Talk:Heather Mills/Archive 2

"...the loss of her left leg above the ankle." You what?

So presumably her foot stayed on, but the rest didn't. This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.220.9 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

Maybe it's just me, but the "Personal Life" section might need an extra sentence added. It mentions her first husband, then the next paragraph starts with "McCartney eventually proposed with a diamond and sapphire ring he had purchased in India." I know that it mentions Paul in the "Animal Rights" section, but it still seems like there should be some mention of when they started dating, how long they dated for before he proposed, etc. It doesn't seem to flow well to me. Does anyone else agree? Just putting my two cents in. Editortothemasses (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Will someone add a reference, as I don't have the time to find one? --LoreleiLynn (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Leading" organisation

Mills has been actively involved with the Britain's leading vegetarian, vegan and animal rights organisation, Juliet Gellatley's Viva!

As a lifelong vegetarian who has spent the majority of his life living in the UK, I've never heard of "Viva!" or Juliet Gellatley. I can't say I've ever noticed them anywhere in the media - this is the first time I've heard of them so they can't be "leading" that much. Besides this sentence has bad grammar, "... with the Britain's ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.67 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

'Leading' is arguably POV - I'll remove it. Ben Finn (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

British vegan

Could you please add her into the category of British vegans. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.242.239 (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Judgment: McCartney and Mills McCartney

For the article sentence (near present footnote 33), "In his judgement, Justice Bennett described Mills testimony as "inconsistent, inaccurate" and "less than candid".", please add the following reference as a footnote:

Bennett, Justice. (March 17, 2008) Royal Courts of Justice Judgment: McCartney and Mills McCartney. Item 16, Page 4.

Thanks. Ann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnBreamer (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info that might be useful in the article At page 10, item 54, the divorce judgment states: "The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief.", on page 18, item 101 "I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality." -- Ann 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnBreamer (talk • contribs)

I have removed the word "underhand" as the judge did not say that about her evidence as this article stated. He did say that about her behaviour regarding an attempt to get McCartney to repay non-existent loans but that is a different thing altogether. The reference cited for the judge's comments is the BBC News story. Since the judgement itself is online, should we not refer to that instead? That, after all, is primary source material —Prh47bridge (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that the "underhand" comment has been restored to this article. I am not going to engage in an edit war but please check the judgement. The judge did NOT use that word in relation to her evidence. —Prh47bridge (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Should you wish to reference the judgment in full, you can use this template call:

{{cite BAILII |country=ew |litigants=McCartney v McCartney |court=EWHC |division=Fam |year=2008 |num=401 |para= |date=2008-03-17 }}

Which would give you:

McCartney v McCartney [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam) (17 March 2008)

Hope that's useful. Don't want to add it myself for fear of messing up this delicate article. Personally, I think the amount of press attention this judgment has already received it would be worth starting a new article McCartney v McCartney or McCartney v Mills McCartney. GDallimore (Talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this section reflects the totality of what the judge said in the judgment - although he said some positive things, he said many other things and I would agree with Ann Breamer above that the judge's comments be expanded here. The article is starting to sound like a press release for Mills. Tvoz |talk 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment the section in question seems to be hiding behind the initial polite summary by the judge, in order to cover up the numerous inherent cticisims of Mills's evidence in the body of the judgement. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See below - still the case in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funding

The judge said he could find no evidence in her tax returns of her ever giving money to charity.--andreasegde (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree concerning the Judges statement. The article makes it appear that the judge was very positive about Heather Mills, when in actual fact it was very negative. It almost feels as if Heather has had a hand in theis article and is trying to re-write history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.85 (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

