Talk:Heather Mills/Archive 3

GA

This article is getting close to GA status. A few more references and a good clean with a stiff brush, and Bob's your uncle, as they say. BTW, the references need to be formatted. --andreasegde (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I personally can't stomach the woman, I have cleaned a lot of the article, and think it is very close to GA status.--andreasegde (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done an amazing job on improving the references, structure and writing of this article. I'd really like to see a better lead image--there's something vaguely hagiographic about the current photo, although--given how many people hate her--I wouldn't like to see a horribly unflattering image either. Something neutral would be nice.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but it was hard enough (so I have read) to get that one. I also think it's a bad picture, but I would err more on it being demonic rather than saintly (look at those eyes... :) Getting a neutral image of her would be interesting, though.--andreasegde (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sun Question box

I have added it as it balances the photo of the seal.--andreasegde (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As there is only one fair-use photo on this page, let's hope the Photo-Polizei don't come down on them all, which they are known to do.--andreasegde (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean

A few more references to be fixed, a good read-through of the text, expanding the Lead into three sections, and Ms Mills-Mucca will be on her way to a GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through this very carefully (and going through it three or more times) because it will make the GA review easier (one always misses something). The Lead will be filled out when everything is ready.--andreasegde (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go; that bloody woman has been nominated.--andreasegde (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heather Mills/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Refs

• Current #1 missing writer details - Andrew Clennell.
• Current #5 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
• Current #9 should be changed to "The Times" for consistency with others.
• Current #11 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #13 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #14 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
• Current #17 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #19 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
  • Note Current refs #14 and #19 should now be identical, there isn't a need to write them out in full twice.
• Current #20 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #23 needs a publishing and retrieve date.
• Current #32 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #33 needs a retrieve date.
• Current #32 and #34 are repeats of one another, no need for full source repeating.
• Current #33 and #35 are the same, no need to repeat. Also its "The Daily Telegraph". Remember writer, date and access date when you format (you did it right just making sure you do it right again :-))
• Current #37 link to Youtube, quite sure its banned on wikipedia.
• Current #38 needs retrieve date.
• Current #39 needs publish date - (12-03-2007)
• Current #47 needs publisher - (BBC)
• Current #53 needs a retrieve date
• Current #57 are two Youtube links
• Current #60 needs a writer - (Finlo Rohrer)
• Current #67 is a dead link
• Current #68 need a retrieve date

Accuracy

• "and accepted an out-of-court settlement from Mills.[1]" - The ref doesn't mention a settlement.
• "Jim Guy, the owner of Penrose Jewellers, said, "Everything she wrote about me was lies, I never gave her a job; she just hung around and made tea. She told me her father was dead. The only thing that was true was she nicked [stole] stuff from the shop". - That doesn't seem sourced to me
• "Mills got engaged to documentary filmmaker Chris Terrill in 1999, but ended their relationship only five days before their planned wedding day. Mills later claimed (falsely) that she had called the wedding off because Terrill was both gay, an MI6 agent, and his mission was to undermine her anti-landmine work." - This is incorrect at least looking at the source provided. There is no proof that Mills said these things about him, he said he heard about it from friends etc. Thus these "claims" come from friends, is the man even telling the truth about what his friends told him? One thing I'm sure of, the source doesn't proof that Mills though he was gay or a member of MI6.

Neutrality

• I see "she claimed" a lot, can we change it to "she stated", it's a little more neutral.
• "—paid for by Karmal—", who cares? It seems like a bit of a dig against mills.
• After the accident, she sold her story to the News of the World, and gave other interviews, saying she earned £180,000.[12] - Again, its only a small differences, its not worth mentioning that she's a lier etc over such a small percentage differences. Not noteworthy.
• "After often denying that she was pregnant, Mills gave birth to Beatrice Milly McCartney, on 28 October 2003, who was named after Mills' mother, Beatrice, and McCartney's Aunt Milly." - No need for the denial stuff, everyone does that, its not worth mentioning.
• "and not £800 million, as Mills claimed." - for neutrality it should be noted that this figure, or figures close to it were being circulated long before mills said anything.
• In the activism section there is that thing about rats milk, it's an unnecessary addition to the one section of the article that portrays her in a good light. I would suggest laying of the Mills bashing just in that one section :-) I also think that section needs an expansion of positive info to balance of a rather bleak biography.
• The public image and criticism section needs to include info on how she was viewed before her relationship with McCartney. This might have to involve trimming some of the negative info that is already mentioned throughout the article content.

