Talk:Patricia Heaton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patricia Heaton article.

Contents

[edit] Discussions

I've removed the POV on this page. Opinions are not good fodder for articles. Mike H 23:25, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Biography standards

Can you please honor the standards for birth/death information found here and here? It's the standard. I'm sorry if you don't like it. If you don't, take it up at the appropriate page, but the standard is the standard for a reason, and has been for a very long time. RADICALBENDER★ 21:04, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Does the "standard" include repeating info within the same article? Why is it necessary to state "best known for Everybody Loves Raymond" in the first sentence, when that is discussed at length later in the entry?
Because Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section. Niteowlneils 19:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly comprised of two camps - those who spend a considerable amount of time doing research to create an item with a unique voice and sense of style, and those who think everything must conform to one boring format and edit instead of write. The very fact that the public is invited to this site to express themselves suggests it's not meant to look or sound like a standard encyclopedia. Lighten up and let people enjoy themselves as long as they're keeping to the spirit of things, if not the "standards" you obsessively embrace! TOM 12:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting "boring" from. My God, I'm talking about changing an intro so that a user who reads the article can immediately understand why this person is important and get some standard information. I'm not talking about changing up the content in a major way at all - just getting it into a standard form that everyone reading can quickly grasp. I'm not stomping on your "creative genius" or whatever and even if I was, that's the nature of Wikipedia. Geez, we're talking about common sense things here - you make it sound like I'm spitting on some great work of art.
Look, let's look at your opening paragraph:
Patricia Heaton is an American actress.
So what? So's my sister: she was in a play in the sixth grade. According to your description, Patricia Heaton is on the same level as my sister. The very beginning of this article doesn't tell me why this person is important, let alone why I should keep reading. Now, I know why she's important and so do you, but Joe Q. Wikipedia-Reader might not. And if the reader don't know anything about Everybody Loves Raymond or American television, the article doesn't give them that initial hint that she stars in a popular American television show that's been running for eight years. The point is, this is an encyclopedia article - the first thing that should be said is why this person deserves to be in an encyclopedia article.
As far as your "two camps" crack goes - without us standards nerds, this site would be an incomprehensible, inconsistent, "non-useful" mess...like Everything2. As far as "lightening up", I'm pretty sure that it's you who needs to lighten up. We're talking about minor changes that every article should have so that people can get certain information and understand the article quickly and easily.
Like the message below this editing box says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." RADICALBENDER★ 16:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why there is a debate here. We have standards so that the encyclopedia is consistent. I'm sorry if you find that "boring", but that's just the way it is. This is a collaborative project, and these are the standards that have been decided on by hundreds (thousands?) of collaborators long before you and I showed up. There is no reason to dismiss them out of a misguided sense of individuality. There is no personal expression in where you place an actress's birthdate. Yes, we value people expressing themselves, but just as important to the "spirit of things" is consensus. These standards have been decided by consensus and by defying them you are violating consensus and the spirit of things here on wikipedia. Perhaps if you could explain why there is a compelling reason not to have this actress's birthdate in the standard format or not to tell readers why she is important in the introduction, we could understand why you want to violate this consensus. Gamaliel 19:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TOM, you said above about the public being encouraged to edit at Wikipedia. Yes that's totally true and the best way. The beautiful thing is that those people do not have to conform to the standards - their additions will be copyeditted by other people into the correct format. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Series vs. Pilots

violet/riga persists in stating that Heaton starred in three pilots that failed to become series, despite my advising her otherwise on her talk page. As proof, I offer the following:

What more does a person need to accept the fact he's wrong??? 64.12.116.68 22:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't be quick to insult. I am not persisting in stating blah... I know nothing about this person but am simply trying to fix an edit war here. Please stop reverting to a version which is not acceptable – I suggest you read the talk and history of the article before making such changes. Fix the change rather than revert. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please be aware of the 3RR – continued reversion will result in you being blocked. Please discuss things here first. violet/riga (t) 23:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
violet/riga also persists in misdefining the purpose of Feminists for Life by limiting its focus to abortion, which is NOT the case. (S)he admits (s)he knows nothing about Heaton yet keeps interfering with her bio, then claims (s)he's only "trying to fix an edit war." There wouldn't be an "edit war" if (s)he stopped playing with the facts!!!! And don't accuse ME of "reverting" - I'm simply correcting the false data YOU insist on adding! 64.12.116.68 23:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you looked at the history you would note that the edit war is with another user (ie. not you) that has withdrawn their writing. We are not allowed to use that version any more (well, that is their claim) and have to rewrite it. I have attempted to do so. Please edit this current version and expand it rather than revert it to the disallowed version. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Stop with the insults; I'm not trying to revert your edits nor am I trying to limit the scope of anything. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] violet/riga's control issues

