Talk:Heidi Montag/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

not logged in says : "Montag cited Jones' documentary The Obama Deception as her reason" is wrong the link to 'obama deception' lead to alex jones wp entry - fail

The Heidi Montag Workout

Perhaps there should be a reference the she is selling a workout now ? http://www.theheidimontagworkout.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.113.240 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous to suggest this when the rest of the people reading this page think this entire entry should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.205.254 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Seriously Needed

I don't know much about the show, but the article as of its current version 19:51, 20 January 2007, is seriously in need of a cleanup. It is hardly anything like an encyclopaedic entry. I'll clean up some, but since I don't know much about it, I'll leave this as a note for others. -- Permafrost 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that - this article is poorly written and is a complete joke.

What has this girl done to warrant entry into wikipedia? Perhaps this page should be deleted.

I got rid of most of this page as other Hills cast members WHITNEY and AUDRINA have only a small blurb. Heidi doesn't warrent anything else until she actually does something.

Where are the reference links for all the citations noted throughout the article?

What is 'self-identified' supposed to mean? It's about time that Wikipedia introduced proper use of English as a requirement. At present much of it reads like a semi-literate comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.11.129 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Just wanted to point out, however true it is, Spencer Pratt is listed as "Douchebag." I don't want to be the one to remove it, however, because I find it extremly humourous.

Heidi and Spencer are now going around to bars and getting paid to make appearances---seriously? That's got to be the lamest thing. Heidi might be preggers... and the kid might not belong to Spencer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.23.34 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant believe a woman like this was born in the great state of Colorado. How embarassing. 76.255.225.172 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found her page by accident, but it really made me laugh!

Why is every single childish hobbies this girl has ever attempted called a "career" here?

This reeks of the work of a publicist for a girl who is desperately seeking fame.

Dare it should be actually factual and include noted and proven things like her previous publicity stunts, for example a photographer to take staged "paparazzi" photos and submit them to any tabloid that would print them, just to try to make reality match her own fantasy that anyone even cares about her.. Badlandz (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Why would someone get rid of an interesting point on Montag's clear faith in Christ? Clearly, there are alot of heathens in this "community"

A person's religion is relevant to their life, hence it should be included on their biography, providing it is sourced. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It MAY have been deleted by Christians who were offended by the behavior of Ms. Montag. After seeing her for the first time on I'm A Celebrity: Get Me Outta Here (along with Mr. Pratt), I would never have known by their word or deed that she professed to be a Christian. I know Christians are not perfect, however, if one is to wear their Christianity "on their sleeve," then they should expect a very critical eye will be on then at all times. (In fact, when I saw them on I'm A Celebrity I thought she was mocking Christianity until I saw them praying. That was confusing to say the least.)~Chad

Apparently she is a Christian of the Premillennial Dispensationalist variety. She recently did an interview with notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in which she talked about how RFID chips are the mark of the beast, and how the end-times are upon us. The interview has been [*REMOVING BLACKLISTED LINK* uploaded to Alex Jones' official youtube channel ].--XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think its safe to say Heidi Montag will not ever be determined to be a figure of any religious significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.205.254 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not legally married

I keep changing the reference to her "husband" Spencer Pratt, which should be listed as her "boyfriend." Why does someone keep switching it back? A vast majority of the news outlets clearly indicate their Mexican marriage was not legal (official) in the United States and their subsequent sham civil ceremony was done after hours and with an actor portraying a judge. Does someone have a hidden agenda here? This is ridiculous. Courthouseman (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

He's her husband if the two of them agree that he is her husband. "Husband":

"HUSBAND, domestic relations. A man who has a wife.