Grammar

• I see inconsistency in the use of commas, sometimes the are used along side the word "and" sometimes they are not. It's best to pick a style and run with it :-)
• The are inconsistencies regarding date formation. Sometimes the date comes first, sometimes the month comes first. Sometimes there are zero commas, 1 comma or double commas to separate out the year or sentence. I follow this style [[November 30]], [[1982]],

Actually since this is a British-related article it should be [[30 November]] [[1982]] indopug (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief... "Grammar"?? I do not intend to run with any style; one does what one has learned.--andreasegde (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Present Life section

Seems really out of place, that info should be taken to its relevant place within article. Also when she did that US TV show she was getting more positive media attention, might be worth mentioning.

LEAD

The lead is going to need an expansion in my opinion to reflect the whole article, although I would rather comment about this in more detail later, after I have seen the completed article body.

Comments

• OK there is my review, once all that is resolved I will kind of re-review it, the article would have changed quite a bit by then I imagine, its on hold for 7 days but I don't mind letting it go a little longer. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of very minor points. As regards proper grammar there are no 'style choices' when it comes to 'and with commas', the word and replaces a comma in every instance, so if and is used it is never preceded by a comma. And secondly regarding date format I agree there should be consistency throughout the article but as this is an article about a British person and written in British English the American style of date format would be incongruous, better to use the British standard of [[30 August]] [[2008]] throughout. Although the date should really only be wiki linked if it adds a specific background knowledge to the topic at hand (a bot is currently trawling the wiki pages removing all these spurious date links) 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree about the comma + and. If you write, "I like chocolate and beer", it means both mixed together. One should write, "I like chocolate, and beer". It's the same as a tall, cool, and tasty drink.--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand how commas work, well enough for a GA review anyway. :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence--"Heather Anne Mills McCartney (née Mills) (born 12 January 1968) in Aldershot, Hampshire, to a former British paratrooper and the daughter of a British Army colonel"--doesn't make any sense. Its grammatically incorrect, and doesn't say who Mills is--socialite, model etc. I think info about her parents are unnecessary for the lead too.

Those "Further information" tags are unnecessary; they don't further detail Mills' efforts and links to land mines, veganism etc are provided in the text itself. indopug (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect?? Pray tell how you come to that conclusion. BTW, "Its grammatically" should "It's grammatically". Someone has just shot themselves in the foot, methinks...:)--andreasegde (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stepping in here randomly, but indopug is correct; the first sentence obviously makes no sense. "Heather Anne Mills McCartney in Aldershot, Hampshire"? I suggest: "McCartney (born 12 January 1968) is an English [add attributes here, as indopug suggested]. She was born in Aldershot..." etc. Also, is she keeping the "McCartney" in her name? If not, referring to her simply as "Heather Anne Mills" may be the best bet in the lead. María (habla conmigo) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up...--andreasegde (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

??? It's clear that the first sentence is nonsensical: Heather Anne Mills (born January 12, 1968) in Aldershot, Hampshire. "Mills... in Aldershot". See? It needs rewriting. María (habla conmigo) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just done it. It took me a few seconds. I thank you. --andreasegde (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about comments

I would prefer this to be reviewed by one editor (Realist2) and one only. I do not like the feeling of being assailed by different editors, as it is confusing, and hectic. I once, foolishly, put an article (or two) up for FA, and hated the whole process. Realist2 was the first in line, he is a very thorough reviewer, and I have the utmost faith in him. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was probably my fault, I haven't reviewed in a little while so I asked for feedback because I was a little rusty, didn't want it to turn into FA, something I know you hate. Sorry --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my hang over is coming back. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Don't fret Realist2, Andreasegde just hates me. He'd rather point out typos in my comment than address obvious deficiencies. indopug (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Realist. FACs are like someone asking you to think of a number between one and ten. You answer "three?" and they say, "Wrong!" :))--andreasegde (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I hate you so much, Mr. Indopug, why did you come to this article which I nominated? Masochism, perhaps? Go boil your head.--andreasegde (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination failed