She's always done that...--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

References

There are a number of references to www.heathermillsmccartney.com which website redirect to www.heathermills.org which has been substantially rewritten. - 91.104.55.101 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

the heather mills page before the divorce was grossly misrepresented in the opposite direction,ie very disaparaging of heather mills, this is a more balanced article overall, athough, not of course, if you use the general hostility and tone of the press as your benchmark for level headed, fair and free, conversation

at least on this page you have a chance to put another view, rather than just the hystronics of the press, Ithink this is fair, unless you are determined to have the woman, hung drawn and quatered from every direction,when in all likelyhood the problem is yours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.248.62 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

Squeakbox, I'm trying to improve the narrative flow, but you keep undoing it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? I am just trying to improve things myself. The tagging is fine as I fdont think you and I can really edit an article at the same time, we were driving each other mad and mistakes were creeping in, I had to revert myself once. I think you started and I saw it on my watchlist and came back here, I'd been editing here the other day but wont until at least tomorrow now anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, you added her Dancing with the Stars performance to her early life, and her engagement to a cameraman to the Paul McCartney section. The material needn't be strictly chronological, but it's better if it doesn't jump back and forth in time for no reason. Also, I think the public image section should stay at the end, because it's about the story of her life, rather than about the life itself i.e. it's "meta," so it needs to be at the end, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While reading the article (as I do when i edit bios) I was taken aback by what I thought was the poor coverage of the McCartney section (which is, at the end of the day, what has made her eminently notable) and then discovered the rest of it lower down. And the dancing does fit in with her amputation, and is very much Heather at her best (which we need for neutrality given the tabloid criticisms). The chronology was a mess which is why i felt I needed to tackle it, I certainly don';t want to edit war with you Slim as I know you can make for a better article on someone who receives a lot of negative coverage, I'll check it again in a couple of days and see if anythjing still needs fixing and if so how we can do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. We had the marriage and divorce settlement in one section, before the activism, even though the settlement came after it, and it was split from the press coverage section, even though that was triggered by the split. So it was a bit scattered. I've therefore moved divorce out of marriage, and into the public image section. I think this makes more chronological and narrative sense now. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is looking good. Certainly its the divorce that is currently attracting attention, I have no objection to it lower down but it did need to be dealt with once (treating issues twice in the bulk of an article is one of the weaknesses of the anyone can edit system. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, indeed, I agree about the latter point regarding repetition and splitting issues up. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is no surprise, we both have experience as encyclopedia editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Juliet Gellatley?

Why does this article need a picture of somebody called Juliet Gellatley? Her role in the subject's life must be far less than many other people who are not pictured. I think it should be deleted. It has been included as a soapbox for veganism, to draw attention to it. 80.2.198.99 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I removed it last night. It has no place here and looks spammy. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