    2. The husband, as such, is liable to certain obligations, and entitled to certain rights, which will be here briefly considered.
    3. First, of his obligations. He is bound to receive his wife at his home, and should furnish her with all the necessaries and conveniences which his fortune enables him to do, and which her situation requires; but this does not include such luxuries as, according to her fancy, she deems necessaries; vide article Cruelty, where this matter is considered. He is bound to love his wife, and to bear with her faults, and, if possible, by mild means to correct them and he is required to fulfill towards her his marital promise of fidelity, and can, therefore, have no carnal connexion with any other woman, without a violation of his obligations. As he is bound to govern his house properly, he is liable for its misgovernment, and he may be punished for keeping a disorderly house, even where his wife had the principal agency, and he is liable for her torts, as for her slander or trespass. He is also liable for the wife's debts, incurred before coverture, provided they are recovered from him during their joint lives; and generally for such as are contracted by her after coverture, for necessaries, or by his authority, express or implied. See 5 Whart. 395; 5 Binn. 235; 1 Mod. 138; 5 Taunt. 356; 7 T. R. 166; 3 Camp. 27; 3 B. & Cr. 631; 5 W. & S. 164.
   4. Secondly, of his rights. Being the head of the family, the husband has a right to establish himself wherever he may please, and in this he cannot be controlled by his wife; he may manage his affairs his own way; buy and sell all kinds of personal property, without any control, and he may buy any real estate he may deem proper, but, as the wife acquires a right in the latter, he cannot sell it, discharged of her dower, except by her consent, expressed in the manner prescribed by the laws of the state where such lands lie. At common law, all her personal property, in possession, is vested in him, and he may dispose of it as if he had acquired it by his own contract this arises from the principle that they are considered one person in law; 2 Bl. Com. 433 and he is entitled to all her property in action, provided he reduces it to possession during her life. Id. 484. He is also entitled to her chattels real, but these vest in him not absolutely, but sub modo; as, in the case of a lease for years, the husband is entitled to receive the rents and profits of it, and may, if he pleases, sell, surrender, or dispose of it during the coverture, and it is liable to be taken in execution for his debts and, if he survives her, it is, to all intents and purposes, his own. In case his wife survives him, it is considered as if it had never been transferred from her, and it belongs to her alone. In his wife's freehold estate, he has a life estate, during the joint lives of himself and wife; and, at common law, when he has a child by her who could inherit, he has an estate by the curtesy. But the rights of a husband over the wife's property, are very much abridged in some of the United States, by statutes. See Act of Pennsylvania, passed April 11, 1848.
    5. The laws of Louisiana differ essentially from those of the other states, as to the rights and duties of husband and wife, particularly as it regards their property. Those readers, desirous of knowing, the legislative regulations on this subject, in that state, are referred to the Civil Code of Louis. B. 1, tit. 4; B. 3, tit. 6.
   Vide, generally, articles Divorce; Marriage; Wife; and Bac. Ab. Baron and Feme; Rop. H. & W.; Prater on H. & W.; Clancy on the Rights, Duties and Liabilities of Husband and Wife Canning on the Interest of Husband and Wife, &c.; 1 Phil. Ev. 63; Woodf. L. & T. 75; 2 Kent, Com. 109; 1 Salk. 113 to 119Ø; Yelv. 106a, 156a, 166a; Vern. by Raithby, 7, 17, 48, 261; Chit. Pr. Index, h.t. Poth. du Contr. de Mar. n. 379; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

HUSBAND, mar. law. The name of an agent who is authorized to make the necessary repairs to a ship, and to act in relation to the ship, generally, for the owner. He is usually called ship's husband. Vide Ship's Husband.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856."

"wife": "WIFE - A woman who has a husband.

A wife, as such, possesses rights and is liable to obligations. These will be considered. 1st. She may make contracts for the purchase of real estate for her own benefit, unless her husband expressly dissents. And she is entitled to a legacy directly given to her for her separate use. In some places, by statutory provision, she may act as a feme sole trader, and as such acquire personal property.

2d. She may in Pennsylvania, and in most other states, convey her interest in her own or her husband's lands by deed acknowledged in a form prescribed by law.

3d. She is under obligation to love, honor and obey her husband and is bound to follow him wherever he may desire to establish himself: (it is presumed not out of the boundaries of the United States,) unless the husband, by acts of injustice and such as are contrary to his marital duties, renders her life or happiness insecure.

4th. She is not liable for any obligations she enters into to pay money on any contract she makes, while she lives with her husband; she is presumed in such case to act as the agent of her husband.

5th. The incapacities of femes covert, apply to their civil rights, and are intended for their protection and interest. Their political rights stand upon different grounds, they can, therefore, acquire and lose a national char-acter. These rights stand upon the general principles of the law of nations.

