Jump to content

Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8
This page is an Archive of the discussions from Emma Watson talk page (Discussion page).
(March 2008 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

News!!!

Emma nominated in Constellation Awards [1] [2][3],Unlock the page please.... and Napoleon and Betsy ... the new ema movie --Luisrafael7 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Constellation Awards noted. Thanks for the heads-up! Happy‑melon 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of awards

I do not see the reasoning behind including the nationality of each award. It would be necessary disambiguation if, for instance, there were "Otto Awards" from other countries, but I am not aware of this being the case. It is a real shame that we do not have an Otto Awards article to link to (perhaps this should be rectified?) to provide further context if readers want it, but I don't see how the fact that some of her awards have been presented to her in German is notable or relevant. Comments? Happy‑melon 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual error

"Although Prisoner of Azkaban remains the lowest-grossing Harry Potter film as of January 2008, it was Watson's most successful, winning her two Otto Awards and the Child Performance of the Year award from Total Film." Isn't it debatable. This line found in the main article of Emma Watson is most probably outdated. Since her performance in Order of the Phoenix got her more than 2 wins and many nominations. Please update this fact. Sorry, if I haven't edited this properly. New to Wikipedia page editing and contributing. 117.194.224.139 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Harry Potterfan, 17th June,08.

You're quite right that this statement is now out of date. I've reworded it to reflect Order of the Phoenix's superior record. Thanks for pointing this out, and happy editing! Happy‑melon 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanel

I don't think the daily mail is a good enough source to say she is the face of chanel offically lets wait untill we get better sources from chanel's people saying it untill then i think we should keep it as "it is rumored emma will be the new face of chanel" the daily mail have written lots and lots of crap and have been sued buy lots of celebs which proves it isn't a good place to take source from so we should wait a bit Veggiegirl (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes an acceptable source varies upon the seriousness of the assertion being made; this is commonly stated as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. That being said, saying that a celebrity is doing adverts for some product is hardly an exceptional claim, and the Daily Mail will more than suffice. And just for future reference, Veggiegirl, new topics go at the bottom of the talk pge. :-) Cheers, faithless (speak) 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed it from the article, due to the fact that some sites report she is with Chanel, but others are saying the rumor is false. Until something is officially confirmed, I suggest we leave it out of the article.--The Showster (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
For such an innocuous piece of information, the Daily Mail is a fine source. If we were saying she was wanted for manslaughter, that would require a much better source. Asserting that she is schilling for some product hardly requires the BBC or New York Times as a source. Besides, it has been reworded to say that the Daily Mail has reported it; that would clear things up, I would think. faithless (speak) 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more articles now stating this is false. The whole rumor thing has been rather confusing.--The Showster (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


The Chanelhouse has debunked the rumour. Emma has got no contract to be the new face of Chanel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.197.114 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon and Betsy

Can anyone confirm whether or not she will be playing the title role (Betsy that is, not Napoleon) of this movie?--Tricksterson (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She said she was interested on her official site, but other than that nothing more has been said--The Showster (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


french?

I was searching through "french actresses," and I was surprised to find Emma Watson their. Yes, she has a French grand mother, but that only makes her a quarter french. She lives in the U.K. and english is her mother tongue, so why include her in the list of french actresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, she was born in Paris and is of partial French ancestry, so it's not unreasonable to refer to her as being French. Though I think everyone agree she's certainly more English than French. faithless (speak) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If she had been born in China would she be a Chinese actress? What if was born in China with one Chinese grand mother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.208.203 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second grandma of Emma was from Poland... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.189.18.130 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

edit semiprotected

Some jerk put inappropriate lies in her outside of Harry Potter section. Says that she has breat implants and stuff that daniel radcliffe has supposedly done. I can not delete this however hope that someone can and quickly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astone87 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I've fixed the problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Emma confirms she is not the new face of Chanel

In a radio interview Emma has confirmed she will not be the new face of Chanel.

[4]

Look at the December 15th update when Emma was interviewed on Radio 4's Woman's Hour with Jane Garvey.

This was confirmed by Chanel earlier this year, yet the rumor was still left on the page. Since Emma has re-confirmed this via a radio interview and we can here her own voice, I think the mention of her replacing Keira Knightley should be removed from the page since it is false--The Showster (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


File:19001002.jpg Emma appears in the current issue of Vs. Magazine in a photoshoot by Ellen Von Unwerth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.194.125 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Emma's university plans

Recently an article came out stating that Emma would be attending Trinity College at Cambridge in September 2009. However this wa reported right after an message from Emma herself on her official site stating that she was preparing for SATs to apply for US universities on the upcoming Saturday of that week, while the rumor came out in the middle of that week. Now why would she even bother taking the SATs in the first place if she were just going to go to Cambridge in the end? Also the article had some bogus rumor regarding Emma and Tom Felton so take that report with a grain of salt. Also, News of the World reported that Emma was going to Harvard. However, News of the World is about as useful as toilet paper so can't believe that source either. I would wait until Emma's official word on this before putting it on the page.--The Showster (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, the source for the sentence you removed was from The Telegraph, which with The Times is about as reliable as British newspapers get. Remember verifiability, not truth, and all that. I'd agree with modifying it to note that "The Telegraph reported that...", but this is hardly the same as the Chanel rumour: it's a pretty objective fact and the Telegraph's editor is going to be chewing up whoever wrote that article if it turns out to be wrong. If she did get an offer then she's definitely going, having already got her grades, so the fact that one of the top three newspapers in the UK says she's going is itself a notable fact, whether or not it's true. Happy‑melon 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I see this one has gone back and forth a bit. I've re-restored the "secured a place at Cambridge" mention, but I've labelled it as "rumoured" - which I think is what Telegraph means by "Mandrake hears". I've also found a Daily Mail interview (dated after the Telegraph article) that says she is still undecided. Technically, if Watson is doing a UCAS 2008-9 round (rather than having applied in 2007-8 for deferred entry) she doesn't need to accept a UK offer until early May, so she might be keeping a US option open. - Pointillist (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was in the gossip column and also included a random rumor about her and Tom Felton that didn't make any sense and is just bogus, and it came out after Emma said she would be taking the SATs to apply for US colleges, but before the date she said she was going to take them. That is why I questioned it. It's more likely she is still undecided hence why she is still applying to other schools. I guess it's fine to leave it as a rumor, but she may choose an entirely different school which would make reporting this rumor kind of pointless,--The Showster (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you are saying, except that—in a popular article like this—it is useful to permit a sanitised version of a verifiable rumour. Otherwise you are just leaving a gap that might get filled by well-meaning but less rigorous editors, if you see what I mean. - Pointillist (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On Em's official Twitter, she announced she was accepted to Yale & Cambridge, and her Twitter is official, so she has announced it. Forget Hogwarts. The real Hermione could be headed to Yale.

