Talk:Heather Mills McCartney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.		This Paul McCartney-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. Document exceptions on the talk page of the article and here. It is Project policy that (with possible exceptions depending on context) all article references to the band's name should be in title case ("The Beatles" and not "the Beatles") If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Biography's Arts and Entertainment work group, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to people on Wikipedia.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. To Merge: To Create: Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Songs covered by The Beatles: Hippy Hippy Shake. The Big Three. Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Macca single: My Brave Face. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). Be-Bop-A-Lula. Go Now (song) - Moody Blues song sung by Denny Laine on Wings Over America (also needs wikilinking from various Wings and Moody Blues related articles). Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Mal Evans, Flying (song), Astrid Kirchherr, Jimmy Nicol, Cynthia Powell, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park. We need a better open-licenced photo for the project, to replace the Abbey Road crossing. If you provide a photo, please remove the ReqPhoto tag from the article's talk page and remove the article from this list. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Car 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,

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.”

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)