6th. A wife, like all other persons, when she acts with freedom, may be punished for her criminal acts. But the law presumes, when she commits in his presence a crime, not malum in se, as murder or treason, that she acts by the command and coercion of her husband, and, upon this ground, she is exempted from punishment. But this is only a presumption of law, and if it appears, upon the evidence, that she did not in fact commit the act under compulsion, but was herself a principal actor and inciter in it, she may be punished. "

So a husband is a man who has a wife and a wife is a woman who has a husband. You don't need a marriage to have a husband or a wife. If she calls him her husband and he calls her his wife, that is what they are but if there are refs for the "mexican marriage/actor wedding" scenario, by all means add them. User:Pedant (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommend to delete this page

Seriously, folks, this is an encyclopedia, not In Touch Weekly. This girl has done absolutely nothing of note besides engineer publicity for herself and her non-legally-sanctioned "husband". This page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's standards and image, and should be either removed or moved to The Hills page. Bodypuzzle (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that Spencer Pratt redirects to The Hills page. It only makes sense that this page should as well. Opinions? If I don't see any responses in the next few days, I'll go ahead and redirect. Actually, I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to do that, so I'll be sure to brush up on the guidelines first. Bodypuzzle (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It reads like something written by one's own PR agent. It definitely needs to be cleaned up, but deletion is probably better, we editors have to be careful of self-promotion and PR firms on Wikipedia. Mwahcysl (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Pratt has an article. Click the link to read it. Heidi certainly meets WP:N, not for being a rocket scientist, but she still meets it. If you feel that this article should be deleted, then take it to WP:AfD, changing it to be a redirect without consensus would be considered vandalism, and it will be reverted. --Terrillja _talk 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bodypuzzle is right. Montag has a longer article than the Prime Minister of my country, and this is ludicrous and embarrassing. It's a case of WP:SUPER. Steps need to be taken. Excuse me, Heidi and Terrillja. Gregorik (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SOFIXIT. Additionally, AfD is that way. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 15:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Montag (that was formal) is a celeriity, she is famous. Angelina Joiles wikipedia page is larger then more important things. I think it should stay...and Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Famous for what???? Being on reality TV. If that was the case, the number of people of no consequence in this encyclopedia would vastly multiply, and reduce the standards of wikipedia dramatically. One could question A. Jolie's entry, however she is a legitimate actress and is known around the world. I doubt anyone in Cambodia has ever heard of Heidi Montag. Again this is not a gossip mag, its an encyclopedia. Please ignore the PR staff of Heidimontag.com....and redirect this page to the hills entry.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.205.254 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

who r u really

you are a women shown through a mans eyes.. plz dont let a man define you.. you are better then that. what you have decided to allow in your life is amazing, remember only you know who you are, dont let him bring you down to a level, that you to can't explain............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.202.29 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I added the unreferenced tag a few minutes ago, here and it was [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=next&oldid=285178217 immediately reverted] and then, after the revert, the editor reverting (User:Terrillja) leaves this message on my talk page, AFTER reverting. I'm not even going to enter into a dialog with that editor, he or she has things backwards. This article is full of unsourced assertions of fact, and '37 references' doesn't mean anything to me when the 'facts' are unsourced. I am adding the unreferenced tag, I am not going to go through and add a ref request at every assertion of fact, but every assertion of fact needs a source or it goes. There is no flex in that rule, and no rude editor blithely reverting PRIOR to discussion can change that.

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales"

If you don't like the tag, reference everything in the article. That's how you do it, not just remove it because it spoils your pretty layout. User:Pedant (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from my talk page

Hi, just wondering what was up with this edit, which doesn't seem to make much sense on an article with 37 sources. Perhaps you could be more specific with your concerns about sources? Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 06:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is up is you reverted it without discussion. THEN you left this message. Don't bring (mild expletive deleted) here to my talk page. Discuss articles on the article's talk page, and add a link to it here, if you want me to join the discussion. This is your one single warning. Use my talk page with respect or don't come back. Discuss articles on the article's talk page.User:Pedant (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Celebutante