Apparently actress Emma Watson is as much a smarty-pants as her Harry Potter alter ego, revealing via Twitter that she has been accepted into the Ivy League.

"Did I tell you I got accepted to Yale," she writes under the handle "mwtsnx."

There have also been online reports that the magical ingenue received an acceptance letter from Cambridge University. As Emma was keen to complete her education, she had applied in multifarious universities. However, she was surprised to find herself a place in both Yale and Cambridge. She is facing difficulty deciding whether to study in America or stay close to her family and work by accepting the offer from Cambridge, reports Contactmusic. Although Emma has decided to study, she will be continuing her role in the 'Harry Potter' franchise.

This fall, she reportedly toured Brown and Harvard universities, as well as Yale. There has been no word from her rep on which institution of higher learning Watson will attend.

Should the wand-erful Watson choose to become a Bulldog, she'll join quite an impressive list of alumni thesps. Meryl Streep, Jodie Foster, Sigourney Weaver, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Christopher Lloyd, Henry Winkler and Claire Danes all called New Haven, Conn., home at one time.


Sources: eonline.com, newkerala.com


--Info from mymostwanted.com Sources: eonline.com, newkerala.com Ally :) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture used in the article is two years old now. I was wondering if it would be better to update this.—86.17.38.188

That's an interesting suggestion. The current image resembles the actress in her most recent films, which is a good reason for keeping it—in fact the main picture in the Daniel Radcliffe article is the same age. Another reason is that it might be difficult to get a high quality image that meets Wikipedia's requirements. Ideally the picture has to be taken at a public event where the subject would expect to be photographed, and free of copyright restrictions, which might narrow the choice. By the way, if you would like to edit Wikipedia or get involved in discussions here, it might be useful if you create a named account. Welcome to Wikipedia anyway - Pointillist (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Twilight?

Yesterday my sister bought a book named Twilight, the book cover had the Gorgeous Emma in it. is it worth writing it in her article? Bharath (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


I would say it is NOT worth it for the simple reason that the girl in the picture is definately not Emma. There is a mild resemblance but nothing more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.38.188 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Anon, according to http://sugarcoveredquills.org/2008/12/19/emma-talks-despereaux-potter-and-twilight/ She is Emma!!! Bharath (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That is Kristen Stewart, the star of Twilight. faithless (speak) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
ah! Sorry for the Confusion :( Bharath (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

Watson received an Otto Award from the German magazine Die Welt for her performance.[18]

As already said in the footnote, the award is not by the magazine Die Welt but by the German Bravo (magazine)

TomVomSande (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Well spotted, thanks! Happy‑melon 16:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-May?

"a non-May opening weekend"? What does it mean? APW (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An opening weekend that didn't fall in the month of may... for some inexplicable reason such openings seem to get significantly higher grosses... Happy‑melon 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph break and non-sensical sentence

Though rumoured to have secured a place to read English at Trinity College, Cambridge,[69]

Watson's work in the Harry Potter series has earned her more than £10 million ...

In th article, the word "Watson" after [69] appears as a paragraph break. Why does that break exist, and what exactly is the sentence trying to say? It's confusing, as if part is left out, and such an error shouldn't have made Featured article.--WPaulB (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The FAC was long before rumours of her uni choices came out. That fragment is a relic from where a poorly-sourced claim that she had accepted an offer at a US uni (from a gossip rag, vs the Telegraph), was imperfectly removed this morning. In a sense, part of the sentence is left out. Happy‑melon 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image license

I don't know if this matters, but the lead image is licensed non-commercial on the Flickr page. I'm no expert, but doesn't that mean it's inappropriate for use on WP? --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In all likelyhood the owner of the picture has changed the licensing after it was put on the Commons. -Duribald (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding false rumors started by tabloids

I noticed a series of new edits on the page that I feel are not necessary to add. First of all, regarding the "Napoleon and Betsy" rumor, there are conflicting reports. Some claim the project fell through, while others claim it still exists and that there will be two films. And the articles that claim the film was cancelled stated the last time the project was heard of was last year when it was announced she was cast. However Emma has referenced the film in a few interviews stating that they hoped to film it by 2010(I think it was 2010). It may or may not have been cancelled, but none of this is confirmed.

While I may somewhat understand referencing the Chanel rumor, even though both Chanel and Emma confirmed it false, due to the massive amount of press it recieved, I wouldn't exactly mention the Burberry rumor since the article itself seems to be more about attacking Emma's image(much like an article the Daily Mail wrote a day or so earlier) than about her doing a deal with Burberry, and considering they were wrong about the Chanel thing I wouldn't read into this unless it has better sources supporting it.

But this is just my input. I checked and it seems it was an administrator who made the edits. I apologise for reverting the edits without adding my input first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Showster (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't panic; we're not going to eat you :D. In the mainspace, admins are no different to any other editor. I have restored my edits, because you were a little indiscriminate in reverting everything (including things like date formatting, link disambiguation, and updates on HP6 and HP7), but I can see your point on the 'rumour mill' additions. I believe this content is restricted to this paragraph:
What I consider to be important about these facts is not that paper X said she was working on film Y, but that in saying that, paper X is usually wrong. The 'encyclopedic point' is that she's surrounded by a cloud of rumours that are usually entirely groundless. Although we can't say that explicitly, by providing examples of where people and papers, in some cases very distinguished sources, have got it completely and totally wrong, readers will be encouraged to be a little more discerning about what they take as writ about her, for instance the Cambridge/Yale debate. That's my point; I agree that it's probably not conveyed as well as it could be by that paragraph. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Happy‑melon 10:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know... I can't fix it but the term "fait acompli" is misspelled "fati acompli" under the section about the rumors of her contract with Chanel... - Neal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.124.133.16 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_phrases#F second one down. It is "fait" Pongley (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

French-born?

