Jump to content

Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Another things people should know

In ELLE Girl interview "Emma! What's up", Emma said something about her career in the future and some other things people should know. Why don't we add them in the page ? That's a good idea. I agree (Punk Rocker 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Fansites

No More listing of Fan sites Can we like like lock the page? There seems to be some vandalism going on


Place of birth

I've seen sources citing her place of birth as Oxford, Oxfordshire, England; others say she was born in Paris, France, and moved to Oxford at a young age. I can't find absolute confirmation of either. Anyone? RadioKirk 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

-- In "Evening Standard" Emma said the reporter cleary that she was born in Paris while her parents worked there as lawyer. She moved to England when she was five. Right after that her parents get divorced. FallingDown 18:48, January 29, 2006 (CET)

The Evening Standard is a tabloid of dubious reputation. This does not count as a reliable source. --Yamla 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Emma Watson was born in Oxford, England and moved to France for five years shortly after she was born. So her brother was born in France, but Emma was born in England. Stephe1987 03:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
BOTH were born in Paris. Emma said that million times herself but if you need a proof than w this watch and add the fact: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iEKgNibkd3g&search=emma%20watson%20speaking%20french (if it don't work time in 'emma watson speaking french'. it's the very first video)
Uh... yeah, okay, she speaks a bit of French, the rest is subtitled in French. Natasha Richardson speaks perfect French in The Parent Trap. This proves what, exactly? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 07:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The FACT that she say it herself - that she was born in France (and not for the first time) proofs it...
I didn't hear that in the sound file; in fact, I can't make out a bloody thing she says, nor can I read French. Anyone have a better video or can otherwise offer some confirmation? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Frühere Diskussion finden sich im Archiv.

French Connection

Speaking of which, what's the French connection here? A few shaky fan sites say that her mother is French. Is this true? Anyone know? If her mother is French, then why is her paternal grandmother's name "Charlotte Duerre"? Vulturell 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacqueline Duerre

Someone today changed "Chris" (Emma's father) to "Christopher", so I did a little research: Reporting in the UK and US on the actors' hirings identify her father as "Chris". Meantime, several fansites identify her mother as "Jacqueline Duerre", including the closest thing to an "official" Emma site I can find [1]. This could mean Emma was named for her mother's mother, or that "Emma" and "Duerre" are completely unrelated as relates to the actress. So, for now, I've passed over the reference as I investigate.

In any event, this needs official clarification. I'll try to contact her publicist. RadioKirk 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contact her publicist? We can do that?Vulturell 05:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone is free to contact her publicist. However the material from the publicist which isn't available elsewhere might be challenged as unverifiable. At a minimum, it'd be necessary to post the response on the talk page. -Willmcw 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw is correct on both counts—and, on the second, my plan is to do precisely that. RadioKirk 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, what could be done is post a scan of the response, scan the letter and post the scan. That would be considered verifiable, especially if you leave on the Publicist's contact information.--Azathar 07:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Presumably, this would be done by e-mail, or by phone with an e-mail for confirmation. If her pub's e-mail is not publicly known, I would have to edit it from the screenshot. I'll play it by ear... RadioKirk 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I have spoken with Amy at HPFilms (through Leavesden Studios publicity, at present the only representatives for Miss Watson), and she tells me that it may be a while before we receive the answers to our questions (Emma is in school at the moment). Nevertheless, I have sent the questions to Amy via e-mail, and I'll keep on top of this as best I can. RadioKirk 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Emma was featured in an article in the Evening Standard magazine (a well respected publication) which included a lot of info on her parents and upbringing. I'd be tempted to rely on it. You can find scans of the article here (go to the bottom and click on tabs of the next few pages to read them): http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=203&pos=26

Well, sort of; I'd already read the article and it includes some information, but it also contradicts other sources that say she was born in Oxford and was moved to Paris while very young. Also, there's nothing in it about the grandmother after whom she's supposedly named. I hope to get all this from HPFilms. RadioKirk 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex symbol

TenOfAllTrades removed the sex symbol category from this article and Liface added it back. I done a quick search and couldn't find any decent reference to back up her status as a "sex symbol" so I'm inded to remove the category too - what's everyone elses take on this? Remember: WP:CITE. Thanks/wangi 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I'll remove the category since it cannot be verified. Thanks/wangi 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
But of course RadioKirk beat me to it! ;) wangi 03:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL! You're welcome ;) RadioKirk 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

but she is a sex symbol :(

heh i dont really know what i am doing sorry for screwing up your guys encyclopedia :((

