Talk:Daniel Radcliffe

Archived talk page

I have archived the talk page, as it was incredibly long and had comments dating back to 2003. I believe, for the most part, I did it right (it was my first time doing this), but if you know of a better way, please feel free to modify as necessary. Anakinjmt 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Game

Daniel did not do the voice over of Harry for the fifth Harry Potter game. He was busy doing Equus. Adam Sapp did Harry's voice in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.171.66 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AKS-74U

Hey, as per talk page, this article was not to be merged with AK-74. It was done anyways. Please don't jump the gun and accuse me of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.235.30 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Read on a newspaper, Paparazzi section and I've found an article about a breakup between Radcliffe and another British actress, Laura O'Toole about 4 years older then him. I am very surprised that despite that being highly publicized in the UK (and also the US) there is no mention about the relationship even I've several TV reports on questioning about Radcliffe and relationships and stuff like that. I guess maybe part because O'Toole, despite playing on Equus (so as Radcliffe), doesn't have an article. But should it be mentionned in this article since most relations involving celebrities when being actor or whatever are mentionned. I've only seen a few weeks ago about being a rumor, but apparently there was a relationship between the two British actors.--JForget 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No proper source for Daniel Radcliffe having any relationship :) Unless you can cite it, of course... BlackPearl14 _{Miss Granger}\^{Pirate Lord-ess} 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking up Google typing Radcliffe O'Toole, gave me this as first source and it's about their split.--JForget 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's strange. And was there any other source than just this? You can put it in, but remember to put a <*ref>(url)</*ref> tag (w/o the stars) right next to it. I'll have to look that up to make sure it isn't something that was posted in a rumour newspaper. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added mention of it with a source, apparently they never made it public although there were rumours/reports since November 2007. Actually, there are numerous articles (okay probably some of them are copy and paste from the same news agency via several sites). One of the articles also mentions a relation between Hermione (Emma Watson) and rugby star Tom Ducker (although the latter doesn't even had an article tooJForget 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; just forget about the Emma Watson and Tom Ducker thing, it's never happened. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Until some of the non-gossip sites have an article on that, there's no problem to remove it for now. Anyways, O'Toole doesn't even had an article as of now. Although, I may be wrong but she may pass WP:BIO.--JForget 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes zero difference how many sources are linked to for such a piece of information - the info itself is the stuff of gossip columns, so it would never belong in a proper encyclopaedia entry. Including this trivial info adds no value. If anything, it reduces this 'Daniel Radcliffe' page as a pathetic joke of an encyclopaedia entry. Daniloc (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I talked to him about just that on his talk page. In addition, the "so wants Jessica thing" (unless it's referring to you) is not true. Sorry. BlackPearl14^{Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias} 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the kiss he received from presenter James Corden when accepting his Whatsonstage award is notable enough to be included. There has been a lot of talk about it, particularly with the fact that he seemed to be nearly attacked with it or rather if it was planned as a publicity stunt.

His representative said that Radcliffe wasn't embarrassed, saying, "It was a spontaneous gesture that was very funny. Daniel took it in the light-hearted spirit it was intended."

He also bought another apartment in New York for USD$4.9 million. More information about it in the reference.

James Ryan (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributors really need to understand what is typically included in a biographical entry in an encyclopaedia. I'm afraid that excludes a lot of trivial information that would be found on fan websites or blogs, and the tabloids. As it is, there's too much of that stuff already, threatening to debase Wikipedia into Wikinquirer. Please don't add any more. Daniloc (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the placement of mentioning his real estate purchases directly after a quote about his not being extravagant... this seems unfair to me, because it appears to infer that he was actually extravagant after saying he would not be. But he purchased a place in Manhattan to live in while he worked there. The sources regarding both real estate purchases indicate that he purchased one as an income property and a second one as a residence while he was working nearby, which is perfectly reasonable and not at all uncommon for a working actor with his income. There are far more expensive places in Manhattan he could have purchased if he really wanted to be extravagant, as it is one of the most expensive cities in the world. I would like to see this adjusted to be more fair and neutral than it currently is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The crapola about the bands he likes (which all happen to be crap, which is neither here nor there) is not suitable material for Wikipedia. I really wish all the teeny-boppers would stick to the fanclub websites. You can tell the author wanted to add lots more crapola from Teen Beat, but restrained himself, thank God! Emmetlang (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hellos

Protect the page. --81.1.105.185 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Health Concerns

From Wikipedia:Verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V) 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'.