Maybe my languange skills are failing me, but shouldn't it be "born in France" not "French born". Or was she born as a French citizen? --Jinxo (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they synonymous? What's implied by "French born" other than being born in France? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
At first glance it seems to me that "French born" implies that she was born as a Frenchwoman, not as a British citizen in France. I'd distinguish between "France born" and "French born". -- Jinxo (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My first time looking at this article was today on the Wikipedia main paige, and I must say at first glance I thought "oh I didn't know she used to be French." It might help to remove the "French born" and instead change the parenthetical to "(born in France 15 April 1990)". Just a thought. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To amend the "(born 15 April 1990)" note to include "born in France" would go against the MOS; see WP:MOSBD, which states that "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." For whatever it's worth, I was not confused by the current terminology. It does say she's a "French-born British actress", after all. María (habla conmigo) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that terminology doesn't rule out that she was born as a Frenchwoman who later became English. So it is at least misleading. Duribald's solution mentioned underneath, thus, sounds most feasible to me. -- Jinxo (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have the French-born thing in the lead at all? If it's not supposed to be by the birt date, according to MOS, and if MOS clearly comes out against ethnicities of any kind being mentioned in the lead, unless it's related to the subject's notability? I say we lose that. It's mentioned in the infobox and in Early life where she's born. -Duribald (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it's mentioned elsewhere is immaterial; the lead is meant to be a summation of the entire article (per WP:LEAD). The place of an individual's birth is typically mentioned in a biography lead if only because it gives context, and the fact that she was born outside of the UK, but is in fact British, is notable and should therefore, IMO, stay. María (habla conmigo) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If her birth place is considered as part of her French background, then it's essentially an an ethnicity indicator and should not be in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph. I fail to see that her birth place is notable in itself. She didn't do anything notable before Harry Potter. She hasn't really done anything notable that refers to her birth place. As far as we know, she doesn't hold French citizenship. So how exactly is it notable? Lot's of people were born in places where one or both parents stayed for some time. And the birth place is not typically mentioned in the lead. I just checked over 20 biographies and found three that had birth place info. It was mostly people like Mel Gibson, who is known to some as an Australian - but who is in fact an American born citizen - or Albert Einstein who held several citizenships during his lifetime. -Duribald (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Mel Gibson and Albert Einstein are not Featured Articles. This one is. As I stated before, the lead should be a summary of the entire article; it doesn't only establish notability, but provides context for the work as a whole. Since the first paragraph of the biography deals with her ties to France, it stands to reason that it should be mentioned in the lead. Actually, some detail from the "Personal life" section should probably be included, as well, to make it completely comprehensive, but that's for another section, perhaps. ;) María (habla conmigo) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not climbing the Reichstag over this one. -Duribald (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 15 article of the day.

I like the fact that this was article of the day for April 15, 2009, considering the fact that that was her 19th birthday. I thought that was pretty cool; I remember thinking to myself on April 14 that her birthday was coming up. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Better picture, please

You can't really see what she looks like - she isn't turned towards the camera. CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a better picture, please do add it. Until someone takes a better picture and is prepared to release it under a free license, there's nothing that can be done: there are no alternatives. Happy‑melon 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In due time someone would add them. It is pretty expensive to buy picture from someone else who holds the license. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can somelook at the license of this images?. Not sure what is the validity of this images. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I like to assume good faith but in this case I'm fairly sure the "some rights reserved" Flickr tag is completely wrong. These photos are from websites, film stills, etc. No way can Flickr user 'Ursulakm' decide on their copyright status, they are not her photographs. Putting these pics on Wikipedia is not a good idea (to put it mildly).  Yintan   12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ursulakm has been blacklisted on commons for being too... liberal... with copyright. They have what amounts to a CSD criterion for images by such Flickr users. Indeed a Bad IdeaTM Happy‑melon 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

personal life and interests

Just looking at emma's interests i think that her interest in computer games should be mentioned. In the extra behind the scenes footage on the bonus dvd of harry potter and the Goblet of Fire there is footage of Emma and Dan playing a computer game and at some point dan references that he pretended to be good at the game for emma even though he was useless as emma was really into the game at the time indicating that she is really into computer games. Also in another interview on the same bonus dvd she mentions having read Phillip Pullman's Dark materials Trilogy possibly indicating an interest in books as she really loved them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppetpals3 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think the fact that she once read a book is notable. Ditto playing a video game. faithless (speak) 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yale matriculation?

According to this article--[5]--she's going to be attending Yale next year. Her blog says nothing about it, so I don't know how trustworthy the source is. Can anyone corroborate or discredit?Waidawut (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmn, it's The Boston Globe, which you'd think would be reliable... but then again we've had The Daily Telegraph say with absolute certainty that she's going to Cambridge, and I think it was The Washington Post who said she was going to Brown. I ain't putting anything on the article as 'fact' until we get it from the horse's mouth. At which point we'll go and chuck out whichever broadsheet was wrong and take the other one as holy writ, naturally. :D Happy‑melon 10:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I found the interview they're citing: [6]. They've taken it completely out of context. Just another junior writer going for a scoop, it seems. Happy‑melon 10:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, thanks for checking up on it. Waidawut (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I just toured Columbia University, and the student body seems rather confident Emma is attending Columbia. Anyone able to confirm or deny this? 71.207.132.165 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) (I can't remember my username...)
Word on the street at Yale is that she's attending Brown. There's nothing reliable to cite yet, so it still shouldn't be in the article. She must've committed by now, however. -Phi*n!x 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a huge Potter fan and am certain that the HBP release date should be 7/17/09 not 7/15/09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzlehunter3737 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

University

Plans to go to university in America. Was on Jonathon Ross' chat show tonight. She cited the variety in the courses, and an interest in art as reasons as opposed to the course structure in the UK where students study 1 or 2 things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.19.132 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Seconded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.211.94 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted in the article. Thanks for pointing out this new information! Happy‑melon 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to this semi-protected article .