The previous unsigned comment was left by 164.76.162.135 (talk · contribs)

Hey, don't worry about "screwing up" the encyclopedia—it's yours, too, as long as your intentions are good. I cannot answer for the reasons the other editor made the reversion in this case, but I've also removed the "category" in the recent past. Watson, who turns 16 in April, certainly could be considered a sex symbol to a great number of people; however, until she's given the moniker by something resembling an official presence or publication, the statement is POV. <- This article would be a very good starting point as you grow with Wikipedia and contribute to an encyclopedia that must, by its very nature, be neutral in its presentations. I hope you stick around, and happy editing! RadioKirk talk to me 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that being a sex symbol has to do with anything, so there is no reason why it should ever be put in here. It is a fake status that tabloids arbitrarily assign to celebrities and is irrelevant to Emma and her life. Stephe1987 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I sure hope she's not in the sex symbol category! She is only 15, and still has over two years left before she turns 18. Of course, Charlotte Church won the "Bum of the Year Award" when she was only 16, which was also inappropriate. Just because she was of "legal" age didn't mean she was an adult or ready to be given such an award at a young age... and it sure didn't have a great effect on how she is now. She could have done a lot better with herself had they waited until she was at least 18, possibly even waiting until next year when she turns 21, to allow people to be placed into such categories.24.130.207.247 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This category should be in place now she's 16. See the following for reference to Emma Watson and co-stars becoming sex symbols, dating to late 2002: [2].
A Japanese reporter asks the young actors if they feel they have become junior sex symbols.
Emma blushes and giggles, and passes the question on to her co-star.
Daniel, who reveals that he has an un-Harry Potterish predilection for punk music, tells reporters: "I'm flattered by all the fan letters I get. But I don't have a girlfriend or anything."
That's the entire reference; but, I still believe this is really beside the point.
It's not up to Wikipedia to bestow "sex symbol" status on Watson or anyone else; that pushes a POV. Once a legitimate expert (whatever that is [grin]) in the entertainment field—or, better, several of them—calls her a "sex symbol" then, by all means, the category should be there. RadioKirk talk to me 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't she be in the sex symbol category, because a lot of boys and young men like her. Angelaire
No; this is neither an adequate reason nor verifiable source for this information. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As I mention above, it's not up to Wikipedia or its users to bestow such a status upon anyone; once that comes from a widely recognized and accepted expert in the field (again, whatever that is [grin]), then, certainly. By the way, Angelaire, was there a reason for your edits to my user page? Just curious... RadioKirk talk to me 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry mate, it is probably my bad British sense of humour.Angelaire
'sokay. Take care, though; if you made a habit of expressing your sense of humor that way, it would be perceived as vandalism, and you'd probably find yourself pleading your case to the admin who blocked you. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


What about Roger Ebert's comment as sourced in article that Emma Watson "is in the early stages of her babehood." ?? Anomo 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put that into the article before, but the people who think they "own" the article won't have it and edit it back out again.
Atlant 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

emma watson is a sex symbol: i go to a private school in nyc: when she comes here the guys (and girls too sometimes: but obviously they bet on guys) bet whether or not they can hook up with her. trust me: she is very beautiful, and shes a sex symbol..at least at my school! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.65.245 (talk • contribs) .

Place of Birth

In the November-Issue of "Evening Standard" said Emma (on page 46) that she was born in Paris while her parents were working there as lawyers and that they get divorced (after moving to England) when she was five. That must be proof enough, but if you want more to add Paris as Emmas place of birth I could post the scan of the interview were Emma said this herself.

-- FallingDown 14:47, January 25 2006 (CET)

The Evening Standard is a tabloid newspaper and is not considered a reliable source. --Yamla 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

-- But it's good enought to change the last name of Emma's mother in Duerre, isn't i? -- FallingDown 14:50, January 28 2006 (CET)

-- She was not born in Paris, seriously people! www.ewonline.net 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

--To clarify, Emma was not born in Paris. She was born in Oxford and moved to Paris right after she was born, and spent five years living there. However, Emma's younger brother was probably born in Paris because that's where they were living in 1993, at the time of his birth. Stephe1987 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma's age when hired for Philosopher's Stone

Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were introduced to the press in July, 2000, and the official press release came in August. [3] The film was released in November, 2001.[4] Emma (born 15 April 1990) was 10 and 11, respectively. RadioKirk talk to me 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Editor note

I out an editors note under external links asking them to not post links to fansites, but whenever I put it in, it removes all the information under it. can someone fix this?

