Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Radcliffe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

University of Virginia

This rumor pops up just about yearly that Daniel Radcliffe is going to UVA. The cite for that is this article ([1]) which says nothing about him going to University of Virginia. Moreover there's no entry for him on the People search ([2]) which has entries for all students, staff and faculty (and 2007 students are already listed). Can anyone verify this? Otherwise I suggest the notation be removed. 24.211.156.245 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Height

I think we ought to mention how short this guy is. He is around 5'6, and is a lot shorter than just about everyone in his movies. He also definitely uses shoes to try to make him seem taller, so it would be worth noting.

Apparently he hasnt grown since the second movie really. Worth mentioning since in the novels Harry is supposed to be quite tall, growing a lot, albeit not as tall as Ron, but not conspicuously short as Daniel definitely is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.254.59 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2007

In a recent 2007 interview he states he's around 5'6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.176.164 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 May 2007


I agree that this is worth mentioning, as long as it is properly cited. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as such a big issue. Rupert Grint (aka Ron) is not as tall in the movies as he is in the books (compare his height to Fred and George) either. The only way I can see it being included is if it, as Faithlessthewonderboy said, is properly cited and it actually makes sense rather than being lumped in on its own or shoved in the trivia section. dr.alf 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on including or excluding it (it's 5'5"), but it is indeed properly cited (if you check the html in the infobox, which still contains height, even though it doesn't show up) Tell-Tale Ghost 04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

House Prices?

Is there any point in having the bit about house prices in the article? It is (a) uncertain if this is meant to be expensive or cheap (in the context of Fulham) and (b) likely to vary rapidly (and when is "currently" anyway)? -- I suggest we delete that bit. -- SGBailey 23:15 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I made a small attempt to tidy the article up a while back, and there were a few things I thought seemed a bit silly, including the bit about the "£730,000 home", but I usually leave things alone unless I can think of a better replacement. The only reference I can find right now for the statement is a profile on a fan site called "The Radcliffe Realm", which says, "Home: £730,000 house in Fulham, W.London, England, UK - postcode: SW6". It probably comes from some newspaper article originally, but without a better reference and a timeframe it should probably go regardless of whether it has a point or not. However, I think it would become quite interesting if verified and put into context, as it would give some idea of the type of background he came from before he became a millionaire. -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:11 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
If Mr. Radcliffe's house price is to be mentioned, perhaps we could also add that he goes to City of London School (CLS), and that his 'classmates' are known to throw items at him, shouting "magic that away, wizard boy!"? Similarly inane comments seem somewhat out of place in an encyclopaedia... BTW, house prices in SW6 might be of some interest for purposes of house-price contrast.
-- jdforrester 23:42 Apr 18, 2003 (BST)

Thanks for that link, Mr. Forrester. I think since the sentence about Mr. Radcliffe's house and dogs has no timeframe, and can't be entirely confirmed from reliable sources, I'll move it here for now, until I can think of something better to do with it. (The family currently live in a £730,000 home in Fulham, a suburb of London, with two border collies named Binka and Nugget.) However, I disagree that information about his background is "inane". His education would certainly be a good thing to include, and I'd put the name of his school into the article, except that I can't find a reference for it. I don't suppose you could cite one, could you? If you don't want me to put it in, you can always decline to answer, but I think it would be interesting. -- Oliver P. 12:31 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Whoops, this is what happens when you don't watch a page that others reply to. No, I don't have a reference per se, I know people who are schoolmates of him...
James F. 17:06 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
... and, for the record, my 'sources' report that Mr. Radcliffe has now moved school, from CLS to UCS, (alledgedly) due to bullying.
80.177.8.205 12:02 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about how much Dan's house costs, does it? All that matters is that his stunning performance in the Harry Potter films completely makes up for all the shortcomings of the Harry Potter films, right? lol Ann 03:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

His middle name

This article says Daniel Jacob Radcliffe, IMDb says Daniel Alan Radcliffe. Which one is correct? Google doesn't seem to give a definite answer either. Apparently one of them is a widespread misconception; the question is: which one? — Timwi 16:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


DanRadcliffe.co.uk states clearly that Dan's middle name is Jacob. The site is regarded as one of the 'official' Dan websites and I imagine Dan or his father would have pointed out any error in his name by now. So Jacob it is. — Dee 08:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary trivia?

"He is currently single (6/05)"... Mayhaps its just me, but for an entry on a not yet sixteen year-old actor, this strikes me as both unnecessary (apart from truly high profile cases that have made the tabloids, it seems most wiki actor entries don't necessarily stress if any living actor is currently single, let alone give a date for that status) and just a tad unnerving. Any thoughts on this? Aleal 2 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

"Yea I agree the comment on the fact that “Daniel is currently single” is out of place. The guy is what 15 - 16 years of age? ... Two years from it be would be somewhat reasonable. However at this point to publish such things is just ridiculous. I just hope that fame won’t spoil him or his life, because he’s a normal person just like all of us.” Maria 12 July 2005 1:54 (GMT-05:00)