The portion about emma's other works concerning burberry should be changed. It has just been posted in her official website (emmawatsonofficial.com) that she will take part in the burberry autumn collection.Cancel21 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)cancel21

 Done Thanks for noting this new bit of news. Happy‑melon 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

___

Another edit request: 'siblings' is mispelled in the second-to-last paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.50.80 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Emma as an Inspiration

Recently I have seen loads of amazing things that have been created for Emma, like art work and songs. I havn't yet seen a mention of this anywhere. I think it should be known that so many people have been inspired by her and some examples of it should be made avaialable. I was looking on youtube the other day at all the songs that have been written about her, and I heard one that was really impressive (if you just type in "song for emma watson" in youtube, its the one by "oncetwice14") and I think its amazing that someone has been able to create this in her name. Therefore I think it should definately be a part of any information about Emma Watson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peevesies (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic cones

Can't you get a better picture? This could be an image of anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.25 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What? It's quite obviously a picture of Watson, and as such can't be "an image of anyone." But by all means, if you pass her in the street sometime, ask her permission to take a photo. faithless (speak) 02:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, compared to a lot of other pictures in celebrity articles (such as Kevin Covais or Geri Halliwell or a million others), this picture is excellent. It's not blurry, it's not too dark to see anything, it's taken from fewer than fifty yards away, it's reasonably sized, the actress isn't caught in a bizarre expression, and there's no object or person blocking half of her face. By the standards Wikipedia has chosen to adopt, this is nearly as good as is possible for a picture of a celebrity. Propaniac (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

radio interview

Miss Watson was interviewed about her career on the BBC arts programme "Front Row" by Mark Lawson yesterday, she confirms that she isn't quitting acting despite press rumours to the contrary. You can listen to it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/aod/playlists/91/qf/l0/0b/RadioBridge_uk_1815_bbc_radio_fourfm.ram if that link doesn't work try going via http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lfq2n User9932 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone?

The first movie of the Harry Potter series was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. In the article, it is referred to as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.162.216 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of the first book and the film based upon it was "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" except in the USA where they were both titled "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."Filmteknik (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Brown University say reliable sources, July 2009

Watson has enrolled at Brown University, and persons with Wikipedia editing privileges might do well to edit the main article accordingly (see the text below for footnotable references). Well-sourced reporting in major news outlets has put her college choice beyond doubt. To take that reporting in reverse chronological order: (1) The producer of the Harry Potter movies and Watson's employer for the last eight years, David Heyman, confirmed for Associated Press interviewer Jake Coyle in a report published July 10 that Watson will attend Brown. That AP wire story was distributed to all AP subscribers and may be read today, July 13, at newspaper websites around the world. (2) Watson's co-star Daniel Radcliffe, in an interview with Craig McLean published July 4 in The Guardian (one of Britain's major quality newspapers), made a point of instancing Watson's enrollment at Brown as proof of his academic inferiority to her. Radcliffe's quote is, "she’s incredibly academic, it’s frightening. Me and Rupert to all intents and purposes dropped out of school. And she’s going to Brown." (3) In the wake of Radcliffe's statement, the Providence (Rhode Island) Journal did its own follow-up reporting, contacting the Guardian, and on July 7 it reported, "In an interview with a [Guardian] reporter, Radcliffe talked about how smart Watson is, and to prove his point mentioned that she’s going to Brown. Watson grudgingly admitted to the paper that what Radcliffe said was true, confirming rumors that had been circulating for weeks." (4) It was Dan Wootten, columnist of Britain's News of the World, who scooped the world last April 11 when he published Watson's college choice based on interviews with her friends. Wootten wrote, "Pals tell me the A-star student will be Pottering over to the US this autumn to study at Brown University in Rhode Island. One said: 'She looked at universities over here but fell in love with Brown. She has a lot of friends there'." Micheldene (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and the New York Daily News, reliable sources in their own right, say otherwise. Can you provide URLs to these stories, please? I'll certainly ensure that their details are added to the article. Happy‑melon 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To ‘Happy-melon’ (Wikipedia editor):

Thanks for responding. Here are the article authors, dates, headlines, news organization, and URLs for items 1 to 4, above:

[Item 1] Coyle, Jake (12 July 2009). "Harry Potter cast reflects on childhood at Hogwarts". Chicago Sun-Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Item 1 has as its source David Heyman, producer of the Potter movies and Watson’s friend for nine years. Heyman says she’s going to Brown University. The reporting is by the Entertainment writer of the Associated Press and has consequently been repeated by many AP-subscriber organisations, e.g., CBS Television News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/13/entertainment/main5155737.shtml

[Item 2] McLean, Craig (4 July 2009). "Dan the man". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Item 2 has as its source Daniel Radcliffe, star of the Potter movies and Watson’s friend for nine years. Radcliffe says she’s going to Brown University. The reporting is by Craig McLean, well-known music and entertainment journalist.

[Item 3] "Emma Watson, of Potter fame, heading for Brown". The Providence Journal. 7 July 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The Providence (Rhode Island) Journal is the local newspaper for Brown University and apparently did independent reporting for the article.

[Item 4] Wootten, Dan (11 April 2009). "Potter's girl leaves Hogwarts: Brainy Harry Potter star Emma Watson is flying off-to uni". News of the World. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Item 4 has as its source mutual friends of Watson and the reporter.

