This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article's history is analysed in #1192 p4, and it seems News International has paid it some attention. Philip Cross 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Five years on from that I have concerns about parts of this article, but for its anti-Sun stance. The following is a typical example: "She has a well known dislike of Heather Mills; having written many articles that criticise the hapless ex model. She coined the term "Mucca" and then claimed that the public invented this item. Other articles claimed Mills' adult photos were too "revolting" to appeal in a family newspaper, despite the fact the paper is well known for featuring topless women on page 3." Now, I'm no fan of The Sun, but it strikes me that someone's trying to offer an opinion on its content here. Much of the prose on this page is unreferenced but makes several statements that need to be sourced. So, it's time for a few templates to be added. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree and have removed the worst examples. It is now more neutral in tone than before, although the bulk of the references cited are from blogs, and therefore unreliable at best. Future editors please note verifiability and reliable sources. The template tags now reflect this.
I have removed this passage in total. Checking through all the claims I could find no secondary material online apart from the recycling of some points from the Vickywatch blog by Roy Greenslade and presumably in the IoS diary item. One template now seemed inappropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)