In my cursory estimation, approximately 40% of the body of this article appears to be devoted to defending poor Ms. Mills against the wicked talons of the media who have painted her in such an unflattering hue. Although Wikipedia's role, most certainly, is not to pile onto the garish, tabloid-based attacks on a person's character, it is hardly our place to contrive a portrait of a hapless, guileless victim of circumstance. An impassioned defense of the woman's character belongs in a fansite, not encyclopedia. In particular, this section and this section emit the putrescent reek of resembles what a Wikipedian greater than myself has refers to as PR puffery; both sections could use the whack of a good machete. We need to take WP:NPOV every bit as seriously as WP:BLP. Even the lead image seems shamelessly hagiographic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to expand the first section you linked to above. But the second section, the criticism of the press coverage, is a perfectly valid topic, and uses reliable sources. Bear in mind that we're not here to reflect the opinions of British tabloids, but of reliable sources all over the world. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While many of the facts do speak for themselves I think we need to be particularly careful re Mills image, and agree with Slim that if it is unbalanced in favour of here we should add more critical material not remove stuff. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. To that end, I am surprised that there is not a specific section addressing the often cited accusation that Mills is a fantasist. No mention of her claim to have been nominated for a Nobel prize, or the year she period of time she pretended to be the Private Eye journalist who shares her name. If this article is to achieve neutrality - then this issue should be directly addressed.Mr Twain (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The latter is in the article. Feel free to add the former. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As this appears to not yet have been resolved I added the tag back in that SlimVirgin removed. SV: I didn't driveby tag it, someone else added it and it hasn't yet been resolved. NathanLee (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That person has stopped discussing the issue, so the tag is inappropriate. Anyone who wants to can add any material from reliable sources that they want to add. No one is trying to stop that from happening. Tagging is therefore unnecessary. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is related to the article, not to the editor who added it. Until the neutrality problem is fixed, it should remain. It's not a question of "improve rather than tagging". One should improve it it one has the skills and access to sources to do so, of course, but the solution is not to just remove the tag. The NPOV tag serves two purposes: to solicit assistance in fixing the article, and to warn readers of the problem. It is not to keep the editor who added it happy, to be removed when that editor goes away. Both of those issues still remain, and so should the tag. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, TJRC. Besides, I may have gone away, but I always come back.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Drive by untagging is masking an identified problem, the problem doesn't vanish by removing the tag. NathanLee (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that we're not here to reflect the opinions of British tabloids, but of reliable sources all over the world." Uh, no, we're here to state facts. Opinions should generally be avoided. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the infobox image as I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't include horns and pitchfork and depict her eating puppies doesn't make it inappropriate. I have no objection to changing the image to a better one, but unless you or someone else provides such an image, this one is the best available. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just because it doesn't include horns and pitchfork and depict her eating puppies doesn't make it inappropriate." Agreed. Why would you even have to suggest that? "I have no objection to changing the image to a better one, but unless you or someone else provides such an image, this one is the best available." Disagree. It's so bad, we're better off without. Sure, we don't need a picture of her with horns and a pitchfork, but likewise, we don't need - oh, I dunno - a picture of her lying in a field of dandelions hugging a puppy! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[out] I think the divorce settlement section is still biased - most reports suggest that the judge was quite a bit more harsh than we are are stating, and quite a bit less complimentary. Tvoz |talk 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - while the judge's summing-up was couched in very circumspect language, as is the custom, it really was an absolute savageing, to an extent rarely seen in a British court. He cited instance after instance where - and let us be charitable here - Ms Mills' account of herself was at radical variation with the facts as recorded elsewhere, eg her claim to give a huge proportion of her income to charity, when her tax returns revealed that she had given absolutely nothing.195.226.47.82 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just the tabloids that are reporting that she was savaged by the judge. The Independant called it a 'Damning Idictment'. Their article was even titled "An Unreliable Witness: Heather's Fantasy World". I am very surprised that there isn't more about the summary judgement (it's called a summary when it's 58 pages! Can't wait to see the full judgement if it ever comes out). The main points of the judgement have really savaged her. Two quotes praising her (the only two seemingly) and only one quote criticising her? The section does seem to paint the picture that she came out of the divorce smelling of roses. Gwyang (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the article is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/an-unreliable-witness-heathers-fantasy-world-797794.html Gwyang (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Her last name

Is it still McCartney? They're officially divorced correct? She got her $50 million, but why does she still have his name? GuitarWeeps (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not officially divorced. That's expected in May 2008.

To put it in layman's terms... They separated in April 2006. In July, Paul sued for divorce on the ground that Heather was a bitch. In October, Heather filed a defense saying "I'm no bitch!", and sued Paul for being a bastard. Paul responded saying "I'm no bastard!" The judge, in March, 2008 said, "now, now, kids, I don't want to take sides here. Since UK law says you can have a divorce after two years of separation, how about we just set aside the whole bitch/bastard thing? You'll be separated 2 years at the end of April. How about you guys wait until then, and give me a new petition for divorce, with no name-calling, based on the two year separation? I'm not busy on May 12, I can give you the divorce then, okay?"

