Talk:Heather Mills/Archive 4

Mills dumped by her US publicist

Yet another professional reaches the end of the road with this nightmare excuse of a woman, announced 25 July 2008 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1038605/Impossible-Heather-Mills-dumped-ANOTHER-publicist.html 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already in, but it is interesting.--andreasegde (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That photograph...

Come on, now. Isn't the photo in the infobox[1] outrageously POV? Just photoshop in a halo, wings, and a harp and finish it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any other free images available at this time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's over the top, but it is a publicity shot, and FREE, for goodness' sake. If you're complaining that it's not like other infobox photos (which are basic photo booth shots) then you have that right, but if you are in any way suggesting that it should be removed, you are out of order. I think of the phrases: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth", and "If people don't have anything to complain about, they will find something."--andreasegde (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job assuming good faith. I've got no agenda at all, not against Heather Mills and certainly not for finding something, anything to complain about. I'm an American, we scarcely know who the fuck she is, and don't give a damn. I am suggesting it should be removed on the basis of WP:NPOV, and I know I'm not out of order to do so. I also know from experience trying to upload publicity photos to articles for bands and musicians that they're not usually allowed for living persons. All the ones I've uploaded have been deleted, and the reason given to me is because it's possible to find a free replacement photo of a living person, as they're public figures and are photographed by a lot of people. Most articles about celebrities this famous have no problem at all finding a photo that the owner has released, and I'm sure there must be one in the commons. I may look a little, but again, I scarcely care. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) Okay, I see now that the photo in question has been released into the public domain by the owner, PETA. So it is both a publicity photo, and free and clear beyond even "fair use" arguement. And a search of Wikipedia Commons and Flickr with the appropriate Creative Commons liscences needed for Wikipedia turns up nothing else. That's amazing for someone so public and so photographed. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I think it makes her look totally demonic, or deranged, rather than angelic (look at the eyes) :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, we don't remove free pictures because "they make her look good", bloody hell you Beatles fans really don't like her do you! — Realist² (Speak) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit much; nobody in the whole UK likes her (even though they might defend her in print, and you like her a bit :)). The Daily Mail serialised her book, and then found out she was telling porky pies = lies. That's why the paper doesn't like her; because she lied. It's an old English thing; don't ever solicit pitying public feelings, and then get caught cheating, or lying.

Actually, I really do understand her (being working class and coming from the north of England myself) but there is a massive difference between what you tell your friends and what you claim to be the truth to the national press. As Richard Nixon once said (and he knew) "It's always the lie that catches you out." The biggest mistake she made was a single ego problem: She thought she could have it all. I pity her more than hate her, because she got involved in something much bigger than she could understand.--andreasegde (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Beatles fan, more than everybody is, and I'm not suggesting the picture be deleted... though every publicity photo of a living person I've ever uploaded has been deleted. I'm just saying it shouldn't be the top image, the prominence and the nature of the photo smacks of POV. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Were the pictures you uploaded free-use? If they were fair-use, the photos (of living people) will always be deleted if they are in the infobox. If it's someone who looked a lot different some years ago, you should put them down in the article, as this does not attract so much flak, in my experience.--andreasegde (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mills can see underground

Mills later claimed that she "worked on the front line in a war zone in the former Yugoslavia for two years where there were mines everywhere that weren't marked". Gosh, I wonder how she knew they were there? Any army would pay her millions for that kind of talent. :)--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

I hope someone reviews this quickly, because at 182 references, I will soon be certified and put into a sleeveless overcoat. :)))--andreasegde (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this under headers: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - do not delete referenced sentences".

