. Will work on moving today. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold digger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

biased

It seems to me that most of the information under and following the Awards and Activism section is rather slanted. The use of the word "misleadingly" is very loaded and should be perhaps changed to "it is misleading" or, "however [this group] is not actually" The use of misleading re: the UNA might be justified but I know nothing about that group. I'm just saying, some of the stuff written here sounds like it's trying to villify the woman and isn't very 'encyclopedic' 142.46.203.100 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I find the phrase " Websites under control by Heather Mills describe this misleadingly as an "Open University Doctorate"." to be total POV. Erikkukun 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the OU web site and she was given an honourary docterate, so I've included that as a reference. Also on her main web site the reference to this is in a section about honours she has been given, so I don't think anyone could claim that she was trying to mislead people into thinking it was a docterate by study. So I've removed the "misleading" sentence. Mike Moreton 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up Tag

I applied a cleanup tag today because.....

• The references are all over the place! formats, cites, etc
• There is a hopeless trivia section which could easily be incorporated into the main article

• Done. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In review, I tend to agree with the anon user 142.46.203.100 that the awards and activism section is at best biased.

• Fixed, mostly. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't afford the time now to do this, so applied tag. Rgds, - Trident13 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I have put a photo in. Maybe the t-shirt she is wearing could be worn again, with the words, "Thank You For The Millions" added on it. --andreasegde 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

attracted to richard hammond

Someone has put into the article (twice) a sentence with an unclear source that says that she has stated that she was "attracted to Richard Hammond when she was featured on Top Gear". Is there some reason we should care about this? Is this somehow notable? This is an encyclopedia biography - why would we include this? Tvoz |talk 08:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsubstantiated rumors as to why PETA dropped her

In the 'Animal Rights' section, I'm going to remove the following text:
it is alleged that she has been dropped by PETA over her controversial behavior and because McCartney's daughter Mary refused to continue her work with the organization unless it cut ties with Mills.[citation needed] However, this is unsubstantiated by any major news network
1. It carries no reference
2. Even the text says it's unsubstantiated
If it's unsubstantiated (ie, just gossip) I don't think it should be in a Wikipedia BLP. Thanks, Lester 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything at all without a reference should be deleted. Get the scissors out. --andreasegde (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)