So they're still married, and will presumably be divorced May 12. TJRC (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Christ

This article needs to be looked at urgently. Was it written by Mills herself? 80.195.89.127 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC) It almost feels as if Heather Mills has written this article herself. It is not accurate or a fair assessment of the facts that show Heather Mills to be one of the most despised females in British history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.85 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no restriction on the addition of sourced material to the article to support your contention. However that does not mean you can delete sourced material unchallenged just because it doesn't fit the current media profile. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to, "Heather Mills to be one of the most despised females..." I once read that she "was more hated than Hitler". I shall look for the reference.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is way too sympathetic towards Mills, and only gives the viewpoints of her supporters. In actual fact, she has more critics than supporters. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriage/Seperation with McCartney

Would it be better to have these two segments joined as one? If only the first part is read then it gives no suggestion that they split up until you read further down the page, something maybe not everyone would do. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.24.9 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add anyone got any sources of when the divorce will be final? (Note: I stuffed up the edit summary comment when reverting. Oops!) Bidgee (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably May 12, 2008. From the judgment: "No decree nisi has yet been pronounced.... [A]t a hearing arranged for 12 May I hope to be able to pronounce a decree nisi of divorce." See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment_180308.pdf, ¶ 7. TJRC (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A decree nisi doesn't finalise the divorce - that comes with the decree absolute which I think is six weeks afterwards, unless either side has a change of heart (not very likely in this case). MFlet1 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

critisms of the press

surley this isnt relavant she married a beatle then divorced him and were ment to be suprised by how the media treats her.this section isnt relavent this is how the press worksIf you want to write an article on the press do it the presses page not on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexthecat (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

My position is that leading images on people should present them in as neutral a way as possible. The current image being used in this article's infobox was lifted from a propaganda poster and even without the propaganda text it still paints her in much too good a light. A better image is needed, and I feel that this one is so bad that it shouldn't even be here. Like User:TJRC says, we can't have an image of her with horns and a pitchfork. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:BLP, we usually try to err on the side of being "nice" over "mean," so of course we are more likely to have a overly-positive image rather than one of her picking her teeth or whatnot. That being said, I would love for a better pic to come along and be placed in the infobox. Until that time, however, we owe it to our global audience who may or may not know who the heck Mills is with some sort of visual representation, especially if a freely-licensed picture is readily available and uploaded. y'am'can (wtf?) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Until that time, however, we owe it to our global audience who may or may not know who the heck Mills is with some sort of visual representation, especially if a freely-licensed picture is readily available and uploaded." No, it doesn't work that way. What we "owe to our global audience" is to present the relevant information on a subject and to make that presentation as neutral as possible. This holds, no matter what the media. While we ought to "err on the side of being nice", this is as opposed to the mean side when neutrality is difficult. That doesn't mean that if the only free image we can find on a subject paints him/her as an angel that we should use it. That's just asking for bias. If this was the only free image of Hitler, we would have to use it in is infobox by default too. I would much, much rather have to make a fair use rationale for a non-free image than use a biased free image. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is generally no such thing as a fair use rationale for an image of a living person. Except in very limited circumstances, it's either a free image or no image. You are entitled to your opinion, but the opinion of several other editors (including myself) is that the "bias" of the image is negligible, and is not a sufficient reason to discard a perfectly good free image. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is generally no such thing as a fair use rationale for an image of a living person. Except in very limited circumstances, it's either a free image or no image." And you base this assertion on......... ? "You are entitled to your opinion, but the opinion of several other editors (including myself) is that the "bias" of the image is negligible, and is not a sufficient reason to discard a perfectly good free image." No, that's your opinion. You don't speak for anybody but yourself. Like you just said, you're entitled to your own opinion - so don't go putting words into people's mouths. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I base the first comment on fact: please refer to WP:NONFREE. I base the second comment on perception: to this point, only you have stated your opposition to the image, while several other editors have indicated that the image should stay, either by word or deed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1) From WP:NONFREE:

“Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.”