--Karrmann

Emma, hyperactivity and Ritalin

This information continues to be added by an editor or editors who use as their source material http://adhdfamous.ca.cx/ and http://www.tv.com/emma-watson/person/65389/trivia.html. Websites edited by fans—or which cull data from websites edited by fans—are simply insufficient sources for information for an encyclopedia, which by its very nature can deal only in facts. In addition, the editor(s)—two IPs from Bell Canada and one from Rogers Cable, Canada (hm...)—added the edit summaries, "[a] quick search Emma watson hyperactive or emma watson ritalin on google can tell us" and "[i]f you don't trust the source search emma watson hyperactive on google." This is akin to an Encyclopædia Britannica editor saying, "I wrote it, you confirm it." Clearly, this is not how to write an encyclopedia; it is incumbent upon the editor to cite sources, and especially when making changes to an existing article. If the editor(s) (has/have) any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. RadioKirk talk to me 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this, and was heading over here to do the same thing. :-) Anyone can put up a website or start a rumor, but we need reliable sources. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But.. it's true that she has ADHD ! search on google ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.142.135 (talk • contribs)

Please learn how to cite. --Yamla 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
With all possible respect to several people who just don't get it, let's say you're a famous person and I have a blog that's read by a lot of people (respected or not). All I'd have to do is type that a source on your movie set saw you taking medication for ADHD. That's literally all I'd have to do. Within just a few months, other bloggers will have picked it up, tabloid media (online or otherwise) will disseminate it, and then someone will put it on your Wikipedia page as fact, claiming, "it's true, it's all over Google!"
Get the picture?
RadioKirk talk to me 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, she said it on the T.V., and medias don't take informations on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.132.126 (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying she does or does not have it; the question is, where's the reliable source? Without one, it will not survive placement on this article. RadioKirk talk to me 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it fascinating that the only person(s) pushing this dubious "fact" is/are from the Totonto area? RadioKirk talk to me 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson drinking alcohol

Anyone seen the picture of Emma Watson drinking a beer? source Isn't she underage? --Rachel Cakes 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person remaining on this planet who can recognize an obviously posed joke? Gawd, the human race is in freakin' trouble... RadioKirk talk to me 03:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
According to this (look under UK), it would appear she is at a private residence and probably has adult approval, therefore it is totally legal. The media is gonna have a field day with that one though..... -Maverick 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Radiokirk, I hope you weren't referring to me when you said that the human race would be in trouble. That is not a very civil thing to say.
It is rather useful if you explain the photo rather than comment in a sarcastic, unhelpful tone. And thankyou, Maverick for explaining the photo to me. --Rachel Cakes 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment about the human race stands because, frankly, we are; however, I let my bad mood get the better of me last night and took it out on you individually. That was wrong. Please accept my apologies. RadioKirk talk to me 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen two other pictures of her with alcohol and I definitely don't think she's just posing with them. Of course, they could just be fake. 70.48.166.233 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
They are not fake. In the two pics with the Corona, she's in a restaurant, and they imply she actually drank the beer, which is illegal until she turns 16 next month. In the other one, that's one of a series of about 20 pictures in which she's at a gathering with some friends. -Maverick 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
its isnt illegal if your in a reastraunt you only have to be over 14 to have alcohol in a reastraunt
According to at least three people here (I stopped reading about 1/3 of the way down as some of the comments are not particularly nice...), it's legal if you're 14 and older, if it's brought by someone 18 and older and served with your food. Still, how obviously posed does a pic have to be? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Said pictures can be found here. Another photograph shows her with the same corona bottle but empty.
Already seen 'em (had to hunt a bit, though). She sure looks like she's having all kinds of fun with a joke, to me (if you're holding an empty bottle, you must have drunk it, I guess...). There's also a picture with her holding a bottle with a reddish label that may or may not be a Budweiser—and which she may or may not be drinking—there's another on a different site purporting to be her actually taking a drink of something, but I blew up the snap in a photo editor and the person's hand appears to be empty. Whether she actually enjoys a beer is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned; the point is—at least, with the two restaurant shots—she's clearly having fun at someone's expense, media-field-day worthy or otherwise ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for the apology, Radiokirk. That was a very gracious of you.
Anyway, back to the picture. I guess that Emma is growing up and I think she is taking the mickey out of everyone, and she is probably trying to show everyone that she isn't a little girl anymore.
At least she has a sense of humour about it. I'm not sure whether or not she wanted the photos to be leaked, but I guess she couldn't have cared that much otherwise she wouldn't have posed for them.
But yes, the media is going to have a field day with these pics. --Rachel Cakes 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is legal for any child to be served beer or wine with a meal as long as they have parental permission and the bartender is ok with it. In the UK it's not a big deal for a 15 year old to have a beer, most people I know have had alcohol since they were 12-13. Citizen erased 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that to all the kids on the fan forums. Some of them are in utter denial over it. -Maverick 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how people see it as a big deal though. I mean, think of all the younger girls/girls her age that look up to her. What will they think if they see pictures of a movie star that's around their own age drinking? And the fact that the movie star plays the role of sweet, innocent Hermione. I understand that she's growing up and that teens her age do these things, but she could have taken more precautions to make sure the pictures wern't released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.150.194 (talk • contribs)