I will now take this article off the list, as is my right to do. I do not wish to discuss the matter at all.--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, have I done something wrong, the article can be worked on and it can pass, was my review too harsh? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will put the article back on the list soon, and will specifically ask for just one reviewer. A reviewer needs to be neutral. Mills is not an evil woman, but she is not a saint. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said she was but there are a number of neutrality issues that need to be addressed and if you read some of the sources in a disconnected manner you will spot some of the things I mentioned. Like that MI6/gay thing. The source simply doesn't proof that, why should we believe the words of the mans friends over Mills? Are we going to start taking sides? If someone says something bad about mills do we take it as face value fact? I think not. Me and you work on different stuff, you work in the relatively uncontroversial field of the Beatles, I write about the most controversial figure pop culture has known in decades. Maybe I just spot things differently, I have learnt to understand that gossip and hear say isn't fact, particularly on wikipedia where there is the possibility of litigation. For the sake of our friendship I will step aside from this, I'm disappointed that you think my review was anything other than neutral. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually left out a lot of stuff that put her in a bad light, so as to be fair. I will now proceed to put the truth in, and nothing but. For example: "'Heather is a fantasist. I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sun set in the West,' said one associate".--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this associate qualified to determine whether or not Mills is a fantasist? That is a real mental disorder you realise? I would avoid calling her a fantasist unless someone in the medical profession has said so. I know your pissed off at the moment, but please don't reck the article you have built, take some time away from it and we can work on it together if needs be. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have put in an "In defence" section (to defend Mills) but both sides (with references, and only with references) will go in. A lot of people hate this woman (referenced) but the truth must be read here, so as to be the most complete article about her that is available on the web. I only started work on this article with the idea that it must be truly neutral, and if I wrote "Mills claims", then that is the truth, because "Mills said/stated/explained" is not good enough. Even though I personally can not stand the woman, I will do my best to see that every angle is covered. This is why I am here.

• Mills is a very hot topic, and I expect some flak about this, but I must adhere to my own perspective, which is to write a balanced article, even though it's about someone I don't like. It's also a part of adding some more GAs for The Beatles' Project.

• Don't feel offended, Realist2 (your intentions were honourable, as always) but Mills needs special attention. I didn't do my best on the first nomination, and I apologise, but now I will give it my best. I thank you. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills: The Truth

Everything should, and will be, referenced.--andreasegde (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress

• I have put in an "In defence" section (to defend Mills) but both sides (with references, and only with references) will go in. A lot of people hate this woman (referenced) but the truth must be read here, so as to be the most complete article about her that is available on the web. I only started work on this article with the idea that it must be truly neutral, and if I wrote "Mills claims", then that is the truth, because "Mills said/stated/explained" is not good enough. Even though I personally can not stand the woman, I will do my best to see that every angle is covered. This is why I am here.

• Mills is a very hot topic, and I expect some flak about this, but I must adhere to my own perspective, which is to write a balanced article, even though it's about someone I don't like. It's also a part of adding some more GAs for The Beatles' Project.

• Don't feel offended, Realist2 (your intentions were honourable, as always) but Mills needs special attention. I didn't do my best on the first nomination, and I apologise, but now I will give it my best. I thank you. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is with Mills is that so many untruths need to be referenced, which is what I will do.--andreasegde (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

With the help of one or two other scrupulous editors, this article will be put up for a GA review in the near future.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been nominated.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate, misleading statement, not supported by source.

The source says:

You see, it wasn’t long before friends of mine in the media were phoning me to tell me that Heather was going around telling everyone the reason she had left me was that I was gay.

Therefore there is no proof that Heather Mills claimed he was gay or in the MI6, the man heard all of this from his friends, there is NO proof she uttered these words. The article is taking the side of this mans friends over Heather Mills, therefore you are not being neutral buddy. I am removing that content as you seemingly don't care that this has potentially libelous consequences despite me telling you multiple times that the source does not support the claim. All you needed to do was say "Terrill friends assert ...", but you were unwilling to do that. Really disappointed. — Realist² (Speak) 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the lead is too short for the articles size. — Realist² (Speak) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Terrill's article was in the highly respected newspaper, The Times. There is no better reference, and Terrill is a respected director: (The Ship (TV series)) and others. I have reverted.
• If you disagree with The Times, then you also disagree with The Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Mirror about Terrill's claim, as well as calling the man a liar when references support his story. There are no references at all saying Mills' did not say those things.
• Do not call me buddy, as I am not, and neither you nor I are American.
• "disappointed"? Wikipedia is the place where the word was invented.
• Please do not say completely unfounded things like, "you seemingly don't care that this has potentially libelous consequences", which is insulting, to say the least.--andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Lead was shortened by another editor who reverted any attempts of mine to fill it out (the user disagreed with mentioning Alfie Karmal at all...) --andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why include this?