Apparently Violetriga doesn't understand that Wikipedia encourages contributors to enhance articles, since he or she keeps reverting the Heaton entry to her poorly-written version. Furthermore, he or she insists on misdescribing the purpose of Feminists for Life by trying to make it sound like their sole concern is abortion. It's one thing to think your writing is so wonderful it shouldn't be altered by others, quite another to intentionally distort the facts. Why hasn't she been banned for frequent vandalism of this article???? 152.163.100.68 12:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling I'm banging my head against the wall with some people here? Read the history comments and the writing above. I'm going to have to RFC this soon and that's just plain ridiclous. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bang your head against the wall until you knock some sense into it! WHO do you think you are, the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia? Never mind that you're a dull writer - why is it you consider removal of data and a misrepresentation of the facts to be an "enhancement"? Heaton's father is a renowned sportswriter, yet you keep deleting that fact. Heaton has received honors other than the Emmy for Raymond, yet you keep deleting that fact. The agenda of Feminists for Life involves much more than abortion issues, yet you keep deleting that fact. WHAT'S WITH YOU? 152.163.100.68 12:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I refuse to discuss this any more with somebody who clearly has no interest in looking at the facts. Revert it once more and I will block you for 24 hours, simple as that. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Changed my mind - such silliness is not worth my time. Placed on RFC. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clearly violet/riga is on a demented power trip. How else do you explain her insistence on removing pertinent data and distorting facts in this entry an endless number of times??? When she is confronted with her ridiculous antics, she responds by stating, " I refuse to discuss this any more with somebody who clearly has no interest in looking at the facts," yet SHE is the one who refuses to listen to reason. As already stated above, Heaton's father is a renowned sportswriter, she has received honors other than the Emmy for Raymond, and the agenda of Feminists for Life involves much more than abortion issues - yet Violetriga keeps removing all this data without explaining why! She removes the description of Stage Three, and all of Heaton's made-for-TV film credits - this is her idea of an "enhancement"? Her obsession with destroying a well-written entry with her ridiculous changes is disturbing and needs to be addressed by an administrator ASAP. 152.163.100.68 22:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am an admin, and you clearly have no idea how to conduct yourself in a sensible manner. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you are an administrator, how do you justify removing pertinent data and distorting facts as an "enhancement"? It is I who have been sensible throughout this "war" you started, clearing stating my case for maintaining the entry as is, whereas you have continued to revert it to your badly-written ("she got the part" - truly a literary masterpiece!) skeleton of an article for no reason other than the fact you seem to be obsessed with keeping it the way you want it written. Who at Wikipedia decided you're administrator material? I'd be interested in knowing what the standards are if someone like yourself can attain this status! 152.163.100.68 12:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really can't understand the way some people think. Stop being so stupid and paranoid that people are out to destroy the work you've been doing. I've explained myself time and again about this article but will once more. Hopefully this time you'll listen and stop playing around with the article. Right...

This article was the subject or a stupid argument about the layout of some images. After that somebody that had written quite a bit for this article started a revert war, claiming that their contributions are no longer allowed on Wikipedia. I argued and kept reverting to the fuller version. In an attempt at compromise I rewrote much of the article, adding some content but not as much as that other version. That person has since disappeared and is no longer reverting the work. You've now come along and undid what I did to his version. Since that version was the cause of so much grief I want to stay clear of it and use the new version that I wrote. Feel free to add to the version I have done and include everything in the other version (I want that included!) but don't revert it to the one that could cause problems should that original guy come back and revert again.

Now, I've explained. I'm going to put it back to my version again. I've warned you not to revert and will block you if you revert what I have written. And I'll stick to it this time. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your explanation is ludicrous. In no way have you justified deleting pertinent data or misdescribing the goals of Feminists for Life. Furthermore, you state, "Feel free to add to the version I have done and include everything in the other version" - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING, only to have you revert it to YOUR version!!!! Why invite someone to do something and then revert it after he's done it????? 64.12.116.68 17:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's not what you're doing at all, you're just reverting it. You've not listened to a word I've said. Page protected until you can discuss this without dismissing everything. violet/riga (t) 21:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we all just get along?