The image is propaganda for the subject and the subject's cause. It is not suitable for encyclopedic use.
2) So you agree that your contention that you have other editors on your side is only your opinion, based on your perception. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NRen2k5, you're highlighting the wrong words in that sentence. The key words are or could be created. Heather Mills is a living person and thus under policy it is conceivable that a free image could be obtained or created. For example, someone might be willing to release one under a free license, someone might go to some event and take a picture of her, someone might write to her management and ask them to release one. She's a living person and it is entirely conceivable that a free image can be obtained, so we cannot use a fair use image, especially when there is a free one already available. Sarah 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I give up. I've started working on finding a "better" picture and obtaining the rights to use it here. I've made my opinion of the current one absolutely clear, so you'll know the first part's a cinch. Wish me luck on the second. And I promise: no spinach in the teeth, horns or inappropriate acts with animals. If it can be helped. ;) I'll just leave you with a thought: The current image is only the best one available by default. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"The current image is only the best one available by default." You get no argument from me on that point. But it is the best one available, whether by default or otherwise, and on that basis should remain unless/until we can get a better one. TJRC (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, apologies to Sarah, the above comment is directed at everybody, after having read your comment. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it propaganda? Also what has happened to the NPOV and good faith? I may dislike Heather Mills but I (NPOV not my POV) think the image should stay and if someone has a better photo then it would be great but ATM there is only one. -- Bidgee (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1) It is what it is. [1] 2) That's what I'm asking myself. 3) Well, take your pick. I see half a dozen better choices on the first page alone than the one used here. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal choice would be the first one - this one. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objections to changing the picture, but whatever you replace it with must be a free image. Most of those images probably aren't. If you find one you like but it's copyrighted, you can contact the copyright holder and ask them to release it into the public domain. I've never tried it, but I've heard it works sometimes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not HAVE TO be a free image. Wikipedia policy (which you cited!) says that free media is preferred over nonfree media, and that when a suitable free image is available, it should be the one used. I'm pointing out that we only have one free image to choose from, and it's unsuitable, so let's fall back on fair use of a nonfree image. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't even know that the image in question is in the public domain. [2], which is given as proof, is a dead link. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a log in to OTRS? If not contact Sarah on her Talk page as she has access to OTRS and she can see if there is a ticket there or not. Bidgee (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't, and it's not up to me to clear up this issue. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a dead link. It's a link to an email on the Wikimedia Foundation's OTRS system and you need to be approved by the Foundation in order to access it. The email says that all PETA materials "are not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely". The only stated exception is in cases where they republish excerpts, from books, for example, for which they do not own the copyright. But content produced by PETA is copyright free. Sarah 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the photo stands. No one here has the issue with the photo or it's copyright but I will contact Sarah myself and get her to see where it's a PD on OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not entirely correct. I have issues with the photo and that's not going to change, and I'm not abandoning the project either. I'll concede that the current photo is acceptable, but I think we can do much better. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 14:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

High Class Prostitute?

The article doesnt mention much about her earlier years. How she accuses her father of sexually abusing her, and how she was a high class prostitute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.38.130 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no Reliable source that says that she was ever a prostitute. Just gossip. y'am'can (wtf?) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kerry Packer outed as Heather Mills 'sugar-daddy'. Sid (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But still, do unsubstantiated accusations deserve to be on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.168.3 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if no Reliable source are found they don't deserve to be in the article as it's unreferenced controversial information about living person. Bidgee (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from this week's documentary made by one of the most respected new organisations in the UK and transmitted by a major UK TV channel, which interviewed a fellow-prostitute and long-standing friend of Mills, that is. It also featured the childhood friend who disputes the "swimming coach kidnap" story. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the cited material on her career being repeatedly erased? This vandalism has to stop 67.168.108.207 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills - What Really Happened documentary

