Talk:Linda McCartney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Linda McCartney has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed


Good article GA
This article has
been rated as
GA-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

High
This article has
been rated as
High importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] dob

Why do we think Linda McCartney was born in 1944? I've only found references that say 1941. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I now this because in a interview i saw on telivison with paul maccarteny he said that linda was 3 years younger than him.

I never saw that interview. Most reference books say she was born in 1941. CS

The BBC says 1942. [1] --Westendgirl 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Citation required. --Westendgirl 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

[edit] False Trivia

I removed the following "factoid," as it is not true:

Her funeral was the only time that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison appeared in public together after The Beatles split up in 1970.

In fact, the three Beatles appeared together in public a few times before this, in May of 1979 they all attended Eric Clapton's wedding to Pattie Boyd, and there is a famous picture of the three of them with their women. The wedding party featured a jam session including the three of them, where they played "Sgt. Pepper". I think they also did a short TV appearance around the time of the Anthology, maybe Good Morning America, though I could be dreaming that one. Danthemankhan 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have removed it, but someone else seems to have stuck it back in there...68.45.22.72 12:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. REDIRECT [[2]]
I removed it again. I cited the wrong wedding (I meant Clapton/Boyd but I said Starr/Bach) but it's still wrong. 74.39.17.10 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lady"?

See my comments at [[3]]. Paul McCartney is not a nobleman, so it makes no sense to make the first reference to his wife as "Linda, Lady McCartney" instead of by her actual name. (And anyway the correct form would be "Lady Linda McCartney"; McCartney is a name, not a title.) Acsenray 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's utterly wrong. Don't pontificate when you don't know what you're talking about. Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some information rather than "you're wrong, shut up." The basic fact is that the use of "Lady" by the wife of a knight is a courtesy issue (she may call herself lady). It is not an actual title that she possesses. The article should begin with her actual name.Acsenray 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There's not much more I can say. What you've said is wrong (and I've no idea where you got it), so "you're wrong" just about sums it up. Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that despite the rudeness, Proteus is absolutely correct. Paul McCartney was knighted and the title of "Lady" belongs to Linda, as well as to Heather Mills McCartney.Layla12275 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Proteus does not need to be so discourteous. Nevertheless he is right. To expand a bit, the wife, unmarried widow and divorced wife of a knight or baronet is Lady Surname. An unmarried baronet's or knight's widow can also be Dowager Lady Surname (no "The") or First name, Lady Surname. But if he had a previous wife the previous wife is First name, Lady Surname and the widow is Dowager Lady Surname. The wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquess is Lady John Surname; the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl is Lady First name Surname; the wife of a Baron is The Lady Surname; a Viscount's widow is The Dowager Lady Surname; the widow of Viscount Surname is First name, Viscountess Surname, and so on. If a knight remarries, the previous wife becomes Her first name, Lady Surname and the new wife is Lady Surname. - Kittybrewster 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Will and Testament of Linda McCartney

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Linda McCartney's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Linda McCartney. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Linda McCartney's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Linda McCartney. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On what date did she marry Paul?

I have read through the article and I have not seen the date on which she married Paul McCartney. Respectfully, SamBlob 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it at the Paul McCartney article and added it here. Respectfully, SamBlob 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Widely derided"?

An editor keeps inserting this text:

  • Linda was widely derided for hypocrisy after it was revealed that she had availed herself of medicines and therapies that were developed using animal testing despite her position as a spokesperson for the animal protest industry.

The only source provided for the derision is one link to a Free Republic posting, which dosn't count as "wide derision". Second, there's no indication that she knew the medications had been tested, in fact the article now has sources asserting that the information was kept from her. Lastly, I don't see any description of her as a "spokesperson for the animal protest industry". That appears to be a neologism invented by the editor. Without sources for all three assertions this material doesn't belong. -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the text again. There needs to be reliable sourcing for such a statement and a forum post falls extremely short of being a reliable source... beyond that the post doesn't even really source the text being added.--Isotope23 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the citation for this quote? ==Taxico 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor who added the material provided these two links as sources. The first isn't a reliable source and neither actually supports the assertions. {www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747249/posts?page=15 } {http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/199457.stm } I removed the first and left the second one. -Will Beback · † · 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The first one appears to be like a blog and the second one gives me a 404 error. ==Taxico 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The first link is to a forum, Free Republic, that is generally considered conservative to right wing. In any case forums aren't reliable sources. I fixed the second link (sorry, I'd simply copied what the editor added). The BBC article does not mention any criticism, and even indicates that she had been deceived about the whether her medications had been tested on animals. -Will Beback · † · 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Taxico, thanks for trying to help, but there are still no sources for the paragraph in question. -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The BBC article does not support the "widely derided" claim at all. And Free Republic, as you said, is not a reliable source. I do not think this claim should be made in the article. It is clear that there are no good sources for it. Rhobite 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "widely derided" wording. Obviously that's not encyclopedic. But the BBC article appears to be pointing to some sort of a controversy; it's just that we haven't found any sources directly discussing the controversy. It might be that the controversy is not that notable. In any case I say let the {{fact}} template stay for 3-4 days. If no sources show up we can re-evaluate the situation and move on from there. ==Taxico 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Time? -Will Beback · † · 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concert for Linda