I've been asked to intervene in this edit war and that's just what I'm going to do. First off, the insults end now. I don't care who started it, I'm putting everyone reading this on notice that the next person who posts anything remotely like an insult directed towards another editor on this page will get a 24 hour block, and then the prizes double each time after that. Please assume good faith and do not presume that other editors have hidden grudges, agendas, or issues. We should all have the same goal in mind, which is obviously to improve this article.

Towards that end, when this article gets unprotected, perhaps we can all agree not to make any more reverts? Let's keep the changes small and specific if we can. 64/152 (I am assuming you are the same person. Is that correct?), if there is specific information you feel violet/riga is leaving out, restore that information only and do not revert the entire article. Violet/riga, I'm aware about the problems we had with sftvlguy2, but the GNU licence is pretty clear and using his edits are fair game. I know you want to head off any problems with his complaints and vandalism, but is it really such a problem if some of his work is restored? Gamaliel 09:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I, along with other admins, were in an edit war with the first anon trying to claim that such work could not be removed. The best compromise I could see was to rewrite the information. I did so, though left some out which I either thought was not appropriate or could not reword sufficiently to appease that anon. Then this new anon came along, stating "Removal of incorrect data by Violetriga". I attempted to fix it after being told what was wrong but from then the user has been stubborn and not bothered to expand on the version that I worked on.
For the record at no point have I insulted this anon. Thanks for coming along Gameliel, lets hope this edit war can end now. violet/riga (t) 10:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the record, Violetriga, Gamaliel came along at MY request, since dealing with you had developed into an impossible situation. You claim I'm stubborn but I believe it is you who is stubborn in refusing to accept the fact that I have done EXACTLY what you have requested - expanded on your version, only to have you remove all the enhancements. You didn't "rewrite the information," as you claim, you deleted pertinent facts and misdescribed the focus of Feminists for Life, as I have told you repeatedly. "Rewriting," as I see it, means using different language but keeping the data as is. And I can't help but notice that Gamaliel did not support your claim that you're an administrator. I would appreciate clarification of that from someone other than yourself. 152.163.100.69 13:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I really have no interest discussing any of the above with you. Please discuss the way in which this stalemate can be resolved rather than repeatedly go on with stupid accusations and incorrect statements. violet/riga (t) 13:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
64/152, Violetriga is an administrator here. Violetriga does not need my "support" to claim status as an administrator, it simply is a fact. Your harping on this point is counterproductive and frankly a little bizarre. Let's focus on what we can do to settle this dispute, not oneupsmanship. Leaving aside the issue of Feminists for Life temporarily, what specific problems do you have with Violetriga's version. Not general issues of stubborness or reverting, but what specific information is being left out? Let's come to some agreement on individual points instead of harping on how stubborn other people are. Gamaliel 16:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pardon me for tossing in my two cents here, but if someone would take the time to read all the issues 64/152 has raised, you can see he's never been "general" at all. In fact, he has been VERY specific about what information has been removed by Violetriga, namely 1) identification of Heaton's father as a renowned sportswriter; 2) explanation of what "Stage Three" is; 3) all of Heaton's made-for-TV movie credits; and - as Gamaliel mentioned - 4) a complete explanation of Feminists for Life's goals. He has stated his case clearly and succinctly several times, yet Violetriga's only response is "I really have no interest discussing any of the above with you" or variations thereof. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm interested in knowing why she has been permitted to control this page the way she has. I don't believe being an administrator means one is permitted to abuse the privilege as much as she has - which is clear to anyone who reads the ongoing discussion between her and 64/152 above. As often as he states his case - and a good one, at that - she refuses to acknowledge the points he has made. How does she justify accusing him of making "stupid accusations and incorrect statements"? The way I'm reading this, he's never done any such thing. Exactly how does one qualify to be an administrator with an attitude like hers? I'm not looking to add fuel to this fire, I'm just wondering - - - The FinalWord 20:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's great, but why does it have to reverted instead of being added again? It should be more than obvious that I have no problem with the information being added just the way it is being done. As for other comments made by The FinalWord again I have no interest in responding to such pointless and biased nonsense. violet/riga (t) 20:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added a new section titled "A solution?" in which I proposed my version of this article. That has been removed, not just from this discussion page, but from the history, as well. If an administrator has that capability, then Violetriga is truly guilty of vandalism! ONCE AGAIN, here is my suggestion - The FinalWord 21:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That really did make me laugh - your paranoia is getting the better of you! The solution is a start, though I can't help but think that changing the occasional word from the disputed version (not my rewrite) is only the vaguest of attempts at a compromise. violet/riga (t) 21:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MY paranoia? If you didn't fiddle with my last entry - the proposed new version of the article under the heading "A solution?" - why is my name and the date and time stamp missing from the end of it?????? SOMEBODY had to remove it - if not you, who? You reverted the deleted section after I raised the issue of its removal, but neglected to include that info. As far as a "compromise", be honest - obviously your idea of a compromise is using YOUR version, period. The FinalWord 21:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You didn't submit the suggestion to begin with, hence it missing from the history. That was most likely because of an edit conflict. I then went and sectioned and organised things properly for you, trying to help as ever. If you don't believe me then either provide proof (ask any admin you can find) or stop spouting your mistaken views. I want this article to be in the best possible state for all parties. The whole reason for me removing much of the content is because of somebody else's view and not mine (check the history and you'll see how I was originally fighting for the version you hold so dear). Just sort it out - the time you've spent moaning and accusing here could be much better served working on this (and indeed other) articles. My time could be better spent also, so do please continue your intentions of reaching a compromise. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As someone fairly new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your explaining how, if I didn't submit the suggestion to begin with, you were able to find it and revert it to the discussion page where I put it in the first place. What do you mean by an "edit conflict"? I made the entry, saved the page, saw it there with my signature and date and time stamp, only to find it missing shortly after. Now it's back EXACTLY as I wrote it. How did it disappear and reappear? What is it you "sectioned" and "organized" "properly" for me? I'm not being facetious, I'm trying to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. As far as a compromise, I see no reason why the version I proposed can't be used. It has far more info than yours, and the data is in a sensible order (why would you put her husband and kids, for example, in the first paragraph? Is that what anyone immediately wants to know when they're looking up Patricia Heaton?) The FinalWord 21:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If two people are editing a page at the same time then information may not get submitted - that is an edit conflict - though it warns you of such an occurance. At no point have I removed anything you've said. I came to the article and saw your suggestion; in order to respond to the comments you made I placed the suggestion under a new section header and replied to what you said.
I placed the personal details at the top because, to me, it is quite logical to place all person details such as date and place of birth/death, their reason for being included in Wikipedia and any relevant relationship in the lead section of the article. Obviously that is debatable and having it placed at the bottom is fine.
Yes, your version has more information. No, I don't believe it to be "better written", but then neither do I think that of my version. I merely wanted to stop edit wars happening with the original anonymous user. Quite amusing that those intentions instigated a second edit war. Indeed, had the suggestion shown below been submitted at the time (instead of my attempt at a compromise being reverted) then I would've welcomed it. As it stands I feel work could still be done on the version below to make it more acceptable to both of us. Make further changes or allow me to make them and perhaps a solution can be found. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing further I know about Heaton that I can add. Quite frankly, as a professional writer, I can't see any way to improve this (no self-praise intended). To mention "Raymond" in the first paragraph and then again at length later in the entry seems redundant to me. I basically put the facts in chronological order. Exactly what changes did you have in mind? The FinalWord 22:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I'm justing looking more carefully at the edit history here and find it somewhat amusing. The person that removed their "copywrighted material and photos" after an edit war with me and a few others is the same one that came back to fight to include it again. I really am interested in knowing how many people are involved here. Basically it's all ridiculous and while trying to help out I've just been attacked despite my good intentions. I don't care what happens here now as I have no idea who I'm arguing with and what their opinions are. I withdraw any objection to any part of this argument because it's getting too difficult to keep track of the anons/users opinions and I have no interest in fighting other peoples battles. Use whatever version you want. Serves me right for trying to help. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The FinalWord, your behavior on this page is highly inappropriate. This talk page is a forum for discussing improvements to the article, not for paranoid accusations and questioning someone's fitness to be an administrator. Further inappropriate comments along these lines will be deleted, and then at that point you can question my fitness as an administrator too, but you can do it somewhere else.