This is a bio of a living person, and to call her a celebutante is inappropriate, wikipedia doesn't call people names but can use "X calls her a celebutante" if ref exists, if not, no "celebutante", as that word is not expressive of a NPOV. Reference for celebutante please, or remove. User:Pedant (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Famous for being famous

This is a bio of a living person, and to call her "famous for being famous" ... can use "X says she is famous for being famous" if ref exists, if not, no "famous for being famous", derogatory term, neutral phrasing is available. Reference for "famous for being famous" please, or remove. User:Pedant (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

made a fortune

Reference for "made a fortune" please. Reference for "3 million is a fortune" maybe? "Thanks to" not encyclopedic, no thanks necessary, we are not getting any of the money... User:Pedant (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

in the last two years alone

What exactly are "the last two years" in an encyclopedia? Ref for "alone" please? Or remove 'alone' and replace with less of a gush and more of a fact-telling tone? "Montag, along with Spencer Pratt, have made a joint fortune of $3 million in the last two years alone thanks to TV salaries, club appearances, photo shoots, and business deals." sounds like boosterism, is very unspecific, what is the business relationship that makes the fortune "joint"? and whose salaries, club appearances, photo shoots? and what business deals? The money they "made" is that gross or net? Assets and other capital or profit?

fortune of $3 million

And really, "fortune of $3 million" really? Seriously? We are going with "fortune"? The consensus is that 3 million US, unspecified as to net or gross, profit or amassed assets, that is what we are going to call a fortune? It can cost 1000 a month to live in a gutter in Los Angeles. User:Pedant (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

$3,000,000 is a meaningful amount of money and if it was put into, say bonds, one could live quite handily on the income from that for now but it's not quite a "fortune" in Los Angeles, much less for two people, the word should go. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've since removed all of the content about the alleged "fortune". I've always found it to be a trivial point, but earlier attempts to remove it were fruitless. If it made the lede too short, so be it. I also added a some new content and additional references. I also removed the {{refimprove}} tag because, like it or not, everything is referenced. I've gone through and verified each of the references to make sure they state what the content does and I also removed any questionable references. If someone wants to double check my work, feel free. If anyone has a problem with the current amount of references or feels that there is an existing BLP violation of some sort, an inline fact tag would be more helpful in this situation so the editors who do have this article watchlisted can understand exactly where the problem lies and fix it in a timely manner. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, for instance this paragraph:

Heidi Montag was born in Peterborough, New Hampshire and spent the first years of her life

in Southern New Hampshire with her family until they moved to Crested Butte when she was 3. Montag moved to California after graduating high school where she enrolled at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco.

Is it actually the consensus that the above looks better than a refimprove tag? Or is in any way acceptable to have 6 inline tags rather than 1 outline tag? Because the stated reference doesn't cover all those facts (WP:OR perhaps?) User:Pedant (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted all those edits, as they go against published, reputable sources. And yes, I would personally prefer a fact tag than a refimprove because what you read and see as a problem is different from what I see, and no one has any clue what you are seeing as a problem otherwise. On the other hand, placing a fact tag on a section header is just plain silly.--Terrillja _talk 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The request for inline fact tags instead of the refimprove tag is, again, not a cosmetic issue, it's a clarity issue. There's no iron clad consensus for this as there are only two editors (Terrillja and myself) who are taking part in this discussion. If you want to count two people requesting something as a consensus, that's fine. Personally, I'm still not seeing the lack of sources and I've yet to see any biography on here (living or dead) that has a citation following every sentence. As stated above, I check and rechecked each citation and they do support the content even if the cite doesn't follow the sentence. I'm unaware of any policy stating that we must cite every sentence, but if there is a policy stating that, I'll go back and do it (and, evidently, go back throughout my edit history and re-edit a LOT of biographies). As for the in-universe wording (comment below), I see no problem with it as the series supposedly depicts what's goes on in the subject's real life. I don't see a difference between her and a "character". If someone else does, fix it. That said, as much as I would love for this article to actually have some substance, that ain't gonna happen. At best, the subject is famous for being on a reality show and her personal exploits are covered more in gossip blogs than mainstream media. She has somehow parlayed that into a "singing" and "acting" career (with limited success), so obviously we've little to work with. The very best we can do is keep the actual BLP violations out, source what we can with the best reliable sources we can find, and remove the occasional "She a slutz...LOL" comments out. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

proposed changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=285715782&oldid=285715640 User:Pedant (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if an article is poorly sourced (or a whole section), there are other general tags to use, rather than tagging every single sentence. hmwithτ 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In-universe