Totally agree that Dan's current 'single' status is just a sad reflection of what we have come to expect from the tabloids. Leave it out. This entry should be about his career, not lewd speculation on how much his house is worth, his love life or (worst of all), whether he was bullied at school. Dear God, the boy is under enough scrutiny as it is. Can't we respect his privacy here in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a collection of facts, not a collection of sordid and trivial gossip? Dee 08:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

He probably does have a girlfriend, but it's really none of our business... Ann 03:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. Whoever a 16-year-old is dating is of no encyclopedic consequence. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan's love life is an unnecessary trivia especially as he has so many fangirls and is being linked to some starlets/girls. What I want to see instead is his acting awards and nominations. He has so many eversince the first Harry Potter movie that I was surprised not to see them here.203.168.9.113 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Jandee

Editing Dates

If there is an event in this persons life that you are sure that is going to happen (i.e, movie involvment or releases), put them in the past tense. If you are unsure if the event is going to take place, it would be better to leave out said event until it does happen. Never do encyclopedias say "currently", "soon to be", or "will . . ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperbop (talk • contribs) 01:11, 23 July 2005

Photos

Is it really necessary to have two photos of him? Considering how short this article is, it seems like too much - especially since one is right on top of the other. One photo should either be moved farther down the page (maybe next to his filmography?) or removed all together. --Hazey Jane 06:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

    • THE PICTURES ARE JUST FINE AS A MATTER OF FACT I THINK THEY SHOULD PUT MORE UP HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.45.179 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 8 March 2006
I moved the second picture down. I forgot to write it in the edit summary so I'm writing it here. I personally think it looks better this way. --Hazey Jane 05:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan's not into Wrestling anymore

I just thought maybe you guys would like to know that...(I'm obsessed with Daniel Radcliffe) Ann 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan to Star in Another Movie (Besides the HP films)

Dan is currently in Austraila, filming December Boys. Just thought that might be important...;]Ann 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"official" web pages

i am removing the "official" web pages, because they are obviously not official.

here are the whois entries for the two domains:

[snip]

doesn't look like dan radcliffe at all now does it? --Yoasif 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I put them back (this discussion didn't exist yet) in part because the webmasters of the co.uk site indicate they've had help from the Radcliffe family. In lieu of an actual, official site that apparently does not exist (yet?), it seemed reasonably close. If you'll check my history, you'll note that I don't make editing decisions lightly... but, thanks. RadioKirk 23:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the whois information, for spamming reasons. 9cds 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Official Webpages

As there is no official site, I suggest we restore the danradcliffe.co.uk & danradcliffe.com links as the next best thing. Both sites seem to be comphrehensive resources, and useful for more information, especially things that would be trivial in this entry. If noone objects within 24 hours, I'll restore the links then. Reply here or my talk. exolon 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My $US0.02... I would say yes only to danradcliffe.co.uk, because the site gets information directly from the Radcliffe family—at least, so they claim, and I would think there'd be a backlash otherwise. To be honest, though, I don't see anything about danradcliffe.com that sets it apart. RadioKirk talk to me 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Since no-one's objected, I'm going with RadioKirk and adding back the .co.uk site. I'll try and do a NPOV title for it, and will make it clear it's not an official site. exolon 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, that works :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A claim of getting info from the family is BS, and you know it. These should be deleted but since you're being a freak about this article, I will let them be. Desertsky85451 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks. If you have evidence the sites are fabricating the involvement of Dan & Family then present it in a calm and reasonable manner.exolon 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Although both the U.S. and UK Dan Radcliffe websites clearly state that they are "unofficial" (Dan does not have an "official" website), they are the only fansites that Dan, personally; his father, Alan Radcliffe; and Dan's publicist, Vanessa Davies, work with directly - and this close working/family relationship has existed among them for years. Alan Radcliffe is Dan's agent and, before posting any major announcements, the webmistresses of both websites (Jenna and Page) confirm the information through Dan's publicist. Occasionally, Alan Radcliffe has asked the websites to post a personal message to fans on behalf of the Radcliffe family when something of particular importance or concern has occurred, such as an incident that occurred at the Radcliffe home several years ago. All of this information and more is housed in the archives on each of the websites and is available to read. Jenna (danradcliff.com) and Page (danradcliffe.co.uk) respectively, conducted exclusive interviews with Dan in the U.S. and UK during the promotional tours surrounding both the release of "Order of the Phoenix" in July and "December Boys" in September. Dan also recently videotaped a unique personal message of thanks directed to the fans of each of the two websites (and only those websites). You can view these personal message videos on each of the websites. Dan has mentioned in recent interviews during the release of "December Boys" how fortunate he is to have both danradcliffe.com and danradcliffe.co.uk always representing his best interests, and publicly thanked both websites and their U.S. and UK fans for their ongoing support, especially during 2007, which was a a very challenging year for him in the media. These two websites are as close to "official" as it gets.

