Talk:Linda McCartney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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. {http://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)
[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).
Categories: WikiProject The Beatles articles | WikiProject The Beatles biographies | B-Class biography articles | Musicians work group articles | High-priority biography (musicians) articles | B-Class biography (musicians) articles | B-Class Paul McCartney articles | WikiProject The Beatles articles needing infoboxes | Biography articles needing infoboxes | Musicians work group articles needing infoboxes | WikiProject History of photography | Start-Class History of photography articles