I noticed you immediately rushed in to revert as soon as the page was unprotected. I've made some minor changes to the article along with explainations of each one. If you are interested in discussion and compromise then we can discuss changes and problems here, but if you want a revert war, then we can have that too. Gamaliel 01:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I did not "rush in" to make changes (NOT "revert") to the article - my watchlist advised me that there was an addition to the talk page, and there I found Violetriga's invitation to use any version, so I made the change. Second of all, my behavior was most definitely not "inappropriate" - as a newcomer, I'm entitled to question how administrators are selected and how much control they are allowed to wield in a situation such as this. To criticize my efforts to understand Wikipedian procedures is what I would consider "inappropriate." As far as your changes are concerned, they include grammatical errors which I am correcting. And once again, and for the last time, I can't help but wonder how anyone can read the discussions on this page, where two - or perhaps three - individuals made clear and concise points, only to be continually told their opinions didn't matter, and not think the administrator involved wasn't acting in Wikipedia's best interests. The FinalWord 02:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of deleting your comments with zero evidence is not an effort to understand Wikipedia procedures, nor is it in any sense appropriate behavior, newcomer or not. You are not entitled to use this talk page as a soapbox - you've already complained, and if you still feel more needs to be done, you can follow the proper procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, but you won't be allowed to continue to make attacks and lodge a continuing series of complaints here. Your opinions do matter, but you simply are not allowed to do whatever you want, however justified you feel you are. Gamaliel 03:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see - I'm not allowed to do what I want, but Violetriga is permitted to act in the questionable manner she did without reprisal. I know what I saw - my comments were there, then they vanished, then they were returned WITHOUT THE DATE AND TIME STAMP . . . HOW do you explain THAT??? Violetriga's explanation made no sense, because if my edits didn't go through due to an "edit conflict," there's no way she could have found them and reverted them as she admitted she did. Furthermore, I attempted to discuss this matter privately on YOUR talk page, Gamaliel, where you responded to me quite nicely, then you came here and attacked me in a totally nasty manner. What's with the two faces? Obviously, you administrators stick together, no matter what. And by the way, re: your "descriptive caption to provide context" - it CLEARLY says "Dr. Phil" on the photograph, so repeating the info seems quite unnecessary - but of course, the administrators aren't permitted to be questioned by the humble peons who are responsible for the bulk of Wikipedia, are they? The FinalWord 04:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no interest in any sort of administrative solidarity. In fact, I disagree with Violetriga on several major points about this article, and if you were not so busy playing the victim and willing to discuss this article calmly, you would have found that out. If you feel that I was nasty to you, I apologize, but I feel that you have been quite nasty to Violetriga, with little cause. How exactly have you, as a humble peon, been harmed? You have not been blocked, banned, or silenced. How have you been oppressed by the cabal? I can't explain what happened to that edit of yours, but I have some familiarilty with administrative powers, and I certainly would not be able to do what you attribute to Violetriga. I am not a tech geek, perhaps we could find one to explain what actually did happen. Regardless, you have made your accusation and there is no reason to complain about that further unless you have something new to add. If you still feel that an injustice has been done to you, please follow the proper procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would like to get along with you but you really need to dial it back and stop personalizing this dispute. Gamaliel 06:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The final word on The FinalWord