Mills was awarded £200,000 by the police authority as recompense for her injuries.[22] After the accident, she sold her story to the News of the World, and gave other interviews, saying she earned £180,000.[14]

After legal fees that seems like a perfectly legitimate figure, she probably did only get £180,000. — Realist² (Speak) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• She got £200,000 from the police, and £180,000 from interviews she gave to newspapers. It seems fairly simple.--andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I clarified the article accordingly, it read like she was saying that she got 180,000 from the police accident, not the interviews. — Realist² (Speak) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"After the accident, she sold her story to the News of the World, [linked twice in the article] and gave other interviews, saying she earned £180,000 for the interviews". This has been corrected.--andreasegde (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading material

I advise any supporters of Mills to read this, as some of it will go into the article to balance it, and show both sides. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

References

This article now has 170 references.--andreasegde (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

Realist2 made a very good point about the Lead being too short, and it would be good if other users could enlarge it. --andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding to it and trying to make sure all the main points in the article are mentioned. I think three paragraphs is reasonable.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

Why not try FA, she's almost as controversial as Dear Mr. Jackson and even he is standing up OK against the hawks. You certainly have enough material here. ;-) — Realist² (Speak) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a chance - you should know that this article would be torn to pieces by them. Sorry, but I am only interested in getting it to a GA. If you get Dear Mr. Jackson to FA I will kiss your feet and eat a sheep's entrails through a sock. :)) Some things (if allowed) are possible, but getting people like Michael and Heather to FA are just not possible. Have you tried it? It's a very depressing thing, because no matter what anyone says about Wikipedia, it is still controlled by "The powers that be", who control what is allowed. Best wishes..--andreasegde (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I should explain this: "X went to the shop to buy a newspaper", would be challenged as being too direct/correct, and could/should be: "As X wanted a newspaper, he/she went to the shop", or "Wanting some news, X bought a newspaper." They are all right, but who would agree? You can't win, because it depends on the dialect and attitude of the person reading it. This is an international problem, and it may never be solved, which is why I loathe FACs. :))--andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As a vegetarian that was a gross thing the visualize lol. Well the MJ FA review is going OK at the moment. I decided that I will keep nominating it until "The powers that be" or them just give in, hehe. I do agree that it seems they only like rock bands, flowers, colors and paintings get through FA reviews these days. People are too influenced by personal feeling in those things. — Realist² (Speak) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Too, and very, right. :) Good luck.--andreasegde (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

As a stylistic note, in the early parts of the article you only gives £'s but in the McCartney section you also provide a conversion into $'s (and you only do it some of the time, not sure why), I think it is best to be consistent and do all of them or non (favorably non, as it makes the McCartney section a little sharp on the eyes). You might also want the round up or down some of the figures, I'm not sure you need it specific to the exact pound. I'm just thinking it terms of readability and appearance (lol, I must have that FA head on :-)) — Realist² (Speak) 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. I was wondering why the numbers made me feel uneasy, as there were so many different versions.--andreasegde (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

McCartney section

Pretty much the only thing that's mentioned between their wedding and their separation is the birth of their daughter... there must be a few things they did together that we could put in; campaigns etc. Was also wondering if she came with him on his tours as Linda did. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Pawnkingthree. I believe the Canadian seal thing and others is mentioned in Activism, but I do remember reading that she claimed (that word again) helping Macca to write songs and designing his stage lighting (which he denied - that other word again... :)--andreasegde (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he apparently said when he was engaged that "being in love with her makes me want to write songs" [1], and "Too Much Rain" was inspired by the hardships in her life [2]... but yes, I think the suggestion that she actually helped him to write them comes only from her [3]. That article also mentions the set lighting story BTW. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff, Pawnkingthree. I will put them in (or you can do it?) but first I have to go for a massage because of my aching, cricked neck that I got whilst working on this article (ouch!) :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you've just added may be enough actually ... my tidbits are perhaps more relevant to McCartney's article than Mills's. I'll leave it up to you. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "Your Sunshine" song ref, and "Too Much Rain".--andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joke