Obviously that was not good enough, so I have added, "Do not delete referenced sentences before discussing it on the talk page".--andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't litter articles with hidden spam, however well-intentioned that might be. I've reverted these messages. They are unnecessary and, for what it's worth, insulting. If you do not want your writing to be mercilessly edited, don't submit it to Wikipedia. Being a candidate for a good article does not in any way change that. Nandesuka (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Please don't litter articles [plural] with hidden spam", is accusing me of something that you have to explain.
• "If you do not want your writing to be mercilessly edited, don't submit it to Wikipedia", is insulting to me, as I have made over 30,000 edits. I think I know the basic rules, thank you very much...
• "Do not delete referenced sentences before discussing it on the talk page" is totally acceptable, and, considering the topic, quite understandable. If you think that asking editors to talk with each other is "insulting", you should read/understand what Wikipedia is. BTW, the sentence was not spam at all (which is a completely different thing) as it was mere advice that editors should discuss the problem (if any). I thank you.
• Does the name Jeremy Clarkson (talk page) mean anything to you?--andreasegde (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I edit many articles. I have no idea what relation the Jeremy Clarkson article has to this one. I noticed that you were spewing silly comments around, quite inappropriately, in the text of this article, and so I removed the inappropriate spam and commented here. No implication was intended that you're doing this elsewhere. All I know is that you're doing it here, and you shouldn't be. Please stop. Nandesuka (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I resent the word "spewing", which means vomiting. You really should watch your language, as I find it to be extremely rude.--andreasegde (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a word more appropriate than "spewing" to describe what you did, I'm all ears. In the meantime, as long as you stop interfering with other editors' appropriate editing by leaving little comment droppings on every section of the article I'm perfectly happy to have you consider me rude. It apparently took a little rudeness to get your attention, since you were willing to revert other editors who (properly) removed your comment spam from the article. Nandesuka (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deary me, which charm school did you go to? :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

#7 in the nomination list

It looks like this could be awhile. Did Godot say when he was going to visit? :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Paul McCartney

is far too ambiguous, as it makes it seem like she only had a relationship with him, and not meeting, marriage, a child and then divorce. Commments are welcome.--andreasegde (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that "McCartney alone is too "gnostic", seems to be this: 1. "pertaining to knowledge". 2. "possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters". –noun - Which I don't get at all. :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think "McCartney" on its own is a bit too short and not descriptive enough. Perhaps "Marriage to McCartney"; I know that's not the only thing covered in the section but everything there either led up to or followed on from that event... Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you like, you can read "cryptic" instead of "gnostic". In English, meeting someone, marrying them, having children with someone, and being divorced from them would all be considered "relationships." It's certainly more descriptive than the bare word "McCartney". Nandesuka (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

True but "in a relationship with" is a term often used to distinguish from "married to". I agree it could be ambiguous. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

These headers are getting out of hand. I have just had to delete "The couple meet", and "Problems and a split" (an accident in an ice-cream parlour) which sound like Hello! magazine to me.--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As it is now looks good...

• Relationship with Paul McCartney
• 2.1 Marriage
• 2.2 Divorce --andreasegde (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

the reason Paul left is he can't stand her in a court she woudn't have a leg to stand on i was trying to think about a joke of her but i am stumped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.66.164 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am guilty of vandalism: For some weird reason I changed “The owner of a jewellery shop in Clapham” to “Macca later wrote that the owner of a jewellery shop in Clapham”. I knew this article would send me ga-ga in the end… :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

I would appreciate it if this article was reviewed by just one reviewer, as having two makes it hard to understand exactly who the comments are coming from, and can lead to confusion between two reviewers' opinions. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Adnan Khashoggi

Adnan Khashoggi is not a saudi prince he is a broke businessman,, i am from saudi arabia and i know better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.48.60.92 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear from his Wikipedia article. The confusion may have arisen from the quote in the source, which is "[Adnan] Kashoggi, Kerry Packer and one of the Royal princes of Saudi" -- presumably the prince referred to here is a third, unnamed person. I've changed it to "businessman".Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work clearing up the confusion, and I can confirm that 92.48.60.92 does indeed come from:

Hostname: 92.48.60.92 ISP: Ettihad Etisalat Organization: Ettihad Etisalat Proxy: None detected Type: Unknown

Geo-Location Information

Country: Saudi Arabia State/Region: 10 City: Riyadh Latitude: 24.6408 Longitude: 46.7728 ... so the user knows.--andreasegde (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Article