It seems to me that The FinalWord, 152.163.100.68, 152.163.100.69 and 64.12.116.68 are the same person - trying to hide behind IP addresses (and, I believe, different usernames) and state that you've "come along late to the discussion" is just pathetic. Using your newbieness as a shield, while appropriate to some extent, is just trying to get pity. I hope you will avoid such actions and accusations in the future - you obviously want to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a good thing, but there is no reason for the attitude and personal attacks you've done here. If you'd been more truthful and friendlier this would've been dealt with long ago. Any further responses from you should kindly appear on my talk page rather than here. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A solution?

Patricia Heaton (born March 4, 1958) is an American actress.

She was born in Bay Village, a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and is the daughter of well-known Cleveland Plain Dealer sportswriter Chuck Heaton. She moved to New York City to study with drama teacher William Esper after graduating from Ohio State University.

She made her Broadway debut in the musical Don't Get God Started, after which she and fellow students created Stage Three, an off-Broadway acting troupe. When they brought one of their productions to Los Angeles, Heaton caught the eye of a casting director for the ABC drama thirtysomething, leading to three appearances on the series. She was featured in three unsuccessful sitcoms - Room for Two (1992) with Linda Lavin, Someone Like Me (1994), and Women of the House (1995) with Delta Burke - before landing the plum role of beleagured wife, mother, and in-law Debra Barone in the hit CBS comedy series Everybody Loves Raymond (1996 - 2004) with Ray Romano. Since 1999, she has been nominated every year for an Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series Emmy, winning the award twice. She has also collected two Viewers for Quality Television awards and a Screen Actors Guild trophy for her work on the series.

Heaton's made-for-television movies include Shattered Dreams, Miracle in the Woods, A Town Without Christmas, and the remake of Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl with Jeff Daniels for TNT. Her feature films include Memoirs of an Invisible Man, Beethoven, and Space Jam.