It seems to me that this article combines fact from nonfiction souces with "what-happened-on-the-reality-show", are we working with some sort of assumption that the TV show is not Reality TV but instead, reality itself? If so, I do not believe that would pass a consensus test among the larger wikipedia community. If not, then we have some 'in-universe issues' like "Spock is half-human and half-vulcan" where what we say about Heidi is what happened to Heidi-the character and not necessarily what actually happened to the subject of the article, which is Heidi Montag, an actual person. User:Pedant (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free word the text as to Heidi Montag then? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about Heidi Montag, I cannot be the one to separate the reality from the television. Sorry, I would if I could. I don't even see how she rates an article, we deleted the article about the guy who created Ronald McDonald, and other people who seem much more notable than she.

We call her a singer, is singing evidence of notability? IS she a singer?

She's an actress? Does being on a reality show make you an actress? She's described as a television personality, which is linked to Reality television, where it says "usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors" so is she an ordinary person?

She has "an acting career" that consists of playing herself on one episode of How I Met Your Mother, so she isn't an actress, and I don't think TV personality is any less overgenerous.

She's in 17 categories? Including: American Christians who claims she's Christian, does singing Christian songs make you Christian? what WP:RS source says she is a Christian?

American fashion designers she has a line of clothing, but nowhere in the article does it say she's a designer?

American female singers & American pop singers ok, she's female but "pop"? pop = popular and she has 3 songs mostly met with negative reaction... and aren't those categories, though not specifically stated, generally reserved for professional or at least good or popular singers?

American television actors & American television personalities & Participants in American reality television series all 3 categories for doing one thing on one show?? I don't think she merits the first one at all from what I read, what WP:RS source says she is an actress ? I certainly don't see all 3.

This reads like publicity from a publicist, I am asking the question now, do any of you have a conflict of interest here? We don't allow Wikipedia to be used for publicity purposes. User:Pedant (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll address your category queries. Pop music doesn't mean "popular" as in successful. It's a genre. iTunes has her music is listed as "pop" and allmusic calls her a "Reality TV personality turned pop singer". She's a pop singer. Same goes for the designer category. She has a clothing line that bears her name. If someone has a clothing line, they have some sort of input into its production. I highly doubt she's actually stitching clothing, but for all intents and purposes, she does design the clothes and has been called a designer. If you think the article needs to state that, edit it to reflect that wording. As for the rest of your points, a few of those categories were probably left over from when other content was in the article (television actor, Christian). The only reference I can find to her religion states that she considers herself a "kind of non-denominational Baptist".

As for your last point, accusing established editors of a COI isn't conductive to a collegial editing environment in any way, shape or form (AGF and all that jazz). Take that mess to the COI noticeboard if you think someone here is working for the subject or attempting to promote them. I've nothing to hide so once you get the post up, let me know so I can toodle on over there and explain my actions and motives. I look forward to getting that out in the open to ease your mind. Further, if you think this article fails WP:BIO, open an AfD. Complaining on the talk page about its existence or pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't going to get it deleted. As you can see, that point has been already been raised on this very talk page. AfDs aren't hard to open so I'm puzzled as to why there are complaints yet no action. If you want to bring up more points about why the article sucks and it's full of PR bullshit, I suggest you start actually editing the article to fix the problems that you claim are present or open an RfC. Whatever avenue you choose, I'm done communicating on this talk page. I've little patience for nitpicking and demands for explanations for edits I didn't do and even less patience for bad faith accusations that have no merit. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Pop in English is more alikened to French populaire, "that which is of/understood by the people and characterizes them...". Calling something pop has aught to do with calling it "widely known." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

her name after marriage

A source. Many more are likely to follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be moved, but I predicted some WP:COMMONNAME arguments. However, I'd argue now that she's actually best known as Heidi Pratt, one half of the couple. That was her name on television shows and that's what the media refers to her as. Is there any reason anyone would be against a move? If so, please comment. hmwithτ 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Miss Universe / Use of Pratt

Referencing Miss Universe potential audience of 1billion is highly misleading and incorrect.