Mein Gott! This is a VERY long article for someone of Mills' stature. This is the kind of entry that you would expert for someone like Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Mohandas K. Ghandi or a major world leader, not a minor ex model who was once involved in an (in)famous celebrity divorce case! Just saying. Paulzon (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but as Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia, it's allowed. It's also a pretty good article, don't you think? If all articles were as detailed as this one (and as well-referenced), Wikipedia would earn some serious respect. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PR

Sorry, but although your paragraph was good (with a ref as well) it was not about Mills, but about Elyzabeth and publicists, so I had to take it out. It hasn't been lost though, as it could go in a new article about Michele Elyzabeth. I think she deserves one, don't you? :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be so blunt, but this REALLY looks as though you are not being impartial over Heather Mills. You say that you have removed a legitimate, referenced rebuttal because it "is not about Mills" and yet you have left in the following: ""Elyzabeth said that she agreed with the British media's low opinion of Mills: "Since her divorce has become final, in my opinion, Heather [Mills] has become an impossible person." Elyzabeth complained that Mills called her "stupid", to which Elyzabeth replied that Mills was "not God"." So, under your rules its OK to leave in an unpleasant, rude, nasty, bitchy personal attack, but not OK to put in an independent, well-argued and measured response to the entire episode? So much for a fair, balanced and factual article. I am really beginning to question whether there is some personal animosity under all this? Lets have some balanced reportage here. You could start with the GMTV saga. if you go through the transcript line by line, I defy you to find a single inaccuracy in what she said. But the papers don't like hearing someone attack them, so they went on the offensive. Check out Philip Schofields' comments the next day when he held up 5 papers that "quoted" his interview with her and pointed out the lies that had been published with the comment "She never said any of that to us". I urge you to replace the paragraph. After all, its true, isn't it? Captainclegg (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are angry about it, but Mill's name is mentioned in the (now) last paragraph 5 times, whereas your paragraph didn't mention Mills once. This is an article about Miss Mills. :) The "unpleasant, rude, nasty, bitchy personal attack" was from both sides, after all. I offered you the chance to start a new article about Elyzabeth (which she deserves) and I can start it for you, if you would like. Your paragraph deserves a place in Wikipedia, as it was good, and also had a reference (oh, how good that is, and I thank you. :) BTW, the whole "Mills's former publicist of four years, Michele Elyzabeth, decided to cease representing her" would be in the new article, which would be a Stub, but a good beginning. Interested? Best regards, --andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: The article about Elyzabeth could be linked via this article, which would give readers more info about publicists in general, and the relationships (stormy, or not) with their clients.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but I would rather pull my fingernails out with blunt pliers than give that Elyzabeth the oxygen of further publicity. I would still argue that for BALANCE unpleasant and probably libellous attacks ought to be rebutted if and where possible, so once again I would ask you to balance this paragraph out. Lets have a semblance of fairness here. Assumption of innocence should be the watch-word, don't you think? You made no reference to Philip Schofields rebuttal on 'This Morning'...

Ahhh... now I see what you mean (sorry). I think Mills saying Elyzabeth was "stupid" says a lot, and that should be taken into account. IMO, the last paragraph shows Elyzabeth playing up to the tabloid press, and trying to save her own reputation. If you believe it's over the top, and not fair, it can be cut out, as it's only tabloid blah-blah-blah anyway. Sod it, I hate arguing about trivial stuff, so I'll do it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done it, but I have left the refs in.--andreasegde (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that you have made a wise choice. Nice to talk to you again!Captainclegg

Redwood Foods is now in

To be sure.--andreasegde (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job, I don't think it belongs in the activism section though. Maybe in the lead or in a new section. Muleattack (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Have renamed the section "Commercial interests" that cover the shop and food company. --BweeB (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Blockshopper.com

Do folks think this is a reliable source? --BweeB (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As it's a proper business and not a fan page, yes. The only problem is when they sell it, will they remove the apartment ad from the page?--andreasegde (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. So we keep it as a ref? --BweeB (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, until the web page changes.--andreasegde (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounes' claim