On a lighter note, and with no intent to insult anyone (and because it's English black humour) I present this joke which I read in a national newspaper no less, and because it's funny:

"There's a terrible accident in a gold mine, and one of the survivors passes out after his leg is crushed. When he comes to in hospital, the nurse says, 'Don't worry, you're OK. You lost your leg, but you're alive. The miner says, 'That's all very well, but who wants a one-legged gold-digger? Paul McCartney shouts, 'I do.'" :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, this joke makes fun of both parties.--andreasegde (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article

Apart from the Lead, I think I can not do much more with this. 170 references (I'm sure someone will say there are too many) and as much info in as I could find.--andreasegde (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can never have too many references :) Great work BTW. Never thought Ms Mills would get an article this good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I! I must admit, despite my own opinion of her, I found it very interesting to dig into the stories and clear up certain things. BTW, if anyone thinks I have a bias against Mills, I have to say that I'm not that keen on McCartney as a person either, even though I still love the music.--andreasegde (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

This needs to be worked on. It is very disjointed and biased at the moment, although the article is very good--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Writng a good lead is much harder than I thought actually. I'm finding it difficult to sum up who she is, what she does and what's she's best known for. As you say, keeping it neutral isn't easy. I'm off to have a good read of WP:LEDE... --Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it's really not necessary to mention who her parents are in the lead, it's not significant enough and can be mentioned in the Early Life section. As I understand it, the first paragraph should concentrate on answering the questions "who is she?" and "why is she notable?" Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Difficult it is, for sure. I leave the Lead to last, and then skim quickly through the article, picking up the important bits. I have put PETA and Viva! in. I think "Heather Anne Mills (born 12 January 1968) is an English charity campaigner and former model, who is best known as the former wife of musician Paul McCartney" puts it correctly, but having three balanced paragraphs is a bit more difficult. Ho-hum... :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe move the PETA and Viva sentence into the first paragraph, in place of the family sentence?Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought if all the "charidee" stuff was at the end, it would balance it out more, and keep it together. I took some stuff out about negative press as well. It's a potted life history.--andreasegde (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Her Nanny Trying To Screw Her For Money?

Has anyone else tried to screw Heather Mills for money? Of course ,I am referring entirely to taking her to an employment tribunal after being sacked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.100.105 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosis

Its a pity we cannot do a psychological analysis of a "living" persons biography as despite the media's manifest cruelty she seems to sound like a bit of a megalomaniac or narcisistic personality disorder to me. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, without wishing to be forced into the libel courts, she is. I suppose anyone reading this article will be able to read between the lines, as you yourself did.--andreasegde (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That is, of course, a summation, but only if you wish to start from the point that what the papers print is true. I still challenge anyone to read the transcript of the GMTV interview and show me one line of what Mills said about the media and their treatment of her, that is untrue... The media then re-doubled their attack as they don't like being told off. As an example, I give you the bizarre treatment of Max Mosley and also how the photos of Camilla changed from horsey to quite attractive after the wedding. Captainclegg (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Captainclegg about newspapers, but Heather has definitely let herself down on quite a few occasions, by not listening to advice and doing her own thing. As Winston Churchill once replied after being asked how he knew America would be involved in the war: "Because I read history", and as Richard Nixon said: "It's always the lie that catches you out."--andreasegde (talk)

Photo in infobox

I deleted the image from the infobox as it’s an over-the-top PR image. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a better one? The infobox does need a picture. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Duh! Good images of living people are hard to come by, and use of this one was negotiated by User:Slim Virgin, a very experienced editor here. In the absence of a better, free of copyright image, I think it should stay. Take up thy camera, and walk, as they say. Rodhullandemu 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Previous conversation here. I agree that the image should stay, for now. However, if a better (less cutesy) free image can be found, I wholeheartedly endorse either swapping it out, or moving it down in the article. If there is no free replacement, we should leave it as it is. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a caption would help a little? "Mills in a 200? advertisement for PETA" or something? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the underlying concern here is WP:NPOV; the image speaks for itself, perhaps, and a caption would be unlikely to allay that concern. However, since the image is very largely for recognition purposes, I think it fulfills that function; after all, criticisms of Mills are addressed by the article, and an image wouldn't do that. Rodhullandemu 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m amazed at how people here fail to realize how images affect people’s perception. Don’t you know the old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words?” It’s just so ridiculous. We try so hard to be impartial in every way possible: We cite sources, we make sure not to give undue weight to certain subjects in articles, we’re careful to use wording that isn’t inflammatory… but when it comes to media we use whatever free crap gets tossed our way?