In the matter of the ‘reliable source’ Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and New York Daily News, Watson herself has put paid to the Telegraph story about Cambridge (footnote 73), telling the ‘Potter’ press conference that she will study in the States. The Daily News story dated 29 June (footnote 74) cites as its only source the entirely unsourced story in the Daily Mail, also dated 29 June (footnote 75). Since then, the Daily News has in fact changed its mind in favor of Brown University. The new Daily News article is by Amy Eisinger (9 July 2009), ‘Listen up, American boys! Harry Potter star Emma Watson is coming to the States for college’. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_harry_potter_star_emma_watson_is_coming_to_the_states_for_college.html

The other two Wikipedia sources (footnotes 76 and 77) are unsourced squibs, one by ‘Liz’ at a gossip website, and the other in the Boston Globe, dated 25 April. Since then, the Boston Globe has also changed its mind in favor of Brown University. The new Boston Globe item, which sources Daniel Radcliffe, is unsigned (6 July 2009), ‘Her Secret’s Out’. http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2009/07/06/from_fenway_to_the_fairway/ 72.221.66.216 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'm not going to frame it as "is going to Brown", because a) Wikipedia is not looking for the scoop, and b) we haven't heard it from her own mouth, as she promised after the first round of rumours. However, these sources allow us to convincingly describe a second round of rumour, this time all focused on one university, from which any reader can draw their own conclusion. Happy‑melon 10:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, I just found this. Well researched! Happy‑melon 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To 'Happy-melon':

Thanks for editing the main article.

'Pastemagazine.com' and its reporter James Ford have certainly 'buried the lead', which is (apparently) Watson's first published personal confirmation. Micheldene (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it since it is still a written article and thus we didn't hear it from Emma's mouth. The other "confirmations" were written as well rather than said on camera or through an official source. Some months ago an interview claimed that Tom Felton told them she was going to Cambridge, but this was confirmed false. Also she has done nothing but refuse to say where she was going during her televised interviews. I would wait for either televised confirmation or confirmation through her official site, as the written press has dropped the ball too many times with this one. But that's just my opinion.--The Showster (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to remove it entirely. The first wave was notably lacking the direct quotes from her co-star and producer, the unanimous college indication, and the corroboration from Watson herself in terms of at least being on the right continent. I'll be the first to state that the News of the World is not worth the ink is printed with (I ended up using it to reference the claim that "there was a second storm of rumour" rather than anything substantial), but people's heads do literally roll for misquoting someone, and so it's reasonable to conclude that the Guardian has Radcliffe on a tape recorder somewhere saying it, as does the Chicago Sun-Times for David Heyman. And Paste magazine is claiming it from Watson herself. I agree that it would be premature to consider this an open-and-shut case, but some level of sanity has to prevail: we write what appears in reliable sources, if those sources are wrong, then we are wrong. Happy‑melon 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To 'Happy-melon',

A small technical point. The feature article that sourced David Heyman was written by Jake Coyle, Entertainment writer of the Associated Press, which is America's principal wire service. So it will be Coyle's voice recorder (rather than the Chicago Sun-Times's) on which Heyman may be heard saying 'She's going to Brown'. (Coyle's article was, of course, distributed to hundreds of Associated Press outlets, including the Sun-Times.) Coyle of the AP citing Heyman, and Craig McLean in The Guardian quoting Radcliffe, are wonderfully reliable sources, it seems to me. But I hasten to defend Dan Wootten in the absurd News of the World. To date, Wootten has been the only chronicler to get it spot on: '[Watson] looked at universities over here but fell in love with Brown. She has a lot of friends there'. And those friends have been keeping Watson's confidences for eight months now. Good for them. Micheldene (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the sentence "Watson defended her attempts to avoid announcing her choice of university – accidentally slipped by Daniel Radcliffe and producer David Heyman,[82][83] in..." be mended to make it appear a little bit more ambiguous. This makes it appear as though Watson has confirmed her matriculation in Brown. Whilst the slips come from reputable sources, we have many other reports from reputable sources that are in contradiction with each other. Also I would consider the Paste interview with extreme care - it appears rather illogical the notion that Emma would talk about her university choice to such a small and relatively unknown magazine when she remains indecisive to much bigger magazines and media forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikim17 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
^ Yeah the Paste magazine interview sounds false. She says in the interview that she would study literature while in other media appearces she has always insisted that she is interested in liberal arts and isn't entirely sure what she was going to study. In the interview, she says that she hopes to do well with the A-levels. Well, she was done with her A-levels long before she applied to colleges and before the HBP press cycle. Also no Ivy League universities "provisionally accept" stduents. The article contains too many questionable quotes and the magazine isn't entirely well known. I would hesitate to use it to claim that Watson is going to Brown. The Brown section should be editted to say that there has been much rumor about Watson attending Brown, some from sources such as Radcliffe and Heyman but that actress hasn't yet corroborated or denied the rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.157.152 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To 'Happy-melon',

I think Wikipedia has got the verbiage right and it can stand as is -- until Watson's arrival in Providence in late August ends the suspense for persons outside the Brown community. (Inside the Brown community there is no suspense at all, and hasn't been for many months.)

In the meantime, Wikipedia need not let the great be the enemy of the good. Radcliffe and Heyman's assertions are good enough and do not constitute 'rumor'. In fact, Heyman's assertion alone is good enough. He is literally Emma Watson's employer, and her mailing address in the coming year is of more than casual interest to him.

Heyman may well have advised her on her choice. He's a Harvard alumnus and will know all about Brown's smorgasbord curriculum, something that Watson has said she's looking for. (Also, Brown is contiguous with the renowned Rhode Island School of Design, where Watson can cross-register for the art or fashion design courses she has mentioned.)

There are two sorts of accuracy in play here. There is inferential accuracy, and I think Wikipedia gets the hierarchy of inference right -- with its emphasis on Radcliffe, Heyman, and (nicely handled) the Providence Journal. By the way, the Providence Journal is being discreet. It too has contacts and knows what the Brown community knows, but is divulging through the proxy of the Guardian.