"employing a succession of public relations consultants, who found themselves hard-pressed to improve her image. One spent much of his time trying to turn Heather's Wikipedia entry to her favour". I've looked through the history pages, and I found nothing untoward.--andreasegde (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounes's claim is only based on hearsay - "Wikipedia manipulation: author's interview with a Mill's employee who wished to speak off the record"(Sounes, FAB p. 566) - and perhaps shouldn't be given too much weight/be removed from article. If a "hard-pressed" PR consultant did try to airbrush the entry, he clearly didn't get very far....Jacobisq (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's got to go.--andreasegde (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This claim may or may not be true, but the overall balance of the article seems surprisingly positive to me. Of course, there's still plenty of negative stuff about HM, but a skilled PR won't try to deny the undeniable. It's all about image management. The edit history doesn't reveal much one way or the other. --Ef80 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really interested in the inference behind this last posting. With respect and not making this in any way personal, but are you saying that you are surprised that "the article seems surprisingly positive to me"? If you think the opposite (that it should be more negative) then are you not just blindly believing the heavily-biased media reporting that has gone on about this woman, seemingly without any first-hand knowledge? Notwithstanding the feelings of die-hard Beatles fans, who I am old enough to remember loathed Linda prior to her apparent Beatification, it would seem that the infamous 'melt-down' interview on GMTV could well be argued as word for word fact in Mills' assertion that the general media reporting was grossly biased. I watched it carefully and also This Morning the next day when Philip Schofield held up newspapers reporting his interview with her and said "She didn't say X or Y. We have the transcript. Maybe she is right..." I don't claim to know her or have any association with her professionally or otherwise (no sniggers please!) but I am so revolted by the current British attitude that everything should be negative and humour hurtful and cruel. I give you as an example Jonathan Ross: "Heather Mills is such a liar, she's probably got two legs" (no complaints to BBC). Jeremy Clarkson: "Striking public sector workers should be shot in front of their children" [inaccurate and heavily edited quote from the entire interview but used in the papers] (21,000 complaints to the BBC). So its OK to laugh at disability, but heaven protect us from mentioning anything about civil servants! Lets stop just believing the media and give people the benefit of the doubt. For the record I would say that the article is very even, giving hard and shocking facts, without opinion. As a good encyclopaedia should. I think that looking back at the history andreasegde has done a magnificent job and should be complimented. 86.171.88.147 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lady McCartney

1: There really is no need to put the "Lady McCartney" stuff in the lead, as she never called herself that when married. It's applicable in the article about their divorce. 2: Refs in the lead are only there when a quote is being referenced. 3: The refs should be in the article, as the lead is a summary of the article.--andreasegde (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points and I have adjusted and moved and shortened accordingly. Hope you agree. Manxwoman (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Marvellous.--andreasegde (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Justice Bennett awarded Heather Mills £16.5mm

Justice Bennett awarded Heather Mills £16.5mm (1) publicly on 17 March 2008 at the Royal Courts in London. The Wikipedia page uses the figure reported by the BBC and others as £24.3mm which is misleading, making the settlement seem 47.27% higher than it actually was. The fact that Sir Paul McCartney had already given her nearly all of the funds to purchase assets as well as giving her directly some other physical assets during their time together, making up the difference, is irrelevant to the divorce settlement and should be corrected. While one expects the newspapers and the like to sensationalize and make things larger than life, I for certain, expect a higher standard from Wikipedia. While the former prostitute’s net worth after the £16.5mm award may be of interest to some, the number belongs elsewhere on the page if at all. As this particular page has been the subject of much debate, I would prefer that the foundation make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphfcolucci (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) Roayl Court Judgement released 17 March 2008

link: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/03/18/mccartneydivorcejudgement.pdf