No argument there ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maverick commented that "In the other one, that's one of a series of about 20 pictures in which she's at a gathering with some friends.". I'm curious- where are those 20 pictures? I havnt found them anywhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.82.26 (talk • contribs)

I saw a group of pics; I forget where. She's in one, possibly two. RadioKirk talk to me 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To those who speculate that she's just posing with the beer and not actually drinking it: her cheeks are pink from drinking. User:Emmaking

So, they're not pink from laughing? Thanks for the anatomy lesson... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My face goes pink from drinking even if it is just half a serve of alcohol. Which is really annoying. Not sure how common it is, though.
Either way, I sincerely doubt that she would be with a group of her peers, at a party, holding a beer, but not have drunk anything. It's time to face the facts: she drinks. She is growing up and seems to be trying desperately to shed that goody-two shoes image. Which is understandable. :) --Rachel Cakes 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I'm not arguing that she doesn't, or even that I have a problem with it if she does. It does not belong in her encyclopedia article, however, primarily because it's neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. More immediately, the argument that "her cheeks are pink, therefore she drinks" is ludicrous—laughing does it, embarassment does it, etc. RadioKirk talk to me 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This link contains verifiable pictures that prooves she was drinking. http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/2006/03/02/hermione_still_loves_her_booze.html This is superior to the last link because the pictures were not blurred out, so it does pass verifiability and so the picture belongs in the article. DyslexicEditor 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to DyslexicEditor, these pictures "prove" she can hold a beer bottle—nothing more, nothing less. Further, there is literally zero evidence that the third picture is in any way related to the first two. Still, we're off point, as this entire argument continues to be a red herring within the purview of an encyclopedia; if, and only if, this issue received widespread coverage in the mainstream media—and particularly if she, her parents or her reps responded—would this approach what I would consider to be relevancy standards. Until and unless that happens, it's gratuitous (and, arguably, malicious). RadioKirk talk to me 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this stayed out of the media because she's a minor or because McCauly Culkin (sp?) did a whole lot more at that age. DyslexicEditor 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. This prohibition against drinking alcohol until you're in college is some uniquely American thing. And it doesn't even apply to all Americans ... Jewish people (and some Catholics, I suppose), drink wine at all ages as part of their religious ceremonies. --Cyde Weys 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think in one of the Harry Potter books the three main characters drank meade. DyslexicEditor 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyde nailed it. I've read a few of these blogs; it's entirely people in the US who are saying, "Oh, my God, she drinks beer!" (regardless whether she's actually drinking what she's holding) while UK residents respond "Yeah... and...?" and think we across the Pond have our knickers in a knot. Bottom line: the issue belongs in the blogs and on the fan pages and in the tabs, not in an encyclopedia. In the rare case when it does belong, it should be presented in a neutral voice and without unnecessary exposition; part of the reason why Lindsay Lohan is a Featured article. RadioKirk talk to me 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also pictures of her smoking cigarettes on the internet. Angelaire