Heaton is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life. This nonsectarian, nonpartisan organization opposes all forms of cruelty, including domestic violence, child abuse, infanticide, and abortion.

Her memoir, Motherhood and Hollywood - How to Get a Job Like Mine, was published by Villard Books in 2002.

Since 2003, Heaton has appeared in a series of humorous television commercials as spokesperson for the grocery store chain Albertsons.

Heaton has been married to British businessman David Hunt II since 1990. The couple has four sons and divides their time between Los Angeles and England, where they own a country estate.

[edit] Other views

Hi, I came in from RfC. I like the standardized birth info in the first sentence. I like the first-para reference to Everybody Loves Raymond; this may not always be the best lead-in for Ms. Heaton's life, but for the present era this establishes her most notable context. I think the Feminists for Life reference should be short, non-praising, and optionally quickly mention the two salient features of the group that make it unusual—it's leftist but it's anti-abortion. Something like: "Heaton is the honorary chairperson of [[Feminists for Life]], a left-leaning group opposing abortion and cruelty." --Gary D 01:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce and religion

Sources for Heaton having a divorce from her first husband, and currently attending a Presbyterian church: Denver Catholic Register(CNS) Sources for Heaton having a divorce from her first husband: IMDb, E! Online, Sources for Heaton attending a Presbyterian church nowadays: Netscape celebrity, her memoir, Motherhood and Hollywood - How to Get a Job Like Mine. Niteowlneils 22:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey and by the way, it put's her in the Roman Catholic Category when a documentary on E! w/ her saying that she has been reborn as a Presbyterian, but it's better to say she is not an Catholic or a Presbyterian, but a CHRISTIAN. Does it matter her denomination? Yes, but to categorize her as a Christian. The Texas Drama King 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red hair

She dyes her hair red. It's not natural. How is that her trademark, then? Mike H 21:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's what she's known for. Natural or not, it's how she appears to the public and is how she is known. Kurt Weber 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

[edit] Random unsigned comments

I have a pic of her bare boobs (Shadow Gale)

The falsifications in her conservative hit piece movie The Path to 9/11 are not "alleged". They are indeed false. See here: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism 68.192.53.216 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revisions

I tried to reformat her career info a bit, grouping it together with like info.

Also thought some of the text about her political views was a bit POV. I don't agree with her, but every article needs neutral POV, I tried to make this one more neutral. NickBurns 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Political advocacy area is indeed a bit muddled. The Margaret Colin quote isn't relevant, since Ms. Heaton didn't say it. It's redundant, as the Feminists For Life association is well established in the article. Unless there's serious objections, I think it should be removed. For the record, I'm also on the fence about the POV of the Albertson's strike issue. For all we know, she taped the commercials well in advance and I don't see citation of any serious questioning of her intentions there. Thoughts?VanPelt101 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's an objection, I'm going to remove the reference to the Albertson's strike at this point. It's not really political advocacy to not comment on wages. VanPelt101 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stem cell

The way the paragraph about her opposition to medical research is worded makes it sound like her position is the only one any reasonable person would take, DONT TAKE SIDES, it needs rewritten.Stevenscollege 23:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph, so now it just tells us the facts, she was in an commercial opposing a Missouri state constitutional amendment. Stevenscollege 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know she only opposes EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Changing to clarify. 01:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies on pro-life views

I notice some wikinazi keeps reverting this. "Pro-life" isn't just constrained to opposing abortion. The fact that she has not spoken out against the mass deaths on both sides during the Iraqi conflict (which the Catholic Church opposes by the way), the death penalty (which the CC also opposes) as well as the Governments response to Katrina shows she is inconsistent in her views. Just because something isn't convenient to your agenda gives you a right to keep deleting these facts.

hmm this article is about Patricia Heaton and her personal views which has nothing to do the views of the Catholic church. the pro-life movement is this context is constrained to the anti-abortion movement. I am removing your POV. This article is not a place to how your views on the iraqi war and the death penalty

Um, no wikinazi. Pro-life means ALL life. You cant cherry-pick what you think is protecting life and what isnt. And by the way, how does embryonic stem-cell research and Terry Schiavo have anything to do with anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion who also support these aforementioned things. I am not showing MY views, "pro-life" is a vague term which you dont seem to understand. If there is an inconsitency, it should be noted.

Keep it civil, now. And don't forget to sign your posts. There's an excellent Pro-Life section here on Wikipedia that may help settle this. VanPelt101 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatricia_Heaton_14cd.html"