The caption sounds like a good idea. At the very least. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the caption for now. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Free crap? Mills didn't think so, and neither did PETA, or they wouldn't have released it. If it shows her as a manic-eyed loony trying to strangle a dog in a field, she only has herself to blame.--andreasegde (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand what you were trying to say there.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant that you might think it's "free crap", but she and PETA didn't.--andreasegde (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Ms Mills is a regular twitterer Stephen Frys is linked to so shouldnt hers be too? http://twitter.com/heatherofficial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.26.152 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with this. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies to anyone who would willingly want to read Mills' twitterings.--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that maybe we are straying into "cruel & unusual punishment" areas here... But then people read Jordan's books - and they are not strapped to tables having their eyelids stapled back amazingly. Never underestimate the general public!! Welcome back andreasegde. I have missed your guiding hand! Captainclegg (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello to you too, Captainclegg. What about a section on Heather's new vegan restaurant in Hove? I was surprised it wasn't already in--andreasegde (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Plus the new recycled clothes range...(!) Under the 'Activism' sub-heading, which I thought was the most appropriate. Captainclegg (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the "new recycled" :) I'll have a read.--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, not sure if you are right about moving it. Isn't "vegan-evangelism" more activism than overtly commercial and/or present life? I should add I don't mind either way, just a thought. Captainclegg (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Redwood Foods

Ms Mills has recently bought Redwood foods http://www.redwoodfoods.co.uk/news/?n-page=4 a fairly notable company that sells products in most UK supermarkets and healthfood shops. Worth integrating somewhere i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaa1988 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this not mentioned in the article? Nothing showed up for a search of Redwoods using my browsers search function but it's been known to be wrong. If it's not mentioned then it really should be.Muleattack (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Be Bold, as they say, and put it in.--andreasegde (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mule, go for it! --BwB (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some, ahem, embellished editing

About her Hove restaurant VBites: "It has been well received by critics, receiving a five star rating,[196]" - check the Daily Telegraph review cited, and no five stars are mentioned anywhere. It is a generally positive review but notes some problems, and is definitely not a five starrer, by any account. 86.134.117.71 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a read of the source and would tend to agree.  Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mills' relationship with PETA