--Eowynan 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanfiction site removed

I removed this site as this page is supposed to be for factual information about the actor, and I find the idea of fanfiction based on a real person disturbing. exolon 19:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel's eyes

It has come to my attention thats in the article it says that daneil Radcliffe has green eyes. I, a huge admirer has noticed that daneil radcliffe has in fact blue eyes. I just sort of figured that i should let the world know, for future reference of course. if you go to www.danradcliffe.co.uk, you can see his lovely blue eyes and notic erigth away that they are not GREEN. Thank you for tanking the ime to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertinesfan13 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 February 2006

OH thank GOD some one else noticed that other than me!!! They should get their facts straight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.45.179 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 March 2006

how could u people think that his eyes are green, they are clearly a dark (pretty) shade of blue! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.105.48 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 15 March 2006

  • They probably would assume that Dan's eyes are green, since he plays Harry Potter in the movie series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.82.234 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 June 2006

Dan was supposed to wear green contact lenses, but they irritated his eyes, so they stuck with his blue ones.Lradrama 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Awards"?

Is it just me, or is the "Awards" section bordering on the ridiculous? 19th place? Seriously?! RadioKirk talk to me 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Th Awards section does seem quite long. However, '19th' on a Top 25 list is worthy of mention within such a list.Osprey 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, a simple "made the list"-type entry would do there but, of course, that does nothing to reduce the clutter—I just used that to help illustrate the point. ;) Seriously, though, I would pare the list down to only those most notable. RadioKirk talk to me 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Is there a suggested number of awards or a list of awards to mention for Wikipedia articles? I mean, he could win the teensiest award by some nobody award-giver, but is that stuff posted? We need to sort out what's an honor and what are just lists of actors. -Chewbacca 09:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My Personal List of Awards to Keep (Please Comment)

Nominations

2001

2002

  • Best Performance by a Young Actor (Saturn Awards)

2003

2004

  • Best Performance by a Young Actor (Saturn Awards)

2005

  • Best Young Actor (Critic's Choice Awards)

Wins

2000

2001

2002

  • Best Actor (Roadshow Cinema Grand Prix Awards, Japan)

2003

  • Best Film Star/Actor (Dutch Kids Choice Awards)
  • Young Celebrity of the Year (ITV Celebrity Awards)

2004

Note: Even some of these are dubious, but I'm trying to err on the side of caution (the David di Donatello Award, by the way, appears to be Italy's equivalent of the US Oscar). The only magazine reference I think should survive is Time For Kids, as Time qualifies as venerable. RadioKirk talk to me 17:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References

Does anyone else think that the "References" section pleading us to check out the two fan sites is just in appropriate? Should it just be removed completely? Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what exactly need to be sourced? Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see that snuck in; I have restored it to its previous data. The congratulative self-reference violated WP:EL #s 3 and 9 and did not add to the article. RadioKirk talk to me 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Equus

There is no mention of Dan's upcoming stage debut. Is such news allowed to be included? --Quintopia 01:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is in the text. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is in the text - but there is no valid citation. The original cite at danradcliffe.com led to no such information. Please provide a proper source reference. --T-dot 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating; it was there, now it's gone—all trace. Not so factual after all, perhaps? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This illustrates exactly the major problem with unauthorized fan-based web sites set up for celebrities. There is no accountability, no traceability, no authority - and gossip, rumours, and flat-out lies rule their world - the crazier the better. I move to rapidly strike the comments about Equus in the Radcliffe article, unless someone comes up with an authoritative source soon. --T-dot 23:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and done. Unfortunate, however; the unofficial sites which claim to have assistance from the Radcliffe family need to do a better job of getting things right, and with proof, evidently... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps now we have uncovered some proof, which is all that is required to meet the Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability - see WP:V. Can anyone authenticate this news clipping from mugglenet.com as provided by anonymous User:24.130.137.21 [3] ? I for one would not want to be known as a "fascist article editor", if there is supporting evidence to bring to the table. --T-dot 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Good question; Mugglenet claims the clipping to be from the Herald Sun, but all evidence of that has been clipped from the scan. Also, the Herald Sun is considered a tabloid, and I am unaware of its reputation. Perhaps some editors familiar with its rep can weigh in. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5223520.stm There's your source, right there. 68.12.100.206
THANK YOU everyone. Now that is how it is supposed to work! We don't need the name calling or angry retorts - just proper, verifiable, and reliable sources when something new and sensational like this is anonymously slipped into the article. Once we have reliable and verifiable sources at hand, the "fascist article editors" (that is - the Counter-Vandalism Unit and other Protectors of the Wikipedia) certainly have no problem with allowing it. --T-dot 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

School

I am brand new here please tell me what I am doing wrong so that I do not make the same mistakes in the future.

This came from http://www.snitchseeker.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=22450&highlight=shiplake

Dan Radcliffe joins £16,000 a year school

Harry Potter star, Daniel Radcliffe has started as a pupil at a boarding school which is the spitting image of Hogwarts.

The 15-year-old now attends the exclusive £16,000-a-year Shiplake College, set in Oxfordshire woodland.

Shiplake is known as a school for the rich and the famous - George Harrison's son, Dhani, was a pupil.

A close friend of Daniel said: "Shiplake is certainly big on drama and theatre lessons. It is well-known for its excellence in the arts and Daniel is fitting in very well."