By that standard, information that originates from the following article from thesun.co.uk does not qualify. Not only does that tabloid have no reputation for fact-checking, its reputation is for outright fabrication.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article924465.ece

24.86.253.211 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sun is a good enough source. faithless (^speak) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You must have tongue firmly in cheek, as the Wiki article on The Sun you reference has this to say under 'Sensationalism':

More generally, the Murdoch Sun has been criticised since its launch for its sensationalism, which on occasion has led it to publish stories on the most spurious evidence, and for its focus on celebrities for its news and feature coverage. It has regularly been accused of appealing to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down public discourse.

The paper's knack for sensationalism doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten to something like, "The Sun reports that Radcliffe..."? It's not the New York Times or BBC, but it is the most widely read newspaper in the English-speaking world, and a story about an actor's smoking habits isn't exactly a WP:BLP violation. For our purposes, The Sun is a reliable source. faithless (^speak) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at the archived talk page here, you will also find under 'Equus' another discussion where tabloid as source was considered inadequate for reliability.

Beyond that, thesun.co.uk had also reported Radcliffe was under such a serious threat that he was under guard by ex-SAS agents, and yet within two weeks they also published the article about his smoking habit which included the detail of him smoking more because he's out and about with smokers Stephen Fry and Kevin Spacey. Not even bothering to explain the contradiction that he is so seriously threatened, yet he's out on the town, they also reported within the same period that Radcliffe requested the ex-SAS agents guard his dogs - even for The Sun, so obviously outlandish, unless one is gullible enough to believe it isn't an insult to ex-SAS professionals to ask they risk their lives for dogs.

If that sort of reporting doesn't make it apparent that it's silly season at the Sun on Radcliffe, then why bother pretending there are even any standards on what can be included in articles here?

Last point: One would think with a smoking habit like that, there'd be more than one tabloid who can unearth someone willing to talk for a bit of cash. And yet no other like story from any other source.

I'm afraid you're on seriously shaky ground if you're trying to argue the reliability of The Sun.

Where to start - I get that you don't like the paper and/or don't consider it reliable, and I'm not arguing against that, per se. And if this was anything even slightly controversial, I'd agree with you. But the level of reliability required of a source is directly proportional to seriousness the assertion it is sourcing. If Radcliffe came out as a gay, it would need very solid citations, i.e. the New York Times, BBC, etc. A person's cigarette smoking habit, on the other hand, is such a minor issue that we don't require nearly the degree of quality sourcing. As it's often put, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." We both agree that The Sun is in no way an exceptional source but, as it's backing up such an insignificant assertion, its use is acceptable here. The more important issue as I see it is whether or not his cigarette smoking warrants a mention in the article at all. faithless (^speak) 08:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your ending statement, it is not what you have been arguing before this. Secondly I doubt you'll find much support for the idea that claiming a pack a day smoking habit for an eighteen-year-old is 'such an insignificant assertion'. Lastly, you know very well even if (and that's IF) it truly were an insignificant statement, it still wouldn't pass muster if there were no citation. You are arguing that one very highly dubious citation is sufficient, as if the difference between zero and sketchy represented the upholding of some worthy standard.

His death

Yoh everybody, don't get me wrong...But I just saw on CNN that this motherfucker got killed, stabbed to death !

Shiiiit...No more harry potter movies !

I think you're thinking of Robert Knox, who appears as Marcus Belby in 'Half-Blood Prince. --Cubs Fan (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't Daniel Radcliffe... http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/25/potter.killed.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.127.16 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Promotional photo"

The nude photo of Dan is a fake. It is real down until about the lower torso. The bottom has been doctored. I have seen the source photo of the bottom as proof, and I can find it if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.59.112 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do find it, and direct us to it. Kingturtle (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a naked picture of him on Wikipedia? There are enough nude pictures on this website to fill a book :-S. Bear in mind the amount of people of all ages who will read this article. Lradrama 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The play Radcliffe chose to perform (to wide acclaim) is a terrific work. He is proud of this work and he is making great strides in his career with it. Kingturtle (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely NOT WORK SAFE, but here you go, and as you can see, this guy's legs have been chopped off and reversed to be included in Dan's photo: Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.59.112 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We have an audience to think of, not Dan himself. Lradrama 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I know my concern is for the audience, since they were being given misinformation on this site with that picture there. I could really care less about seeing Dan Radcliffe nude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.59.112 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A nude photo is somewhat inappropriate on this site, but couldn't we have one where he doesn't have his mouth open like he was talking or something? I agree with Lradrama. 96.242.5.155 (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

As Radcliffe said in an interview that even though he has a Jewish mother, he isn't religious himself, shouldn't he really be take off the Jewish Actors category?