There appear to be some efforts here to deny what was included in the above-named documentary, transmitted this week. We should be clear that this documentary was made by ITN and screened on Channel 4, i.e. a major content producer and a main TV channel in the UK respectively; it is not some cheap hack-job made by an obscure production company and shown on an obscure cable or satellite network. Legitimate documentaries are perfectly citable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any objections to using the documentary as a source, just that the link in the reference should point to the page for the documentary and not just the frontpage for channel 4. This page is a WP:BLP magnet, so it should be kept as well-sourced as possible. y'am'can (wtf?) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Checked it out. It looks good now. y'am'can (wtf?) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One question: was it made by BBC or ITN? The article says BBC, while this comment section states ITN. y'am'can (wtf?) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this - no connection with the BBC (apart from archive footage). Nick Cooper (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Heather Mills was born in Washington, Tyne and Wear (in effect Sunderland). That's why she has a North East accent. Why has this not been remarked upon? She is always referred to as 'Washington-born' in the local press. Bandalore (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear under "Early life and family" that she was born in Aldershot, but moved to Washington when she was a few months old. Amidst all the contended facts about her life, there does not seem to be any dispute that this was the case. If the local press in Washington chose to "claim her", that's their own problem. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

some one help to add 1 iw link please

[[wuu:Heather Mills]] currently under translation work .. .. .. Thx !!

NP. y'am'can (wtf?) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Porn model

I've seen the picture of Heather Mills, breasts exposed out and legs spread showing her all to the camera. How does this rate as 'glamour modelling'? It's porn, pure and simple. Let's not pussyfoot about (excuse the pun) and airbrush her past when we have clear, uncontrovertible evidence. 86.133.53.189 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Currently, Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP and WP:IUP aren't very well refined, and when it comes to controversial people and issues, interested editors have a tendency to use these policies as blunt instruments. That said, I'd love to hear their excuse for this one. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Relocation & minimisation of "Allegations of prostitution" section

Removing this section and transferring the sources only to the "Public image" section gives the impression of a desire to minimise the claims. This is especially true when the "Public image" section refers to the claims in the context of being made by "the British press, particularly the tabloids," when in fact the main reference is to a serious documentary screened by a major British television broadcaster, as noted above. I would suggest that you read the page on the broadcaster and ask yourself if they would broadcast such allegations if they could not substantiate them in a court of law. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't give undue weight to minor, salacious claims, even if they were made by a notable institution like Channel 4. If being a (literal) hooker was one of her primary claims to fame, I can see creating a subsection for such trashy allegations. This is a living person, so if you're going to place "allegations of prostitution" in a prominent location of a prominent website, you'd better have a darn good reason for it. Currently we do not. "Miminising" such material in a respectable encyclopedia is not an altogether bad idea. I'm reinstating the footnotes in the "Public Image" section.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm and characterising these as "minor, salacious claims" and "trashy allegations" betrays your own glaringly obvious unfamiliarity with the source material and where it originates. We're talking about a serious documentary made by a leading British TV news agency and screened by a major broadcaster, not some cheap hack-job on an obscure satellite or cable channel. And, of course, your edits do minimise and misrepresent the reported facts, by falsely framing them in terms of the "tabloid" media, and omitting details that contextualis Mills's activities. For an individual like Mills, who has consistently chosen to tell her own "approved" version of her life story, acknowledging the clear reported evidence of what she has suppressed is entirely legitimate. But obviously you know better, eh? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with fta Man fully after reviewing the arguments. We are an educational encyclopedia manned by volunteers not a profit-motivated tabloid. And we have a duty to fulfill our WP:BLP policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think ITN and Channel 4 are "profit-motivated tabloids"? Amazing how people can get so uncomfortably about two sentences succinctly summarising the programme, correctly and appropriately placed within the (pre-McCartney) "Early life and career" section. It strikes me that these activities are just as notable in this context as the "Modelling career and first marriage" sub-section that preceded it, not buried elsewhere with a suggestion that it's only the likes of The Sun that's reporting them. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Decree