Source: The Sunday Mirror http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/

--Cowarth 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First, put your signature at the end of the post with four tildes (~~~~) rather than the beginning of the post; it's easier to read that way. Second, I'm not certain, but I think The Sunday Mirror is a tabloid and, if so, it would not qualify as a reliable source. Third, it's best to include the source as a reference within the article itself (see the references already there to learn how to include them). Happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

After doing some more searching, I believe that this is a false report, I am unable to find any other sources to verify this claim. --Cowarth 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Extras?

There is no mention of his appearance on Extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2006

Equus "controversy"

Given the actors age, controversy has been stirred

I've removed the above, as I've seen no evidence of any "controversy" or of Radcliffe's age being an issue (he will be almost 18 when the play opens, and a 17 year old young man appearing nude on the London stage is hardly the sort of thing to raise eyebrows these days). The role has obviously generated a lot of media interest, but no real negative attention as far as I can tell. 217.155.20.163 12:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish

He is Jewish, see this quote:

“My mum was of Jewish blood and my dad was protestant,” [4]

Judiaism follows matrilineal descent, which means Jewish mom = Jewish kid. Also see this quote from the Wikipedia article on Judaism, under the section entitled "Who is a Jew":

"Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people."

John Reaves 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

well does he practice? Does he identify as a Jew? By matrilineal descent I am Jew but no one in my family has practice since the early 1900s. It's about self-identity as well, not just ethno-religious descent.201.21.96.49 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We only know about it because he said so in a TV interview and it was confirmed by his grandmother. He and his family aren't hiding it.--Runcorn 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know a way to tell! Anyone seen him in Equus? If you had a really good look, tell us if he's Jewish! 70.253.203.156 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, let's keep this conversation civilised people! It is public and lots of people will read it, expecting to find discussions on how to improve the article, not whether we've seen Dan in Equus or not - he's said he's part-Jewish, so let's take that has true. Lradrama 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo placement

Just wondering why a photo isn't in the infobox where it belongs... CaveatLectorTalk 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per fair-use criteria, only freely licensed media may be used to identify a living, public person. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what happened to the image that was there only last week. It appeared to be free, but it was nevertheless deleted... Mad Jack 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Schooling

According to the paper he has transferred from City of London school to a school that was only described as "near Fulham". Does anyone know which school it is so this info can be added to the article? Haddiscoe 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel is not dead

Please correct the mistake on the page cause I almost faint when I read the article, since it was shocking and untrue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.8.80.242 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

You need to clear your cache - in Firefox this is Ctrl R F5, in Internet Explorer Ctrl F5 I think, - that vandalism was removed about 5 1/2 hours ago and lasted 12 minutes. RHB Talk - Edits 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

I dont know u guys but i`m gonna protect this page, it`s like the 3th time today that I see reverting cuz of people very "happy" about his naked pics, and one with his theoretical death. Even when I agree with the pics stuff, I`ve prefer to discuss that on mugglenet or myspace rather than here ;)--ometzit<col> 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No you won't, you're not an administrator. Plus, the vandalism doesn't warrant semi-protection. John Reaves (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Like full protection, it is usually not a preemptive measure. However, Jimbo Wales has suggested semi-protection may be used in cases of "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "...would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often This is a minor importance biography. Also it never say that non-admin can use the semi protection policy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alextrevelian 006 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
It's on my watchlist, I'll keep reverting vandalism. Regardless, you have to an admin to protect a page–but you can go ahead and try if you want. John Reaves (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Popist Potter?

Is Dan descended from the well-known historical engish underground catholic (recusant) family of the Radcliffes? 82.131.210.162 10:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proof of my innocence...

On reverting an edit by a user with no account name, I was asked to prove myself after saying that Dan had signed up to star in the last two Harry Potter movies by User:RadioKirk. I am a trainee actor myself, and a honest Wikipedian, who spends a lot of time reverting stupid and unnecessary abuse, so I do know things like this you know...

Before I prove myself, there are two reasons why I would not lie on Wikipedia on this subject;

  • I am an honest person, and spend much of my time reverting abuse on the website, so I wouldn't mess others about...
  • I am an actor myself (albeit in training), and I know lots about Daniel Radcliffe, seen as he is one of those professionals who inspire me (I contributed lots of my extensive acting knowledge to the acting page.)

These are proof of my comment;

Enjoy reading... Lradrama 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of any dishonesty, so please don't take it that way; indeed, I quoted wikipedia policy in asking you for a reliable source. Attribution is the cornerstone of any encyclopedia and, sorry, but saying you're an actor and you know Radcliffe is original research, which also is against policy.
Of the three sources you've cited above, one does not note its source while a second uses an author without explaining who he is or where he got his information. The other, from Sun Herald, notes the source as the Associated Press and passes verifiability standards. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, at least we've made each other clear on our views, and I now understand your intentions. Thankyou for replying. Lradrama 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dan2.jpg