Case No: FD06D03721

322. Accordingly, I shall order that the husband will pay to the wife on or after decree nisi a lump sum of £16.5m.

A valid reference would substantiate your complaint. If you can find no reference, it will stay as it is.--andreasegde (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/119815-24-3m-settlement-for-heather-mills Muleattack (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What a lovely example of hypocrisy is here! Ralphfcolucci says (above) that "While one expects the newspapers and the like to sensationalize and make things larger than life, I for certain, expect a higher standard from Wikipedia", but then immediately goes on to call Ms Mills a "former prostitute", based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated quote from a self-admitted prostitute (Denise Hewitt) who owned up to having been paid £50,000 by the now-defunct News of the World for the story. So it must be true then? Pot-Kettle-Black? Try reading the supporting article right through to the bottom, before regurgitating unproven allegations, that themselves have no place in Wikipedia and arguably reduce the Heather Mills article (and others) to a cypher for repeating newspaper tittle-tattle. Although we editors all use newspapers as sources, just because it is in the press clearly does not necessarily make it true. I give you the Leveson Inquiry... Manxwoman (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Manxwoman, I salute you; I couldn't have said it better myself! Obviously Ralphfcolucci only read the lead as (we both know), everything is explained in the article. I did add a little to the lead to stop further outbursts of silliness.--andreasegde (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

the Heather Mills Health Trust

Okay, this is such a minor thing but I just spotted a change by andreasegde changing "the Heather Mills Health Trust" to "the Heather Mills' Health Trust" (extra apostrophe). Just wondering what this is about? It doesn't seem grammatically correct to me. Muleattack (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, it is. It is the old grammatical warhorse about "The boy's cap", or "The boys' caps". It's also used in "The Beatles' albums", but never as "The Beatles albums". The "King James Bible"? No, it's called "King James's Bible" (you can look it up, if you want). In modern prose, to avoid writing "Mills's father", the extra "S" is often shortened to "Mills' father, or Elvis' mother" (even though the correct pronunciation is "Elvis's mother", or "the mother of Elvis").--andreasegde (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Try this: the Apostrophe Protection Society. "It's a doozy!", as they say. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, this is even better: the James Version, because they veer wildly all over the place from "King James's", "King James' Bible", and "King James Bible". Whoah! Hold the horses :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you make a very good point as the apostrophe's used by the Apostrophes' Society webpage can cause great fun at entertainments' day's competition's and the son's and daughters' of contestants' relatives can pit their brains' capacity towards understanding the importance's and uses' of apostrophes and its' protection's... How do you spell the plural of apostrophe? Manxwoman (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now! Is it called "The Heather Mills Health Trust" or "The Heather Mills' Health Trust"? If it's the latter then it makes no sense to me since if it was "Heather Mills' Health Trust" it would mean a health trust belonging to Heather Mills, but if prefaced by a "the" then it can't be possessive so what is it? Muleattack (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked out "Heather Mills Trust" and "Heather Mills' Trust", and it seems the former wins by a mile, even though scholars disagree. I'll chop off the apostrophic appendage straight away (sorry for the pun). As far as "The Heather Mills Trust" or "the Heather Mills Trust" goes, it seems split 50-50. It's "apostrophes", BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was only being factitious though! Manxwoman (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really nice that you watch this page and contribute so well, Manxwoman. --andreasegde (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hypocrisy"

I knew that my entry would get a reaction however was surprised by what I saw posted. In the published:

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam) Case No: FD06D03721 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 17/03/2008

Justice Bennett wrote:

54. 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. The objective facts simply do not support her case.

While glossing over the affidavit from Abdul Khoury, who was Khashoggi's personal secretary from 1977 to 2005. Khoury affirmed the veracity of reports that Mills "had sex with him [Khashoggi] on a number of occasions in return for money. Mr. Khashoggi was always very pleased with Heather's performance. She was very athletic in bed". [151]

151. Abdul Khoury, who claims to have been arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi's private secretary from 1977 until last year, said one of his responsibilities was to look after prostitutes for Mr. Khashoggi, once listed as the world's richest man. He told the News of the World: "One [of the prostitutes] was Heather Mills who I know had sex with him on a number of occasions in return for money," he was quoted as saying. …"Sometimes Mr. Khashoggi would make comments to me about the girls he paid to have sex with him. "In Heather's case I remember his remark that she had soft skin. And was very athletic in bed. Mr. Khashoggi was always very pleased with Heather's performance."