This statement suggests that Mills was dropped by Peta at the behest of Mary McCartney which the sources do not confirm. The only people that could confirm this would be Heather Mills or a spokesperson for Peta, neither have done so. The cited references can only speculate. Muleattack 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then text should be removed. --BwB 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted text: Mills' relationship with PETA ended in 2007, when McCartney's daughter, Mary, said she would not continue to take photographs for the organisation if Mills was involved with them. Reference states: "Mary McCartney, 37, agreed to work on Peta's latest campaign only after she was assured that her stepmother was no longer involved with the organisation." From The Telegraph.
• Deleted text: A PETA representative told the New York Post: "Heather's exposé of the Chinese fur industry remains one of most popular videos on our site, but we don't have any imminent campaigns planned with her." Reference states: "Heather's exposé of the Chinese fur industry remains one of most popular videos on our site . . . although we don't have any imminent campaigns planned with her." There is absolutely nothing wrong with these at all. If you they are wrong, then The Telegraph and the New York Post would be looking at a court case, and they're not that stupid.--andreasegde (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's two separate facts being stated here, one is that Heather Mills stopped working for Peta, the other is that Mary McCartney only agreed to work for Peta if they assured her that Mills no longer worked for them. To assume the two facts are connected is speculation. Muleattack (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "Mills stopped working for PETA". --andreasegde (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"we don't have any imminent campaigns planned with her.", regardless, that just enforces the point that Mills has not stopped working for Peta at the behest of Mary McCartney, which is what is suggested.Muleattack (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It means absolutely nothing of the sort. You are reading something into it that is not there, and you are speculating. All the second sentence says is that PETA do not want to publicly get involved by confirming The Telegraph article.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It suggests exactly that - "'Mills' relationship with PETA ended in 2007, when McCartney's daughter". If it doesn't suggest that then why is it even being mentioned? If there's no link between the two then the only statements that should be being made is that Mills is not currently working for Peta and separately on Mary McCartney's page that she only agree to work for Peta once assured that Mills no longer worked for them. Muleattack (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It was reported in a respected national newspaper, and it is referenced, which follows Wikipedia rules. To delete it is vandalism. Furthermore, it is in this article exactly because it mentions Mills and PETA. Maybe it should also be on Mary McCartney's page as you suggested.--andreasegde (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? Hardly, do you consider your own edits as vandalism? Just by being in a newspaper does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article. Even so, the articles still do not state what is being suggested here that is that Mills ceased working for Peta due to the interference of Mary McCartney. WP:BLP I suggest you read it. Muleattack (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can other editors weigh in on this please. Muleattack (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just by being in a newspaper does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article. " Oh, I think it does. I'll contact an admin about this, because, having monitored your edits (and your contributions), it seems very probable that you are targeting this article to delete anything that is not deferential. --andreasegde (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin contacted.--andreasegde (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So long as we get some other opinions on this I'm happy, perhaps they might even persuade you to back down on your highly aggressive and unpleasant approach. Muleattack (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tut, tut, tut. Language, please!--andreasegde (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Andreas, please take the advice on board for your own sake as well as others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Without a reasonable explanation as to what advice I should take on board, I have to politely decline. This is about Wikipedia rules and vandalism. Thanks, anyway.--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Contacted admin comment; Wikipedia relies on Third party, reliable sources to reference content - primary sources such as the article subject or the other party mentioned may be used, but with caution. On a brief review, since both The Telegraph (The Daily Telegraph, presumably) and the New York Post qualify as WP:RS then this is a content issue - does either or both sources note that Ms Mills cessation of involvement with PETA resulted from Mary McCartney's stance? If it does, then the content is verified and should be returned, since WP is more concerned with verification rather than "truth". If it does not say that, then the content should be reworded until it reflects the sources (or other good sources found that do support the content). I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Upon further review, I am content that the Torygraph is a WP:RS - the NYP might need to be referred to the RS Noticeboard if it is the primary source. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that since the reliability of the sources wasn't really in question we're no further on in resolving this.Muleattack (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you did question the "reliability of the sources", but now you say they are reliable. Do you remember writing, "Just by being in a newspaper does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article"? To be honest, I don't mind leaving out the sentences about Mary McCartney, Mills, and PETA, but if you continue to snip away at any more of the article, I will object. Could you accept that? Consensus is always a good thing. --andreasegde (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the reliability of the sources. I was questioning the reliability of the statement made in this article as going by the sources the only information that could be used is that Mills does not currently work for Peta, that I do not feel is necessarily worthy of inclusion in the article. If there are changes I feel need to be made to the article then I will make them and will not be bullied in to submission by you. Can you accept that my edits are no more vandalism or less worthy of inclusion than your own? Muleattack (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"If there are changes I feel need to be made to the article then I will make them". Uhhh... that is so very, very arrogant, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are heading in the wrong direction, because you are forgetting the basic principles of Wikipedia. BTW, I actually took this article to a GA review, after having worked on it for quite a long time, although I don't, and never will, consider it 'mine'. If you think you can bully your way into controlling this, then you are sadly mistaken. Take a step back. I offered you an olive branch, and you throw it back in my face.--andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you do consider this article as yours and I'm not interested in controlling anything, only the freedom to improve articles without someone accusing me of vandalism and posting threats on my talk page for doing so. You only offered an olive branch with a caveat that you would disapprove of any further edits made by me. I would like to make more of an effort to fully discuss edits I make before doing them but WP:BLP suggests that anything questionable should be removed immediately without discussion. If the situation arises again though I will make sure to create a discussion immediately after. How's that?Muleattack (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• "I think you do consider this article as yours". No, I do not, as I said before.
• "I'm not interested in controlling anything", even though you said, "If there are changes I feel need to be made to the article then I will make them"?
• "the freedom to improve articles". There is no freedom, only consensus.
• "disapprove of any further edits made by me". I have watched your edits. and have reverted them (even photos), because you wanted to delete them because of your own 'preferences'. Ask yourself why.
• "I would like to make more of an effort". Then maybe you should.
• "create a discussion immediately after". Not before? This suggests your reasoning is based upon what you think is right, and then you will try to make "more of an effort" to discuss it, after the fact. Doesn't sound too good to me.--andreasegde (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• "I have watched your edits. and have reverted them (even photos), because you wanted to delete them because of your own 'preferences'. Ask yourself why." - Take a look at yourself, if you check the talk archives you have made jokes and derogatory remarks about the articles subject.
• "Not before?" No, not before. WP:BLP states that anything questionable is removed before discussion, like I already said.