Even if it turns out this image is legit—and, I have some doubts—I'd like to see some discussion before its potential return to the article. Certainly, Wikipedia is not censored, but this policy primarily refers to articles in which there's a reasonable expectation that an image represents its subject, such as an image or diagram on vagina or penis. This particular image here suggests unnecessary exposition and, I believe, would unnecessarily (and this is key) shock younger Potter fans. Comments, please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be the case of "the picture sums up the situation perfectly". A young actor appears naked on stage-this shocks the media blah blah blah. We have a shocking image of the actor naked on stage, so this isn't unnecessary exposition. Regarding young fans-isn't there a template that says "this article may contain images that are not suitable for younger readers" or something along those lines? If not, i'll be happy to make one. This may be a case of us to keep goimg forward and if there's a storm we deal with it then and there. Regards. Dalejenkins 22:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
One quick technical argument: it was the pre-publicity that "shocked" people, not the nudity or even the performance; once the play opened, media ran stories of the response, and it pretty much ended there. No such image existed prior to the premiere, or it would have been all over the place. This image, even if legit (and, right now, that's a big "if"), would not correctly illustrate the text, IMO. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The image was all over the place, but just censored in most media as
A-it is against laws for newspapers etc...
B-most people don't want the standards of their webpage degraded.
Dalejenkins 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw no discussion of such on fan pages prior to the premiere, and I was watching for potential additions to the Wiki article... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

url for image in question (website of West End production): http://www.equustheplay.com/pr/index.php Daniloc 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have been ambiguous in my last comment, but I would have thought looking up the url I listed would confirm that only the tastefully cropped images or the ones with jeans are legit (not the fake photoshop image) 24.81.197.236 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Daniloc, that precise image is not on that page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, sorry if I've been ambiguous. My original intention was to say that only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Equus_col4_hires.jpg is on the url I provided. (I came upon this discussion with that legitimate image in place, so I presumed incorrectly you were looking for a url for that one.) I agree that Dan2.jpg is not on that url, and is not legit. That's why I reverted when Dalejenkins put up Dan2.jpg. I believe RadioKirk and I are in violent agreement. Daniloc 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniloc, for the clarification. In a few minutes, I will be presenting undeniable proof that this image is a fake. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As promised, incontrovertible proof that the image is faked, and this overlay proving it's the identical image and not a different pose.RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could have just asked his mohel... Daniloc 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Look up 'mohel' (in Wikipedia, perhaps ;). Those of us who have seen the West End production can attest to the mohel's visit, and why Dan2.jpg was obviously a fake. Daniloc 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I would not have accepted that as absolute proof. As I like to joke, I'm not Jewish, but my doctor apparently was... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A further note: I try to do these things by the book so I'm not abusing my administrator's privileges; a recognized theatre reviewer noting in print "the mohel's visit", as you put it, would be acceptable proof, but (and, with every respect) a Wiki editor saying he's seen the production is original research. To deny and delete an image requires that I offer up the incontrovertible, and that meant a direct comparison of the images. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Must apologise for my sense of humour. Not entirely unproductive an exchange, though - between my "mohel's visit" and your "original research", we've done the cause of obfuscation proud. (I grant that not a small percentage of the audience at the Gielgud Theatre is probably there for original research on... nice weather we're having, yes?) Daniloc 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe no need for apologies; my sense of humor is a bit dry for some. The funny part is, I know how Mel Brooks pronounces mohel (basically, moil), but I'd never gotten 'round to looking up the spelling—initially, I thought you'd misspelled "model", leading me to ask myself, "how am I supposed to find the model used to fake the image among tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of similar images on the Internet?" ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This was such a bad fake I'm surprised anyone thought it was real! (Wishful thinking maybe?) It isn't just his dick that's wrong, it's the entire lower half of his body. AdorableRuffian 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Roles under main photo

If two roles were to be noted, I would argue for Harry Potter and Alan Strang (Equus), instead of Potter and a role as a young child in David Copperfield. Daniloc 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Potter and Equus probably are his two most significant roles, but DC is a close third. He's the one on theDVD cover (not the adult DC), and each actor has one epsiode, so it's not as if he's only playing the younger version in flashback scenes or something. Amo 12:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Dan Radcliffe should have a photo from Harry Potter and Equus, because it's more towards variety - one is a film appearance, and the other a stage role. David Copperfield is TV so we don't see as much a broad view of his career. Lradrama 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Descent


I've reverted a change which removed Daniel Radcliffe from the category '...of Irish Descent...'. The editor who made the change may well have his/her reason, but I'd like to hear it. It's in the article that Radcliffe's father is from Northern Ireland. Admittedly that doesn't make him Irish, but Radcliffe has referred to himself in an interview as being half-Irish. Daniloc 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if we're being hyper-fussy, it can be argued that growing up in Northern Ireland doesn't necessarily mean that you're of Irish descent. Is there a verifiable reference for the interview?--Runcorn 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge above that 'Admittedly that doesn't (necessarily) make him Irish'. My memory is good... but I am also lazy. I remember his comment that he's half-Irish and the context in which he made it: I believe he was saying he's good at telling stories... after all, he's half-Irish. However, I know I'm never going to search through the many video clips available online to find the one where he says this. Sorry. 63.76.82.66 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In this article Harry is a Jewish Wiz, he mentions that his mother is Jewish and his dad Protestant. If Radcliffe senior is actually a Protestant from Northern Ireland, it's highly unlikely that he identifies as Irish, so the "half-Irish" thing was probably just an offhand joke. It certainly isn't grounds for stating that Radcliffe is of Irish descent. AdorableRuffian 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

his band.