Use of Pratt to denote Heidi or Spencer is not clear throughout this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.9.135 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian?

where is her testimony? also why would she pose for playboy if she is a christian

She so identifies. Drawing anything further from that would likely be your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

then why would she pose for Playboy if she is a christian.

As it happens, she answers that question in the above-linked source. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Heidi's heritage.

It used to say on here that Heidi was of German and Irish descent. She obviously has German blood due to her first name which is German and her biological surname which means "Monday," in German. Where did she ever say she had Irish blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.74.33 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Speidi redirect

Speidi is currently being redirected to this article, despite the term occurring nowhere in the article. I would ask editors involved in this article to add some reliably sourced information. I know virtually nothing about Heidi Montag or Spencer Pratt (from whence "Speidi" seems to arise), but a Google News search suggests that there is information on this nickname for them going back to at least 2001.[1] It shouldn't be to difficult for knowledgeable folks to write just a sentence or two, so that this redirect makes sense. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heidi Montag Released In A Statement That Whitney Port Has Invited Her To Stay With Her In New York City Which Made Opposite ''Italic text''Hills Star Lauren Conrad Very Upset... But it Was Reveled That It Was All A Lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedwarddd (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

who cares...this is gossip not discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.129.131 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs New Photograph and Physical Update

She's on the cover of People, showing off her extensive plastic surgery. Surely this should be part of the article by now. Also the photograph of her no longer resembles her as she is now.Kitchawan (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deffinetly, she looks nothing like she did in the photo now. She looks like a different person, so this photo is now accurate. Nctennishco12 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Settle down people, there are no suitable photos of her post surgery yet.--Shadow (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I even saw a mention of the work that she had done in the article. I think there should be some mention of her surgery before pictures are even thought of. 71.10.245.44 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's uber important but there was a mention of her previous plastic surgeries in the article before all this nonsense about the "ten procedures in one day!" came out. The content about additional surgeries was recently added but I had to rewrite since the majority of was not supported by the citations given. I wasn't terribly interested in getting the mag with her on it but since this has become such a to-do, I'll get the actual magazine and expand the silly section. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

she looks extremely horrifying now that she changed her face. How sad to know she is only 23 years of age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.109.35 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

we could always put up a picture of Kenny Rogers, which article, hilariously (but surely intentionally) does not mention his extensive reworking.--Milowent (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Album Sales

Its stated by several reputable sources that her album sold 658 copies in its first week, Im not sure why in the lead in it states she sold 1,000 copies. Almost doubling her album sales does her and the album far too much credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.61.0.254 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what reputable sources stated that figure but according to the two sources I found, the album did in fact sell just over 1,000 copies its first week. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

I'd like to have Category:German Americans added at the bottom.

Without a reliable source to support the category, that is unlikely to happen. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus with a name like Montag...pronounced as Montak in German...which means Monday it is very possible that she is Jewish. In German, it is pretty obvious when a last name is "recent." When Jewish people of German descent were emancipated in Germany they took Gentile names that came from common words of the day. There are exceptions but names that have obvious meanings in the language have a distinctly higher probability of being Jewish. So in this case (but of course as always), verification would be necessary.Phail Saph (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Time for a New Picture...

Now that Heidi's surgeries were a few months ago and there are plenty of suitable images of her that could be put in this article, I think that it should be updated. I mean, the current picture doesn't really look like her anymore... 71.10.245.44 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Separation from Spencer Pratt

According to TMZ.com, Heidi Montag has legally separated from her husband of one year, Spencer Pratt. http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/28/heidi-spencer-pratt-divorce-separated/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1282369/Heidi-Montag-Spencer-Pratt-split.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.52.26 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) As of today they have footage of her leaving the LA courthouse and her bodyguard confirms that she just filed divorce papers without the aid of a lawyer(not the best choice if he is going to fight her on anything). It appears that Spencer is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary michael (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Nothing on Heidi's Wikipedia page or elsewhere has shown she has made any statements about the 2001 terrorist attacks. Either such a statement appears on this page or that section is on the chopping block for deletion. USN1977 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe because it isn't really that significant compared to the rest of her life? I bet sometime she's said something about chocolate cake or some shoes she liked and someone reported it, but even if they did, that doesn't mean it belongs in the bio. What makes it notable enough to include? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That is the issue on hand. If it not an earth-shattering theory such as the idea a cruise missile was the true culprit, then categorizing Heidi as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is inappropriate. USN1977 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• She (along with her husband) did make 9/11 conspiracy statements. They are documented in RS's. I just question whether it should be in a bio or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Page is horrible