I added this since the decree is only temporary not final. On May 12, 2008, 30-second hearing, Justice Hugh Bennett ruled: "On the petition for divorce presented by Miss Heather Mills, I pronounce the decree nisi of divorce on the grounds of two years' separation." The prelimintary divorce decree divorce could be finalized in 6 weeks plus a day.Afp.google.com, Paul McCartney granted prelimintary divorce decree--Florentino floro (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

$ 450 million fortune ruled

I have to add a very notable link on judge's preliminary decree and final finding of $ 450 million asset of Paul: In contrast to the previous trial, the preliminary divorce decree was issued in a 30-second hearing. Justice Hugh Bennett further ruled that the final decree can be finalized in 6 weeks and Sir Paul's fortune was put at £ 450 million.ukpress.google.com, Judge ends Mills-McCartney marriageReuters, McCartney and Mills granted divorce --Florentino floro (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saying "very notable" doesn't make it so. The 30-second hearing where a judge decrees the "nisi" standing is nothing but a formality and we sure don't need details of it. Neither Heather nor Paul were there, and no issues of any substance were discussed. Sir Paul's fortune being £450 million may be pertinent in the article about him, but since the terms of the divorce are already laid out in pretty vivid detail in this page, his precise fortune (and it's just an estimate anyhow) is not really necessary. maxsch (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DENIED for utter lack of merit. My ruling: the other editors said the decree was final, the judge did not say so, since there is a waiting period for more amicable settlements of 6 weeks and a day, that is the law. Also, $ 48 million was added up there by an editor, so, who will know what is the total value of the estate under the divorce court? Read the reports before you make again a palpable error and bad style of editing, and please review the Wiki policies on editing. --Florentino floro (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that saying the divorce was "granted" on May 12th is sufficient. The fact that divorce law in the UK requires a judge declare the "nisi" standing and then wait 6 weeks before declaring "final" is a British legalistic formality. It would be that way in any divorce in Britain, and therefore it is not important to include it in this article. maxsch (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the former simplistic edit of just May 12 finalized, is, it is open to many questions by worldwide reader, who are not familiar with the rules of court of the Court which granted the decree. Even here in Philippines, Muslim personal law is different from Civil Code or Family laws. Another example is the CA ruling on gay marriage. In the talk page and worldwide, many jumped, but the ruling is nothing, since it is not executory. Any lawyer would know that upon filing of a mere motion, the decision is vacated, that is, the status quo ante, is, as if no ruling was made. English Wikipedia is read not only by UK or USA readers but by Filipinos and all English-speaking or even not speaking readers. So, my edit would make the article better readable. And most important is the 450 million pounds asset. For laymen that is not big, but for lawyers, that is the key, since any supplemental pleading to make this figure void or bad, or would change the figure, would have to change the decree ruling on provisions within the crucial 6 months waiting period. And now, we know that at least he has 450 million pounds. Of course, there are more hidden assets in dummies, banks and alters. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Readers who are interested in divorce law in the UK can go here [3]. The existence of Law and divorce around the world makes it so that not every mention of a divorce case in wikipedia needs a summary of the pertinent laws. maxsch (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But adding the amount of the estate finally found by the Court, after consideration of evidence and arbitration, is not only notable, but it is a fundamental litigation fruit, outcome, fallo, and case law, so to speak. Why do I opine so? Reason: Divorce (or legal separation and the worst is annulment of marriage here, in Philippines) ends not only in the death of marriage. End is just the beginning of the dispositive portion of the judgment called fallo. The more important part of divorce decision is: distribution of the estate, custody of children, support pendente lite and after litigation, which is endless, since, under UK, our laws and USA laws, the judge's ruling on amount varies with circumstances of time, persons and place, including the supervening other valuations of the total estate. By adding phrases or just a sentence to clarify and expand the simple edit of end of marriage ruling, would greatly serve the readers' or researchers' needs in time. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)