i've heard that he has a rock band of his own. If this is true, can someone post infomation about it in the article? dposse 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An answer would be nice. dposse 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one responded, perhaps it isn't true? Faithlessthewonderboy 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he stated in an interview that he has no musical talent and, thus, isn't in a band. dr.alf 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Marcia Gresham

I've added a bit of detail on Marcia Gresham's TV roles (but only a BIT - after all, this is a Dan Radcliffe article). As such, I mentionned two - The Inspector Lynley mysteries (2002) and most recently, 'Walk Away and I Stumble' (2005). More details can be found on the IMDb. Lradrama 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does Marcia Gresham deserve her own article?--Runcorn 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe she does; after all, she plays an important role in the making of television dramas, and is becoming a big name herself due to the success of her son. Providing there's enough information out there, then there's no reason why she can't have her own article. Anyone with an IMDb page deserves a Wikipedia article. Lradrama 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that Marcia Gresham probably does deserve an article, not everyone with an IMDB page does. For example, one may argue that this actress does not (and hundreds of thousands like her) Mad Jack 21:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Yes, maybe not everyone... But Marcia Gresham I think. Lradrama 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed 'See also' section

These were listed under the additional 'See also' section: Harry Potter (book series), Harry Potter (films), Acting, Actor, Equus. There are links to all of these already within the text itself. Daniloc 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Lradrama 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's been put up again. And this time it should stay, because the subjects of the link are not easily accessible in the article, and most actually aren't there at all. Lradrama 10:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Equus Again

At different articles off Wikpedia and at different times in the course of this article the 'act in which Radcliffe appears nude' is sometimes reffered to as a 'sex scene'. Articles outside wikipedia say things like 'full-frontal sex'.

So which is it? Does he appear nude? Or is he actually having sex onstage? I mean, what exactly is he doing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.158.77 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

During one scene, he's fully nude, and simulates sexual intercourse with his female co-star, who is also completely nude.

He doesn't actually have sex on stage during the performance, as that would be illegal in the UK. You have to go to Amsterdam if you want to see that sort of thing. AdorableRuffian 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Charity Projects

I'd like to see an update on Dan's involvement in charity projects in this article. Dan is currently participating in project for Charity Projects Entertainment Fund (CPEF) and his segment will be televised in American Idol on April 25, 2007. Dan was also involved in other charity works aside from DEmelza but I don';t have a link to them. 203.177.100.184 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) jandee

Update to Charity Projects

The home page for Dan's favorite charity is Demelza House. One can make donations specifically on behalf of Dan from either of his official websites: Dan Radcliffe U.S. or Dan Radcliffe U.K. Dan has specifically requested that his fans make donations to Demelza House in lieu of sending him gifts for his birthday or Christmas. --NJM 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows

2009/2010?

2010, according to IMDb. Lradrama 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

David Copperfield - noteable role?

Doesn't anyone else think that Daniel Radcliffe's role in David Copperfield is noteable (infobox), because it was one of the main parts, and people are familiar with that. I think it should go in the infobox. Lradrama 10:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes. Rito Revollto 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Well, seen as no one-else has shared their views and no-ne has objected, I think I'll add it on. Any complaints now after all this time from regular editors to this article will be frowned upon. Lradrama 10:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan's new car

Right, time for some wiki-info on Daniel Radcliffe's new birthday present for next month - a Fiat Punto - his first new car. Worth putting in I think. So, here's the link for reference reasons:

  • [5]:Sky News - Radcliffe's new car

With regards, Lradrama 13:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 4 Update to this story: Dan's publicist has now confirmed that this rumour is completely false and was apparently someone's idea of a publicity stunt in the press. Rumour quashing posted on [6] --Eowynan 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

The Daniel Radcliffe article gets vandalised on a rather large scale and I'm sure lots of you have noticed. There are lots of people who revert this vandalism, which is good to see. But only the RC Patrol regulars (and MartinBot of course) actually warn the vandals and tell them to stop vandalising Wikipedia. Can the rest of you please consider it too? It's only right, and it lets vandals know what is accepted and what isn't. Thank you, Lradrama 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Details Magazine and Smoking

A recent edit said Details revealed Radcliffe was a smoker. Note that's not what the article said. What it said is that he smoked in Equus and December Boys.[7] Linking this here in case the prior comment is reverted back into the article. -FeralDruid 07:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actors who are required to smoke in various roles may well not smoke in real life - that is quite a common occurance. It is just one of the things that has to be done in that profession (similar with kissing, sex scenes, stunts - although stunt men are often employed!) Actors also have the option to smoke 'herbal cigarettes' if they are that frightened of putting the smouldering stick in their mouth ;-) Lradrama 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In recent interviews during his promotional tour for "December Boys", Dan clarified that he is not a smoker in his personal life and that when required to smoke for scenes such as in "Equus" and "December Boys", he used herbal cigarettes. He further commented that they're quite nasty tasting, but must be inhaled, as otherwise too much smoke is expelled which doesn't look convincing on stage or screen.