The other sort of accuracy is latent: it is the discovery of the truth by better reporting than anyone has yet undertaken. Simple phone calls to the registrars of Yale, Columbia, and Harvard would elicit 'No, she's not enrolled.' (Brown has followed a strict 'No comment' policy since April, although somebody slipped up for a couple of days in mid-June and uploaded 'Emma Charlotte Watson' to the online directory, for which fact see the blogosphere.) Micheldene (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for f**'s sake:
  • Daily Mirror - Brown, but for English lit rather than liberal arts. A few steps above the News of the World, but way below the broadsheets. Repeats the "anonymity" quote, however.
  • The Guardian changes its tune: now it's Yale :-#
  • Daily Telegraph - Won't be drawn on which uni, but goes for "English and Art" as the subject. That's kind of liberal arts, right? :D
  • The Daily Mail think's it's Columbia
  • "nj.com": anyone know what kind of paper this is printed on? It won't name the uni, but it has a very nice quote from Watson about why: "Those doors are opening now. Watson will be starting school soon, although she's been careful not to name the particular Ivy League campus. "I'm half-wondering if that was a mistake," she says. "Because it just seems to have created more interest and more speculation, and now there are all these 'authoritative sources' with different answers on what university I'm 'definitely' going to."
  • UPI - Brown, and the "do it properly" quote
I think we're mostly in the right place with the "we say they said she said" wording; thanks for suggesting that, Showster. I'm going to rephrase the "defended her decision to suppress the choice" sentence to not make it sound like she's defending it after the fact: I think it's correct to say that there is still no confirmation. Thanks for your input, everyone. Happy‑melon 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Work

The article currently states that Emma was slated to play the role of 'Betsy' Bonaparte in Napoleon & Betsy. This is incorrect. Emma was going to play Betsy Balcombe, a young woman who befriended Napoleon during his exile on St. Helena. Betsy Bonaparte was Napoleon's sister in law and lived in Baltimore. --Robbini (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the future just briefly explain your edits using the edit summary so that other editors understand why you're making the change. Best, faithless (speak) 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

acting training

no mention of her "Acting Shakespeare" short course at RADA a summer or so ago? seems to be her only formal acting training to date. PippaMaru (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

social net impostors

also, could someone add the quote[s] where Emma states that she has no social networking accounts -- numerous impostors at myspace, twitter, etc. thank you. PippaMaru (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong at Filmographie (Corrected)

Wrong written at filmographie,she didn't won the Scream Award for Harry Potter 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scream_Award#Winners_.5B2.5D <----this is the Prove CAN PLEASE SOMEONE CHANGE THAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kana22 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I changed it. Good find! --Stroppolotalk 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I've noticed the picture being a bit fought over. In my opinion, the full picture matches the caption better, as it shows that she is at the event. Hopefully the discussion can continue here. Beach drifter (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the GoF premiere or the image caption, it's about Emma Watson. Showing a misshapen image that has her tucked into the bottom corner only serves to highlight how bad our collection of images here really are. Happy‑melon 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't this article used to have a much better picture anyways? Beach drifter (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
We used to use the one below the infobox, from Grauman's Chinese Theatre, 2007. And a whole bunch of images have been deleted, because they were copyrighted. -Duribald (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
One day a major agency will realise that their clients' articles get ten thousand hits a day, and will give us a portfolio of images to use for them, starting an avalanche of free media images. Until that day, we will have to make do with crap ones. Happy‑melon 18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
PR people will grow brains? *startled at this concept* *LOL* -Duribald (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Ain't gonna happen. PR people still think this is the 1980s and the biggest issue they gotta worry about is cassette tape piracy. Gotta agree with others, that pic with Emma brushing her hair back was fantastic, showing why she is, in my opinion, the most beautiful girl in the world (yes, I would think that still if she wasn't a celebrity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.37.94 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Other work

I feel that this section is losing its structure. I suggest that Watson's acting and modelling activities are described under separate headings, particularly if she is going to continue with both. Old Father Time (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make the changes you think are necessary. -Duribald (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Concurring with OFT, I went ahead and reorganized the information and broke it into separate sections. Propaniac (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Edition

why cant the page be editted? I'd like to include info about Emma's new fashion brand and most specially i'd like to change the article pic of her.how can i do this? : [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masood (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, due to vandalism. You can either wait for your account to be auto-confirmed, after four days, or add the material here, so that an experienced editor can add it to the article. -Duribald (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Other work

I feel that this section is losing its structure. I suggest that Watson's acting and modelling activities are described under separate headings, particularly if she is going to continue with both. Old Father Time (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make the changes you think are necessary. -Duribald (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Concurring with OFT, I went ahead and reorganized the information and broke it into separate sections. Propaniac (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Edition

why cant the page be editted? I'd like to include info about Emma's new fashion brand and most specially i'd like to change the article pic of her.how can i do this? : [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masood (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, due to vandalism. You can either wait for your account to be auto-confirmed, after four days, or add the material here, so that an experienced editor can add it to the article. -Duribald (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Emma Watson at Kids Say the Darnest Things

Some websites (SnitchSeeker.com, Empire, Facebook) says, Emma was on Cosby's Kids Say the Darnest Things at age 8. Should it be mention?--Renesemee, 13 March 2010, 18:11 —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Somewhere05, 13 April 2010

I would like to change the picture on Emma Watson's (Harry Potter star) Wikipedia page to this: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/0-lky5T8q7r/Harry+Potter+Half+Blood+Prince+Premiere+Inside/vLXVLN6CBTL/Emma+Watson with the caption: "Emma Watson at the New York City premiere of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."