One of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. Along with Spencer Pratt's. It sais nothing about her divorce which I was interested in reading in instead of one useless sentence. Plastic surgeries? That's what US Weekly is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.129.230 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a thought. WP:SOFIXIT. I'm just saying.... Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New photo needed

Since she no longer looks how she did in 2008 (due to 10 plastic surgeries in one day), this article needs a new photo. In fact, it would be interesting to have a before/after photo to compare. DFS (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tokumesilly, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Divorce was a sham!

Tokumesilly (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 DeclinedYou need to format your request in terms of specific text to be added, removed, or changed.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Pratt was arrested and jailed in Costa Rica on 11 September 2010 while attempting to board an aircraft with a gun. He was subsequently released and banned from entering the country.[23] and this was in her section why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.20.71 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.125.60.4, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In late August 2010, a new demo called 'Bad Boy' leaked on to the internet, announced as Heidi's first single on her second album

91.125.60.4 (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not finding reliable sourcing on this. So removed from the disambig page. HeLmiT (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

spelling error

Under section "2006-2010: The Hills": in the sentence However, his behavior worsened, which lead to them being completely removed from the cast the word lead should be spelled led.

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.182.103.204, 6 May 2011

Link to official website is incorrect and is simply an affiliate referrer to iTunes.

76.182.103.204 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I removed the links completely since I can't find an actual official site. If she ever has one we can add it back in. — Bility (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heidi Montag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: one dead link found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Around this time, she released a second EP to promote her forthcoming album, which was titled Here She Is.... The next sentence says: Montag's debut album, Superficial, was digitally released on January 12, 2010. Clarification needed.  Not done

   No change has been made. So what was the name of the album? "Here She Is...." or "Superficial"?  Done. The album is Superficial, the EP is Here She Is....

   In November 2008, Montag and The Hills cast member Spencer Pratt eloped in Mexico. Missed this earlier. "Eloped" - implies marrying without parental permission. Also people don't "eloped in" . They eloped to Mexico. Not done

   "eloped" is the wrong word here. I know that one of the low quality sources used here uses it but that doesn't make it the right word.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #15[4] Amazon is not a reliable source as has been extensively discussed at WP:RSN. Likewise ref #17. Also refs #51-54 iTunes is also not RS; ref#36[5] is a blog not an RS; Other sources such as People and US Weekly are hardly high class reliable sources, rather they are tabloid press, try looking for some better quality sources. Removed Amazon and iTunes sources and blog, and changed some US Weekly and People sources that were able to be replaced.

   But there are still plenty in there and they are still very low quality sources with no indication of reliability in this context.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not much third party commentary, mostly fan cruft about a minor celebrity.  Not done. Please elaborate; it is unclear as to what fan cruft you are referring to.

   Well pretty much the whole content. This is a person of little or no notability about whom little information can be found that has not been carefully stage managed by press and PR agents. This means the article cannot broadly cover the subject as there is little in the way of reliable sourcing.

   On March 3, 2008, Montag's stepbrother Eric O'Hara was killed in an accidental fall from an icy roof. O'Hara was a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and served in the 82nd Airborne Division. how is this relevant?  Done, although I did not remove the first sentence. This is part of her personal life.

   The lead mentions that she is a fashion designer, but there is little about this in the article - how did the line do - that was three years ago.  Done. I agree. The lead should be a summary of the topic and establish notability, and this should not be there. I am currently expanding the line section. I have expanded the line section.

   What happened to the "Famous Food" series, did she win?  Done. And no she didn't win.

   What is she doing now?  Done. She is writing a memoir.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   as per above no real independent commentary just rehashed publicity guff.  Not done. Please explain and give examples of what is not in a neutral point of view.