--Eowynan 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed

I'm sorry but this article is just not stable enough to be sensibly reviewed. According to the edit summaries there are large chunks of text regularly coming and going. Please resubmit the article again for GA review when the article is stable. -- Johnfos 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Early life section pranks?

I wondered if someone has noticed (or if it is just my ignorance) that the "Early Life" section sounds more like a prank than real facts? Especially information about he and Emma Watson, the neighbour catching him naked, etc. I am no daniel radcliffe pro, but the "Early life" section doesn't sound much like encyclopedic information. Bpzahl 12:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't like that now, it must have been vandalism - it is extremely typical of the things that vandals put onto this article. Sorry you had to read it when it was in that state. Lradrama 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet rumours

I'm getting really fed up now of people putting things like 'He communicates with fans over Myspace / MSN / hotmail / Beebo' because it is all false. He has repeatedly denied communicating with fans over the internet. Can we stop putting these claims on the article please, because all they do is get reverted. Lradrama 10:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Lradrama. There are so many false rumours and information that the tabloids put out about Dan that no one should be posting anything in this article without confirmation. Unless something is confirmed by the official U.S. and U.K. websites, both of which work closely with Dan's publicist, Vanessa, and Alan Radcliffe, his father and agent, everything else should be considered speculation or false.
--NJM 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I helped address that yesterday by requesting semi-protection for the article which was granted. For the next two weeks, anonymous/IP editors will be unable to modify and that's where that IM/spam was coming from. Hopefully they'll go away and forget about it when they are unable to get the instant satisfaction. AUTiger » talk 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for doing that. Look at the article history before it's just expired - bliss! Lradrama 15:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

critical reviews

Since he is an actor I believe critical reviews of his acting should be part of his page. The listing of his awards and nominations seem to portray only one side of his perceived talents as an actor. As most harry potter fans will attest Daniel Radcliffe has been a very poor actor. Critical reviews attest to his shortcomings. For instance the New York Times in its recent Harry Potter feature quietly criticized his acting abilities or lack there of. (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/20070714_POTTER.html) As both critics mention it was clear from the earlier movies which of the young three actors were the stronger and as they endorsed and praised the abilities of both "Ron" and "Hermione" and chose not to mention the exploits of Mr. Radcliffe it was rather obvious what their feelings were of the young actor. These feelings have long been discussed among fans and critics alike and it seems only fair some mention of these beliefs are shared within the wiki community.

School subjects.

What did Daniel Radcliffe study for his G.C.S.E's and what subjects did he do for his A-levels??

I know for his A-Levels, he studied English and RE and one other, but I can't remember! He didn't study drama as many people think though! (That would have have been too much of a commitment to fit in with his filming schedule!) Lradrama 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord's Test

The Hindu Times is quoted as saying DR queued up for Tendulkar's and Strauss's autographs at the end of the Lord's test match. The BBC radio's Test Match Special interviewed DR before the end when he had already got Strauss's autograph. And they reported DR left before the end - so perhaps the Hindu Times isn't right. (Strauss wanted DR to sign the new HP book for his daughter (or someone) and asked the BBC to help him get it. He didn't realise that he had in fact given his autograph to DR himself! Amazing stuff.) 88888

It is amazing stuff yes, unless it's not just another publicity stunt again :-(. Not one for going in that article though. Lradrama 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Am I right in thinking that the first sentence about celebrities must contain a nationality? If so why does it so often state "English" as a nationality. England is not a nation and hasnt been for over 300 year consequently English is no longer a nationality. I am British myself and I must say it makes me sick seeing "English" stated as a nationality. It is factually wrong and discriminating towards people from "Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland" (also no longer nations). Notice Dame Maggie Smith (who would be "scottish") is characterized under "British". How about we start characterizing people as Virginians instead of US-Americans? I would be very gratefull for someone to appreciate the problem and do something about it. Thank you --Camaeron 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. I'll change it on this article if you feel strongly about it. Bear in mind though, that Dan Radcliffe was born in Fulham, London and therefore is definately English. Lradrama 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Try and set your personal feelings aside, Camaeron. In general, it's the English who refer to themselves as British. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish tend to refer to themselves as Scottish, Welsh and Irish (the N.I. catholics, anyway). I have never met a Scot who would call themselves British, and fail to see how the term English is in any way discriminatory against them.
Further, the term British is confusing outside the U.K. Sadly, there aren't many within the U.S. who understand the distinction. Referring to an English actor or author as English is clearer for those outside the U.K. -FeralDruid 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely what counts most is it actually being a nationality!? Isnt there some kind of rule a nationality has to be included in the first sentence? Despite my "Scottish" sounding name I am actually "English" so I am unbiased. If the terms "English", "Scottish" "Welsh" And "Northern Irish" are still going to be used dont you agree it would be better to change the articles which state British? This isnt really what I would have hoped for but it makes sense from your point of view surely? Thanks for your opinions. --Camaeron 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just had another thought: What is written if someone is half "English" half "Scottish". Legally no distinction is made so wouldnt it be rather difficult? --Camaeron 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just put British to the example you've just made above. P.S. are we all happy with it British or English after this debate? Lradrama 10:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Prefer English, for consistency with respect to so many other articles. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Judy Dench, Sean Connery, ... all of them say English, Irish or Scottish. None say British. -FeralDruid 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