Thanks! Somewhere05 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the picture you are requesting is copyrighted to Getty Images (per the caption) and as such is not usable by Wikipedia. We can only use free-use media to illustrate an article about a living person - see the article about Non-free content. Tabercil (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Watson's personal life

There are pictures of Emma Watson on the internet, kissing a man, named Jay Barrymore. Could they be dating? Can anyone valid this info and add it to the personal life section. Cheers and beers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrumpKrumpKrumpKrump (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Emma Watson is also known to be a vegan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.45.215 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Should the recent fake nude picture controversy be included as part of this article? I know she's got the reputation of being an extremely clean public figure. Hence, I don't want to vandalize this article (or even her reputation), and the creator of her fake nude picture now faces jail time. [7] If it's not to be added, that's alright. I thought I'd ask this question as this event made a bit of news, and brought unnecessary and unwanted attention to Emma. 59.184.160.200 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's really relevant to her; there's no interaction I'm aware of between her and the photos; not even a "that's disgusting" comment. It would be relevant in an article about the photo author, of course, but I doubt he's notable enough to warrant one. Happy‑melon 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kdvinluan, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please use one of this as replacement to her profile picture. Thanks!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7L_PCnGDtjA/S9-CvQ6P5SI/AAAAAAAACZg/AcbMnXKzVjA/s1600/emma_watson_may_3_1_tikipeter_celebritycity_016.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7L_PCnGDtjA/S9-A6n0585I/AAAAAAAACYA/0u3peogpwTo/s1600/emma_watson_may_3_1_tikipeter_celebritycity_004.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7L_PCnGDtjA/S9-B0DPScpI/AAAAAAAACZA/ZF7q1KL8zvM/s1600/emma_watson_may_3_1_tikipeter_celebritycity_012.jpg Caption: Emma Watson at the Met Ball - "American Woman: Fashioning A National Identity" Costume Institute Gala

It was public domain.. I think?? I just wanted to change her profile picture to a recent one. Pardon, if it is copyrighted images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.85.69 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kdvinluan (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done These are undoubtedly copyrighted images, which cannot be used in an article about a living person - please see WP:NFCC#1. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If she was born in France...wouldn't that make her French?96.255.197.233 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was born in Berlin. Does that make him German? Happy‑melon 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton was born in the heart of Arkansas... but Martin Lawrence was born in Germany. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
My fail... Happy‑melon 13:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More Recent Picture

Isn't there a more recent picture of Emma? This one is a little dated from 2005. Sami50421 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure there are lots more recent photos of Emma... but what we need is a free-use one of her, and the pool from which we're working from is rather limited. Your complaint's been brought up several times before. Tabercil (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't the picture I uploaded free? I found it on Flickr, and checked the licensing on both the image, and Wiki guidelines. Sami50421 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Was the image you added uploaded to Flickr by a user called ursulakm?? They're a known "flickrwasher" (a user who uploads images with false licenses to Flickr, then legitimately transfers them over here) who has uploaded dozens of images of Harry Potter stars, particularly Watson, to Flickr with false licenses. See commons:User talk:Ukm for some gory details. If the upload to Flickr had been legitimate, then you would have been fine; see for instance File:Emma Watson at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Premiere 06 cropped.jpg, which is cropped from a proper Flickr upload. Happy‑melon 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. If the image had stayed up for any length of time, I'd wager the Flickr review bot would've tagged the image as coming from a bad location. Tabercil (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 will be released soon, someone will most likely attend the premiere and obtain an image 

Darkemagik (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't the picture from further down the page be used?? Happyfeijoa (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.79.94.15, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article lists Fly Fishing as one of Emmas interests. She herself denies this in this interview on BBC Radio 4, giving also reasons where this misinformation comes from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpycW9xmL38& 83.79.94.15 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--mono 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The source for this looks pretty weak anyway, being a third-party source to a gossip column, so it's up to the editor who wants it including to source it. Rodhullandemu 21:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks like the Telegraph were misled. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Before this gets silly, could people read the source from which this allegedly comes, and also review WP:RS? Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Next time I'll read the talk page first :D The Telegraph very definitely is a reliable source; if they're wrong, it's on their heads, not ours. In this case, of course, it clearly is on their heads :D Happy‑melon 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Damn, that interview is an awesome reference, if not for WP:COPYLINK. Any transcripts around? Happy‑melon 21:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{{cite episode}} would work in its place. Rodhullandemu 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to change protection back to semi-protected

Simple as it is. Seems like there has been some vandals since it changed protection status. I don't know how much warrants a change but in my opinion, I think the page is best kept semi-protected.

Dark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkemagik (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, edits are highly scrutinized right now because this article is part of the pending changes trial, which it was un-protected for. The venue for protection requests is WP:RPP, where you'll get a much quicker response. And don't forget to sign your posts :) Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger that :P

Airman and student pilot Dark Darkemagik (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationships

Regarding Emma's relationships/possible relationships: Jay Barrymore wasn't added to this page while it was going on, for good reason since it was confirmed via paparazzi pictures rather than from Emma herself(she later confirmed she was dating someone, but never mentioned any names despite people knowing who it was). However little is known about the details, such as how and when they started dating and how and when they ended the relationship, the only sources being tabloids, which are not credible sources, and Emma has not spoken about it herself. Due to this and the fact that it's been left off this page during the actual relationship, I don't see a reason to add it.

As far as the George Craig rumored relationship, neither Emma nor Craig give a specific Yes or No answer, and only reveal they had been friends since the Burberry shoot, however it's heavily implied in the interview. I'm not sure if that's good enough though. If people think it's enough then they can add it again, since this time we have a bit more information on them than the previous relationship —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Showster (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Okay, first of all, the tabloids comment is 100% correct, they are garbage, especially since all they want to do is claim someone is in a relationship. Plus it is clearly stated in the Radio 1 interview that they aren't dating, and if they are they do not officially disclose it with the comments made. The interviewer clearly asks, "is this like a first date?" and both of them are primarily unsure how to answer. Then Craig pipes up and says, "not really we are just friends" or something to that effect. Thank the lord that someone decided to get rid of the paragraph, I do deem it completely tabloid-based information and all around unnecessary.

Darkemagik (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the George Craig relationship, the presenter says "you seemed very loved up and very happy together" to which they don't deny so surely that shows they are dating? Otherwise they would have set the record straight and said we're not dating surely? There is also the celebrity couple talk, to which they happily play along and claim the tabloid may call them "Wataig" (such as Brangelina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youjustbrushby (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough for a biography; it would have to be made explicit by either, and preferably both. And not in the tabloid press. It's not for us to read into an interview something that wasn't said. Rodhullandemu 21:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Darkemagik (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor recently added Watson's alleged Twitter account to the External links section. Even assuming it's "verified," as the editor puts it, I don't believe we should be adding references to social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace in articles, but particularly not Twitter. I believe it's contrary to WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELNO #10. I've started a general discussion on this issue here if people want to take a look.