Muleattack (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This can only get worse, because you are contradicting yourself. If you want that, as it seems, then it will be so. You don't seem to know what Wikipedia is all about. Although having been here for some time, you have a lot to learn.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Me again... What are the specific issues in dispute? If it is a BLP concern, then there is a noticeboard for the resolution of issues - although I would note that BLP does not say that "anything questionable" is removed, it says anything questionable and unsourced should be removed. If it is alleged that the source does not support the "questionable" content then perhaps it should be removed while it is verified at the BLP board, but acknowledging it will be replaced if it is found to be supported (and the person removing it needs to ensure the issue is raised - one should not remove content under an alleged and contested violation and then not follow up to determine whether it was or was not in compliance). I would however also draw attention to WP:BRD, whereby content removal (like content being removed) may be reverted and then the situation discussed. There really needs to be a clear issue of BLP violation for that common editing process to be obviated (and edit warring is not an option...) If there is a specific issue with this article, of which possible BLP violations are an aspect, perhaps there should be a RfC - opening up the discussion for wider participation. Anyway, simply, if the two of you cannot sort it out then you need to look to dispute resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to cases where the sources do not support the questionable content such as this one. Anyway, I'm happy to lay this to rest if we have reached a consensus on this matter, thought I'm not certain we have... Muleattack (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm for a Dispute resolution request, as I think this article will be slowly whittled away if this is not stopped now. Especially by a user that has the word 'attack' in their moniker.--andreasegde (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a fotnote, this, [4] is interesting, as it's a quote from the lady herself.--andreasegde (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

I believe the article is in danger of being needlessly cut down.andreasegde (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On any natural reading of the original text, your interpretation of it is 100% right. Is there not a way of taking it into the article in order to keep muleattack happy? Don't worry about what could happen. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to run that one by me again. Who are you referring to?--andreasegde (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I did offer to leave it out of the article (it's not in now) if it wouldn't be the start of more deletes that I've had to undo in the past.--andreasegde (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your offer was (a) conditional (b) rejected (c) not really within your gift. Good luck. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. First thing first, can the pair of you up the level of good faith? From the outside, you are both trying to improve the article and accusations of WP:VANDALISM and WP:OWNership are inappropriate. andreasegde, regarding "needlessly cut down", if information in a BLP is contentious and insufficiently sourced, it needs to be removed.

As to the issue that started this, the sentence "Mills' relationship with PETA ended in 2007, when McCartney's daughter, Mary, said she would not continue to take photographs for the organisation if Mills was involved with them" looks fine to me. Although from the arguments above it appears to be synthesis, the sources clearly show Mills is no longer with PETA because of a quite word from Mary McCartney. I've found about a dozen sources that agree, though none are as reliable as the Telegraph. (For example, from the Daily Mail "Peta, the animal rights charity, dropped Heather last year after Paul's daughter, Mary, a photographer, had a quiet word with their bosses.")Worm^TT 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I too would favour reinserting it. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Kittybrewster. BTW, this, [5] is interesting, as it's a quote from the lady herself.--andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Worm, with this new reference the claim would be supported and I have no issues with it being returned. This is all I have asked for. Muleattack (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The text has been returned but without the new (DailyMail) reference?Muleattack (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun. I'm working on it. Maybe you could add it? I added this, [6] which is Heather's own words, on tape/video.--andreasegde (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider this RfC closed (if I may be so bold), as the original sentences are now back in the article, with references. It should never have come to this.--andreasegde (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's unreasonable. I shouldn't worry about having an RFC, they're very useful ways of getting an article into the communities spotlight, and a solution often happens. It's a pity about the odd unfriendly remark between you two, but like I said you both seemed to have the article at heart. If either of you ever want a 3O from me again, you know where to find me! Worm^TT 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)