   An example: "Her appearance on the show, as well as Pratt's, was widely criticized after the couple claimed they were subject to torture." This is cited to just one source, hardly "widely criticized". In fact there is some useful commentary in this source[6] about the subject's stupidity and greed. I expect there is more elsewhere, such as here. In fact it appears that Montag is considered to be a laughable "famewhore" by much of the tabloid press. I've added another source to support the claim and also removed "widely".

   Please don' keep adding done to reviews - that is for the reviewer to judge.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and captioned OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well there is little encyclopaedic content here. On hold for seven days to sdee if some serious improvements can be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   There is still no really encyclopaedic content here, just material recycled from press releases recycled by the the tabloid press. No sources have been found that really discuss the subject of the article. This clearly does not meet criterion 3#a and the sourcing of what material is here leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps if this individual actually does something of note there may be enough material in the future. Not listed as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012 - Second album and more tv!

In Decemeber 2011, Steve Morales (Heidi's producer) confirmed that he was working on new material for a possible second album due in Spring 2012. Her manager, John Ferriter, also confirmed that she would be focusing on her music, but would be returning to work on new television projects soon. 87.115.53.118 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Please update with this info: http://one2onedates.com/dating-blog/5326/heidi-montag-and-spencer-pratt-confess-to-being-flat-broke/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.174.94 (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012 - BlackOut or any caps change of Blackout should NOT redirect to this page

This should not be listed or redirected under BlackOut or bLacKout ect ect.. as there is already a living person artist (actor/writer/director/comedian) who owns and performs under the name Blackout from pre 1995 as a living being / performer / entertainer as well as who owns blackout.com. Why does BlackOut direct to Heidi Montag and not Michael Biggins? Because of a song or music project of which there are dozens if not hundreds of projects called blackout this or that? Because of a cap O makes no sense and if we are to redirect this way then blackout should mean the word as it's dictionary definitions and Blackout should redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Biggins so this BlackOut redirect should be corrected or removed and her BlackOut project should be listed on the blackout disambiguation page as all others including Britney Spears & the Scorpions album ect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Biggins otherwise this will set a precedent and everyone will try and claim some redirect by different usage of caps or non caps when the name as a living person has been and is already in use such as in Cher or Madonna or Prince and this violates copyright & trademark as it falsely leads people looking for the living person "Blackout" here. ManofThoth (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume the variation of BlackOut was redirected to Montag's article because that is the name of her particular song/album but failed notability requirements which is pretty standard procedure. As for why BlackOut doesn't lead to Michael Biggins page - why would it? It appears Biggins' stage name is written as "Blackout" which is a tad different than the name of Montag's. All the rest of the examples you cite are the same - all spelled simply "Blackout". I also don't think there's any copyright or trademark infringement being made by this redirect. At worst, it may be confusing to some but considering the word "Blackout" leads to a disambiguation page with the various articles (including Biggins, various songs, albums, etc.), I think most people can find what they're looking for. However, if you have a huge issue with it and think it utterly confusing to those looking for the comedian or the Scorpion's album or whatever, why not contact the person who made the redirect and calmly explain why you think it should be changed. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heidi Montag. 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/20131202135216/http://www.maxim.com/rides/heidi-montag to http://www.maxim.com/rides/heidi-montag
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0%2C22049%2C25201296-5012327%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113155341/http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-08-07/heidi-montag-today-10-things-you-don%E2%80%99t-know-about-the-former-hills-star/ to http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-08-07/heidi-montag-today-10-things-you-don%E2%80%99t-know-about-the-former-hills-star/

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) 02:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heidi Montag. 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/20131215003915/http://voices.yahoo.com/heidi-montag-hot-did-she-finally-pass-lauren-the-881853.html?cat=46 to http://voices.yahoo.com/heidi-montag-hot-did-she-finally-pass-lauren-the-881853.html?cat=46
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215113222/http://voices.yahoo.com/heidi-spencers-downward-spiral-our-very-6066924.html?cat=2 to http://voices.yahoo.com/heidi-spencers-downward-spiral-our-very-6066924.html?cat=2

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) 08:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)