'Surely what counts most is it actually being a nationality!?...' The flaw in Camaeron's argument is that Britain is no more a political nation today than is England. The political entity is the United Kingdom (of which Great Britain is only a part), so to be strictly consistent with what he is claiming, Daniel would be a 'UK actor'. Hardly anyone would argue for that designation, which illustrates that in this case the political definition of 'nation' is not what should apply. Furthermore, despite Camaeron's further claim, many, many more English, Scottish and Welsh men and women would vehemently oppose the notion that England, Scotland and Wales are no longer nations, than would agree. Here nationality is a cultural distinction, and if you can't see that, then consider the hypothetical (but illustrative) case of an actor known for his Scottish brogue - would it make more sense to say he's a 'British actor' or a 'Scottish actor'? What about an actor known for staging Welsh language productions - 'British actor' or 'Welsh actor'? To argue that 'British' should trump 'English', 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' is nonsense. Unless you can find an interview where Daniel self-identifies as 'British, but not English', he is an 'English actor'. 24.84.129.22 07:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, was not logged-in. Daniloc 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

After reading all your views, I have to say I do actually prefer it as 'English actor'. British is too much of a strong inicator on 'English'. P.S. I use the 'English actor' way when describing myself on my userpage so it must be right! Hehe Lradrama 14:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes me doubt very much that you are a UK citizen. If you were you would know that even though the state given in UK passports is The United Kingdom (of GB and NI)(You are entirely correct in stating that GB is not a nation) the nationality given is actually British. Thus your statement about "which illustrates that in this case the political definition of 'nation' is not what should apply" is invalidated. Whether British citizen agree that they are British is neither here nore their. Why even wikipedia articles claim England Wales etc are no longer "states". I am perfectly willing for them to be left as "English" actors I am merely stating that "English" is not a "nationality" if one is being politically correct. Though one must admit doing away with "British" would simplify matters would it not? There is no need for some people to be British and others to be "English". Thank you for your time --Camaeron 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact there is a perfectly valid reason why both the terms 'British' and 'English' are in use. There are, of course, people who are British without being English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. Central London is crammed full of people who rightfully identify as British, but who cannot claim to be English. You seem stuck on the idea that nationhood is only a political concept. The People's Republic of China has made sure Tibet no longer exists as an independent political state, and yet how accurate would an encyclopaedia article be that refers to the Dalai Lama as a Chinese monk? 74.95.127.101 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (Aargh... logging in... Daniloc 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Thats exactly beside the point....By my arguing (and officially Ill have you all know) there are only British people, no one is (by nationality) "English" unless one is refering to people who lived hundreds of years back (pre union) in a nation/state (that existed back then but no longer does) by the name of England. --Camaeron 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you are stuck on 'nationality' being defined solely by a person's association with a recognised political state. That is one way of definining nationality, but not the only one. Note that I agree with you that 'English' is not a nationality if one were only accepting your definition. However, the point of an encyclopaedia is to provide information, and what I am saying is that if we follow your argument, then Wikipedia articles will become more obscure. For example, Robert Burns was born after the Acts of Union 1707, which means he lived his entire life in the political state that was already Kingdom of Great Britain, not the political state of Scotland. By your argument, Wikipedia would be listing Robert Burns as a British poet, which although technically true is so much less informative than listing him as a Scottish poet. It's somewhat important that Robert Burns be identified specifically as Scottish, not just British, in an encyclopaedia, don't you think? Now, since to this day there still are relevant distinctions between Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen (cultural distinctions, for example), it's useful and informative to stick with the terms English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, rather than being less informative and labeling all of them British. Daniloc 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I only partly agree, wouldnt it be best not to use the term British at all then? Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen are quite enough to be getting along with. Especially if one is foreign and doesnt understand all the confusing differences. --Camaeron 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would only be workable if every British person worthy of an article could be accurately classified in one of the buckets: English, Scottish, etc. This is not true, so the catch-all 'British' remains useful. Life is full of exceptions to rules. Daniloc 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Or in this case not enough rules. If the rule would be: a nationality must be stated in the first line then there would be no question, as English etc in not an offial nationality. --Camaeron 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Lead does not follow WP guideline: see Lead.

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To edit the page "Daniel Radcliffe"

Hello,

Could you please let me edit this page because there are a couple of grammar errors.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.83.228 (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to register an account, after which you would be able to edit protected articles. Cheers, faithless (speak) 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be OK to edit it now though. We had to limit the amount the amount of people who could edit it due to high amounts of vandalism. Lradrama 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Radcliffe/Archive_1&oldid=836161813"