The truly hypocritical part is the allegation of domestic violence. Is it possible that a woman, upon seeing these allegations dismissed by Justice Bennett under the umbrella:

263. On 25 October 2006 the husband in the ancillary relief proceedings issued an application for the case to be listed before a High Court Judge for directions as to the future disposal of the suit. If the cause was to be defended, the husband sought leave to amend his Petition and to file a Supplemental Petition. The proposed Amended Petition alleged a number of matters against the wife of verbal abuse, extreme jealousy, false accusations of violence, and that throughout the marriage the wife had shown a consistent inability to tell the truth. The Supplemental Petition alleged, inter alia, leaking the husband’s private phone calls include one with Stella, leaking of the husband’s Petition and that the wife had leaked the Answer and Cross-Petition.

If a single woman has failed to report a case of true domestic violence because of this judgment, (If they didn’t believe her they’ll never believe me) all women are let down by these “false accusations” and why any woman would want to defend anything about Heather Mills is beyond comprehension to the male mind. If a woman were to die or has died as the direct result of this, Heather Mills should be fined the entire settlement amount of £16.5mm which should be used to help truly battered women avoid the same fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphfcolucci (talk • contribs) 06:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When you hear in court the two sides of something as simple as a car accident relate their individual stories, it always amazes me how any judgement can ever be made. The participants BELIEF in their own story is 100%, but specifically in a divorce case, emotion often clouds all reason. I am full of sympathy for anyone who's private life is dragged around the gutter-press and published for their entirely unnecessary, vitriolic and prurient amusement. Personally, I would be astonished if "a single woman has failed to report a case of true domestic violence because of this judgment" (sic), I think that you are over-estimating the importance or influence of this case.

As for "why any woman would want to defend anything about Heather Mills is beyond comprehension to the male mind", my apologies, I was not aware that you were speaking on behalf of the entire male population. But speaking as an individual woman, I do not like to make judgements about someone I do not know and/or have not had personal dealings with. I most certainly would not base an opinion solely on newspaper hearsay. As for her alleged previous profession (this is still based on a paid-for News of the World story remember, so lets not attach too much weight to it at all), so what? As a woman, I have no problem with that trade. As long as the participants are willing, its an honest transaction between buyer and seller. If your opinion is based on a personal knowledge of the Lady (capital L in line with previous postings!) then that is your individual right to hold, but lets not all jump about and kick someone when they are down, based solely on the hideous British press, its very unedifying and compassion should appear somewhere. After all her "sin" was to marry and divorce a Beatle, thats all and being a Beatle-wife has traditionally been a nightmare. She hasn't murdered anyone. Manxwoman (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with improving the article? If not it needs to be deleted. Muleattack (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is a direct reply to Ralphfcolucci posting & question, so I am perfectly happy if the entire section is deleted. Manxwoman (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an answer to Ralphfcolucci's comments and attitude. --andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the text, because it deals directly with the attitudes of people towards Heather Mills, which is very pertinent, as this article is actually about her, no?.--andreasegde (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Further, I was under the impression that talk pages should not be removed or edited without the authors permission and certainly not have words or phrases deleted which could alter the meaning of the original posting (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, section 1.5 "Editing comments, Others' comments"), as had happened in the edit, now restored. Thank you andreasegde. Manxwoman (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

Hi Andreasegde, that image is arguably a BLP violation -- very insulting and an unsuitable source (not to mention that you uploaded it under a fair-use claim). What function do you see it as serving? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It shows the bias against Mills by a leading UK newspaper. I don't like the woman, but it should be shown that vitriolic/virulent attacks by the press went way over the top. Anybody looking at the Sun's box could not fail to be shocked at the downright nastiness of it. You'll notice that there is a whole section devoted to criticism of press coverage, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Land Mine picture

Message to Andreasegde‎: As you are doing such a grand job tidying the article, do you think that the picture of the land mine "against which Mills campaigns" is really necessary? Otherwise, should we not include a picture of a set of skis "upon which Mills races" etc etc? Manxwoman (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

28 June changes

Who's been a busy-bee?! May I make a couple of minor points? I agree with the majority of changes and your point about the skiing is well made, though from everything I have read it would appear that that is her goal now. I think that she will probably continue, as long as she stays upright and stops crashing! However, is the change to the Relationship-headline section necessary? Isn't a marriage a relationship? And there follows a section on Marriage and then Divorce, so would it not be more succinct to just headline the over-all title as Relationship as a 'catch-all' and then (as you have) sub-divide the Marriage and Divorce? Also, can I make the same point as previously about the picture of the seal... Shouldn't it be cut out as unnecessary? Just a suggestion. Otherwise, well done. Manxwoman (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I will agree with whatever you decide. I was only trying to tidy things up a bit. Go, go, go! :))--andreasegde (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

Is this really a valid source :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-390135/Heather-just-stood-naked-unashamed-unabashed.html?!?