'Jewish' is a race as well as a religion, and those of appropriate Jewish ancestry are considered Jews even if they don't believe in the religious aspects. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He's also stated that he is "very proud of being Jewish" (talking, I guess, in the ethnic sense). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

'Jewish' is not a race but an Ethnic group. An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed [Wikipedia, Ethnic group]. White is a race, but stuff like Latin or Latino, Jewish, Muslim or Hispanic are not races. Are you American? Americans usually have problems with the term race. It's not a criticism though. --Andrewire (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your offensive characterization of a nation of 300 million people is not only wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but also entirely inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. Please refrain from making jingoistic remarks against your fellow editors in the future. faithless (^speak) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I said it wasn't a criticism or anything. If you took it like an offense that's your problem, not mine. I am entitled to my opinion based on the fact that people in America do not understand things like this: Latin or Latino refers to people from a country were the language comes form Latin, therefore it's an ethnicity. Most of the time you see American people calling Latins or Latinos "a race". Just like the fellow editor referred to the Jewish people. I don't think this is irrelevant because that user is stating that Daniel Radcliffe belongs to the "Jewish race", something that does not exist. Finally, I appreciate your elaborated use of the English Language, but I would also appreciate if you restrain from using words like jingoistic where it doesn't make any sense. --Andrewire (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying "no offense" does not give you free reign to make blatantly inappropriate and offensive remarks, and you can't insult someone and then blame them for being offended. Furthermore, your assertion that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world is no more true or acceptable than saying that the Irish are drunks, Jews are cheap, the French are cowards, or any number of other disgusting stereotypes. You can think whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous, but Wikipedia is not a place to espouse your prejudices. You disagreed with something that one editor said, and therefore think it's acceptable to say that 300 million people are stupid ("the fact that people in America do not understand things")? This is so absurd that I don't think I even have to go on. And I don't know what it is about my use of the English language that you find "elaborate," but that is neither here nor there. You're making a sweepingly negative generalization about the population of another country, judging yourself to be superior; I'd say that that does a fine job of illustrating the "attitude of belligerent nationalism" which the Encyclopædia Britannica defines as jingoism. This page is to discuss improvements to the article for Daniel Radcliffe, not a place to attack the nationality of other editors with absurdly bigoted claims. Let's focus on that and leave the anti-Americanism at the door. faithless (^speak) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism? belligerent nationalism? 300 million people are stupid? I beg your pardom but I never said any of tose remarks. Those are the product of your prejudiced mind. You don't know what you are talking about, obviously. I am entitled to my opinion -like it or not- and if you have a problem with that, I can't do anything. I didn't even mention the term 'ignorant'. I referred to an issue in Mr. Radcliffe's page, an affirmation made by another editor that is not true [saying that Jewish is a race]. You clearly do not understand the term jingoism. I never wrote a word about my country or any other national affiliations that I may have, therefore, there's no attitude of belligerent nationalism. You should read Wikipedia's article about the term: Early uses of the term in the USA were connected to the foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt, who was frequently accused of jingoism. I am very sorry tat you have to insult me just because you disagree with me. Perhaps you should understand that people from other countries outside the United States have rights as well and we do not have to agree with you just because you are from America. If you want to keep changing my statements I recommend you read the terms of use of Wikipedia. --Andrewire (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we realy have "nude" linked? Pirakafreak24 ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• 'Jewish' is a race as well as a religion, and those of appropriate Jewish ancestry are considered Jews even if they don't believe in the religious aspects. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jews not are a race, Judaism is a religion and not a race!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.54.68 (talk)

No. See Jew. Can we drop this now? faithless (^speak) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Jew yeah, but not a religious Jew (as you can tell by viewing the photos)Tobri (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe claims to be an Atheist in this article. 

Daniel Radcliffe Homosexuality Error

It is not confirmed that he is gay. They are rumors only so far and if it was true, the statement needs to be cited. I do not know how to edit this myself, and would rather not get in a debate as I will not be coming back to this page. Someone please fix this error, it's if anything, unfounded until cited. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.160.22 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

december boys info is wrong

in the Stage and screen credits - films section, it states he played Maps an 18 year old orphan. can someone please correct this, as it's wrong. he states in the film that the orphanage make you leave when you are 18, so therefore he can't be 18, as he's still at the orphanage... i can't change it as the page is locked for some reason. 77.97.110.57 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No bass playage

He doesn't actually play bass guitar, read here> [1], someone fix this as i can not.Thakmere (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done All Hallow's (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"His T-shirt was part of the Tsunami Clothes Auction which raised money for the Rebuilding Sri Lanka Organization. He wore the t-shirt during the making of the film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. These T-shirts were only issued to members of the cast and crew. His shirt raised £520 or $811.80."

This needs to be cited. You cannot state something as fact without citing it, especially not this.