I'd like to remove the Twitter account from Watson's article unless there's some disagreement.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If subjects want to advertise their Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, they would do it on their official site. If they don't do it on their official site, we don't need to be doing it. And if they do, we still don't need to be doing it. Yworo (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it and notified the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

She did announce the Twitter page on her official site at http://www.emmawatson.com. Additionally, Warner Brothers and Good Friday's "Tweeted" welcoming her. You could call those unreliable sources but I think the icing on the cake per say is she announced on her official site which must make it real. Now the subject of including social networking pages on Biographies of a Living Persons, that is a different story. I'd like to add the Twitter page back, but I'll give a couple of days for a response to this post. Also, I'd rather not make the call as to whether the link should be there or not, I am simply stating that the page is of legitimate origin. 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkemagik (talk • contribs)

If she links it from her official site, and we link to her official site, what else is needed and why? Yworo (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Watson's announcement on her own website is sufficient authentication that the Twitter account belongs to her (thank you for that). However, as Darkemagik states, that still doesn't address the separate issue of whether such links belong in biographies of living persons. WP:ELNO #10 seems to say it shouldn't be done. There is an overall exception that states that you can cite to "an official page of the article's subject," but that implicates WP:ELOFFICIAL, which requires two things to be "official," the second of which is: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." How does a Twitter account meet that requirement? How is it even useful? What makes sense to me is if Watson twitters something that is notable, Wikipedia can cite to it in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I do agree with Bbb23, it is best left off of the Emma Watson article until it contains some information relevant to the article. Darkemagik (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Awards, personal or not?

Emma_Watson#Awards includes mostly awards individual to the actress, except one. Is there a rationale for including some non-individual awards in the table while excluding other film awards? I think the tables should include just individual awards, with others discussed in-text as appropriate. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Head Picture

CHANGE HER PICTURE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.190.251 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you've got one free of copyright, feel free to upload it. Meanwhile, I think we're stuck with this one. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I did.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You certainly did. Although it's much more recent than the previous one, I personally think it's awful, but what do I know? What's it from anyway (I mean besides Flickr)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That was a mistake, sorry. The original is not on the net, but there's a bunch more copyrighted ones at I find being sexy embarrassing, reveals Emma Watson | Mail Online.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If I understand properly, you're saying the picture is probably copyrighted and not available for use? If so, are you going to take care of deleting it from Commons?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I requested speedy deletion of it about 21 minutes ago.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to change her picture! This one is ancient! It's from GoF! 222.154.135.117 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.38.156.144, 20 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} there is a typo in last row of the Awards chart -- "start" should be changed to "star"

207.38.156.144 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit photo request

That top photo of Emma at the Goblet of Fire premiere does not do her justice especially now that she is older. I would suggest a picture of her at the 2010 Deathly Hallows premiere. Not only does her haircut freshen her appearance, it will freshen up the Wikipedia page too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.90.223 (talk • contribs) 10:06, November 27, 2010

As far as I can see, this looks legitimate, and is much more recent than the GoF image. Am I falling for yet another false-release, or shall I bring it over? Happy‑melon 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not usable. Checking elsewhere in the account turns up this image which has text on it clearly identifying it as from Getty, this one which is from Fame Pictures. The account is basically one giant exercise in Flickrwashing. Tabercil (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
But photos like this and this look plausible, as does the Emma Watson one. I agree that the account is playing fast and loose with copyright in some cases, but I'm not sure we need to burn the whole stream. If it is flickrwashed, where is it washed from? Happy‑melon 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, http://www.purseblog.com/celebrities/emma-watson-style-chanel-handbag.html. Happy‑melon 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
i also think she needs a new photo not just because of the hair cut but also she has matured too. --Gerty (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove the net worth part

It's ridiculous for all the obvious reasons. She's a person, not a real estate property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.43.18.221 (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, she's not a businesswoman or an entrepreneur, she's an actress. People just like to gossip about the net worth of some stars and that's hardly encyclopaedic or relevant. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Net worth (of that size) in such a young actress is notable enough to include here. You don't have to be an entrepreneur to make net worth relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23. Her high net worth at such a young age (and almost none of it coming from inheritance) is worthy of note. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of age or finansial status. How do you measure a person's worth? In money? Isn't that a total degradation of human moral values? 95.43.18.221 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The "worth" in "net worth" isn't referring to what a person is worth as a person. Net worth is the worth of all the person's investments, long-term assets (bank accounts, etc.) minus their liabilities (such as debts). So it's just a way of describing how much money you have. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 07:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
wouldn't it be better to put how much she has earned in her personal life section though, rather than making her look like an entrepreneur? which she clearly isn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youjustbrushby (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, less for the above arguments than for the poor sourcing. Child stars generally tend to have their earnings put into trust funds until they achieve majority, and details of that are, for understandable reasons, hidden from public view. Therefore, estimates of wealth tend to be wildly inaccurate, if not totally unreported. Even if she appeared in the "Times 100 Wealthiest UK People" or the "Forbes 100", those would not be based on audited accounts, or UK tax returns. It's possible that she is now richer than any of the Spice Girls individually, but without any evidence to support that, we are not in a position to realistically provide a quantification. And that's the bottom line, I think. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
She's 20. When does she reach the age of majority in Britain? In the U.S., it would normally be 18.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
18 is the age of majority (albeit with 16-17 year olds being treated as "young adults" and having some adult legal rights) in the UK too. Xmoogle (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1246238/Emma-Watsons-fair-trade-fashion-Harry-Potter-star-unveils-new-clothing-range.html
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1246238/Emma-Watsons-fair-trade-fashion-Harry-Potter-star-unveils-new-clothing-range.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson/Archive_5&oldid=1145855509"