Please read the article and tell me if its valid! And that guy's been quoted 4 times in the article about Heather Mills! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.213.217 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo

The main photo of her should be changed. A perfect picture of her smiling in a field of flowers with a dog does not do her justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.14.20 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I took out one of the worst nests of poor sources and salacious allegations I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Can I remind editors of the provisions of WP:BLPSOURCES which explicitly forbids adding material on living people sourced to tabloids. Never having edited this article before, I shall be happy to block if it becomes necessary, but I would hope not to have to do so. --John (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This seems to have been missed: Revision as of 18:54, 9 June 2015 Mills was also considered to work as a high class prostitute during this time.

Reference is Guardian article Heather Mills alleged to have 'verbally abused' Paralympic official, nothing to do with prostitution.Kid Bugs (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heather Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416232058/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/02012009/gossip/pagesix/mills_vindicated_153081.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012009/gossip/pagesix/mills_vindicated_153081.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Significant changes made to this article

I'd like to draw attention to the edits made by User:Mlot123 on March 4th and March 6th of this year. Essentially we are now asked to see Heather Mills in a different light - she's a businesswoman and activist, along with a lengthy string of awards she been given and the removal of personal information.

I've kept an eye out on this page for the simple reason that something similar happened a few years back and those edits were reverted. I have to say, I deeply sceptical that these edits can be considered to be objective.

My knee-jerk reaction is to revert them, but I thought it best to ask for thoughts from others. David T Tokyo (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Heather Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526222625/http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/heathermills.html to http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/heathermills.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235128/http://www.viva.org.uk/celebs/heather_interview.html to http://www.viva.org.uk/celebs/heather_interview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617084955/http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/2186/who-is-heather-mills/ to http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/2186/who-is-heather-mills/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719153827/http://fametastic.co.uk/archive/20070116/4166/heather-mills-has-birthday-reunion-with-ex-boyfriend/ to http://fametastic.co.uk/archive/20070116/4166/heather-mills-has-birthday-reunion-with-ex-boyfriend/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914235147/http://www.dorset-ortho.co.uk/index.php?topic=0054 to http://www.dorset-ortho.co.uk/index.php?topic=0054
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cusa.uci.edu/fellowships.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.landmines.org/docUploads/Complete%20Press%20Kit.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/42799-interview-sir-paul-mccartney
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826154048/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22699241-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22699241-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/ny-millsmccartney1024%2C0%2C2529920.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235241/http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/pigs/msdoa.html to http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/pigs/msdoa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822171016/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=47a2fffd-773b-4a60-a455-9aa4723db70e to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=47a2fffd-773b-4a60-a455-9aa4723db70e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235251/http://www.viva.org.uk/heathervideo/index.html to http://www.viva.org.uk/heathervideo/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://archive.is/20Ssw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of titles

The source used to claim Mills should still be addressed as Lady McCartney is from 1977. Is there any more current source younger than 40 years old to back up the claim she retains her title after divorce? Because New Zealand's government protocol site (which uses British title rules unless otherwise stated) claims, "If a knight divorces and remarries, the current and former wife (or wives) who retain their current and former husband’s surname are entitled to use the courtesy title of Lady." As Mills dropped McCartney, that seems to indicate the only Lady McCartney is Nancy Shevell, McCartney's wife. MizzMadrigal (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC) MizzMadrigal

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heather Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805141013/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3577614/Maccas-choice.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3577614/Maccas-choice.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23408636-man-spared-jail-over-heather-attack.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heather Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407033912/http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/6/200391_61036_o1.pdf to http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/6/200391_61036_o1.pdf/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140422152432/http://www.heathermills.org/awards.php to http://www.heathermills.org/awards.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)