April 1999. It should be in. andreasegde 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now.--andreasegde (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture

does anyone know if that linda on the cover photo of the jet singel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.95.162 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

i not no, but i'll cheque. --Grandad & Grammar mccartney 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I think this is close to a GA. There are enough references about her on the Net, but a book would be nice (although there are very few). I will start work on it. --andreasegde (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will leave the Lead until last, and refrain from putting links in everywhere, because they only have to be taken out when the Lead is written. --andreasegde (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have upgraded it. --andreasegde (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This article will be ready for a GAR sometime very soon. --andreasegde (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated it. --andreasegde (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest doing some cleanup on sentences that simply refer to "McCartney", without specifying Paul or Linda (or someone else). In most cases, it can be inferred that the person being referenced is Paul, but even these are often ambiguous. EJSawyer (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say Paul and call her McCartney, or call him McCartney without calling her Linda. If I call her McCartney, do I call him Sir Paul, her husband, spouse, partner, the ex-Beatle? --andreasegde (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For most of the ones I was looking at, it should be acceptable to just refer to them as Linda and Sir Paul. The only time someone should be referred to simply by last name would be when the context makes it completely clear who is referred to. For example, in the paragraph that begins with "Linda was a strong advocate for animal rights..." (and Paul is not mentioned at all), a later sentence could simply refer to her as McCartney, with no ambiguity issues. EJSawyer (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. As soon as Paul McCartney is mentioned, he is thereafter referred to as McCartney. To write about Linda as McCartney would be very confusing: "Linda and McCartney were married in London. McCartney wore a yellow dress." Confusing, no? Calling McCartney Sir Paul would be leapt upon by many other editors, as witnessed on the McCartney page. Besides, he wasn't knighted until only one year before Linda's death. --andreasegde (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest looking at Alfred Lennon, Julia Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, and Jim and Mary McCartney. These articles all have the same problem, but all passed GA reviews (with no mention of the name problem). The writers of Marie Curie got around the problem by stating her maiden surname with her married name, which is clumsy (as she was not known internationally by a double name). I truly believe there is no way around this, as there are very few precedents of famous people having articles written about them, their relatives, and their family, who all have the same surname. --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epstein/Beatle issues

Why on earth is her father's name linked to Brian Epstein? Unless they were related (which is not indicated in any way), this should be removed.

Also, it appears that the info about the 3 surviving Beatles reuniting "for the first time" at her funeral has appeared again. Based on the discussion here, as well as my own recollection, I believe this to be patently false. However, I didn't want to remove it if someone has indeed found proof. EJSawyer (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It states very clearly: "which was attended by George Harrison and Ringo Starr, and was the first time the three ex-Beatles had been seen in public together in three decades." I think that's very clear, as it says nothing about reuniting. Any previous meetings were in private or at private weddings (which were not open to the public). --andreasegde (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not wishing to get bogged down on writing reams about this, I have deleted the sentence. Two sugars and milk, please. --andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This name thing

Linda Louise, Lady McCartney, or Lady Linda Louise McCartney? Could someone nail this one? --andreasegde (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by Vera, Chuck and Dave.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Pass
    • i don't see how this is a good article, its not very well written at all. just critically read it all, its not hard to tell.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.92.255 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass
  2. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass
  4. It is stable:
    Pass
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass though it could use more images if it is to be made an A- or FA- class article.
  6. Overall:
    Pass Well written, sourced, illustrated, and covered. My opinion is that it is a sho-in. -Ed! (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thank you kindly. Drink a drink of your choice on me, with my hearfelt thanks. --andreasegde (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject Should Be Referred to by Surname

[Stop referring to "McCartney" without specifying,] simply use the first name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.92.255 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about Linda McCartney, so she should be called McCartney in the article, not Linda. In paragraphs that discuss both her and her husband, first names should be used. That would be the most encyclopedic style. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "To disambiguate between siblings or other family members with the same surname, use the surname of the article's subject to indicate that person, and use given names or complete names to indicate relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses of relatives with the same surname, refer to them by given name for clarity and brevity." Ariadne55 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My last edit refers to her as McCartney throughout, except when both she and her husband are mentioned in a paragraph. In those paragraphs, if each was referenced only once by name, I used their full names, but if they were both mentioned several times I used their first names. Ariadne55 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And what do you do when she was called Eastman?--212.241.67.98 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In those sections, she is still referred to as McCartney, for consistency, except where it could be confusing. Heavy use is made of personal pronouns, as suggested in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The only place it was it was really a problem was in the Paul McCartney section. There, I referred to her as "the then Linda Eastman" and him by his full name in the first sentence. Then I used their first names for the rest of the paragraph (except where it made more sense to use a full name). Ariadne55 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite my earlier reservations, I think you, Ariadne55, have done a really good job.--andreasegde (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Ariadne55 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)