Presuming they're accurate depictions, that would be unencyclopedic as well. Millions of people smoke, and I'd wager that somewhere near half of them are technically "underage". Sure, it's the best habit I ever quit, but, still... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
She looks so sexy on that picture. Punk Rocker
Ermm, who cares, even if it is fake, I had my first drink at 7...about a few mililitres of cider, I spat it out immedietly and brushed my tounge with a tooth brush for about an hour...I'm never gonna set foot in a alchahol shop again.I had my parents permission of course...They wanted to put me off it forever.--Centurion Ry 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the UK she is not underage wrt alcohol, so this is a non-issue. thx1138 13:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth and Mother maiden name

I hope this doesn't offend the contributors too much, but I have removed this section from the talk page. Basically, a researcher by the name of 217.79.113.130 did some research into the identities of Ms. Watson's parents, and presented the findings here. It was all very clever, and barked up all the right trees, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Although the sources the researcher consulted were public ones, the conclusions drawn from them are not common knowledge, and so have no place in Wikipedia. And, for the same reason, discussion of them is off-topic on the talk page. Normally I wouldn't much care what was posted on a talk page, but in this case I feel that people's privacy could be compromised. Of course, the researcher is right to challenge the made-up rumours that have spread across the Internet and have found their way into this article, but the correct way to do this is to point out that they are unverifiable, not by doing further research to contradict them. For the record, the following are made-up rumours, and are not true:

  1. Ms. Watson was born in Oxford/Oxfordshire
  2. Ms. Watson's mother has, or used to have, the surname "Duerre"
  3. Ms. Watson's mother is French
  4. One of Ms. Watson's grandmothers is named "Emma"

These should not be included in the article. But the reason they should not be included is that they cannot be verified from reliable published sources, not because we can do original research to prove them wrong. -- Oliver P. 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering (although you are correct about the original research claims - unless the person cites the exact newspaper page/date), how do you know for sure that all the bits of info you stated are not true? I mean, they certainly may well be not true, but she wasn't born in Oxford? Do you know where she was born? JackO'Lantern 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the birth announcement in The Times should go in, even with an exact citation, because it is not explicitly about the actress. (I.e. the announcement, for obvious reasons, would make no reference to her later acting career.) As researchers, we could reason that it almost certainly does refer to the actress, noting the coincidence of the date and the parents' forenames, but it is the fact that we would have to make such an inference that makes it original research. I think we should only include information about the actress if it is explicitly published as information about the actress, without us having to work that out for ourselves. As for how I know that the things above are untrue, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;) Ahem. I mean, it doesn't matter how I know they're untrue, because I'm not trying to assert their falsehood in the article. Only information that goes in the article needs to be verified. Of course, if anyone thinks they can verify that they are true, we're in trouble. But I'd like to see anyone try. :) The IMDb doesn't count, because it's mostly submitted by random members of the public, isn't it? Actually, the date of birth is suspect for the same reason that the place of birth was, but challenging that would lead to an even longer argument, so I think I'll leave that in for now... -- Oliver P. 09:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
All your points noted and I apologise, I was not aware that research was not allowed, and thought accuracy was important. My research, if you wish to call it that, of course does support your removal of 'made-up'rumours. What I did took about 10 minutes using publically accessible web resources, so while the information is not as you say 'common knowledge' it is public domain. I also acknowledge your point about invasion of privacy, this was something that was bothering me whilst I was checking but I felt the article would be better accurate. If I offended then I apologise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.79.113.130 (talk • contribs)
I don't think there's any need to apologize; other editors are merely explaining why some included information can't stay as it is. If I read WP:NOR correctly, it's not so much that original research is forbidden as it is that original research must be accompanied by citeable evidence for it to survive scrutiny by other editors. I, for one, appreciate your work and hope some confirmation of several missing details is forthcoming. Meantime, feel free to read the pages I've linked in this response; they'll help a lot. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. This is very odd about the birth place. Are you saying (and you certainly may be right) that no good source has ever reported her birth place? That's very odd for a relatively major actress. Maybe the IMDB's mistake just got spread around and no one bothered to correct it (not the first time). Radiokirk, you said up above somewhere that you could contact her agent and ask, so could we ask about her birth place (or date)? Since this is certainly the kind of basic information we should have, and the kind of info we need to have here, considering a lot of people are going to submit the Oxford birth place in the next while, thinking us ignorant. (And we would cite her agency if we find out, which I think we can and should do) JackO'Lantern 19:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a request in to HPFilms. I've had no response since the initial reply. Maybe now would be a good time for an e-mail reminder :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
lol indeed. JackO'Lantern 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I am also going to write to Emma for her birthday and I will include those questions with the letter I am sending to her. If you want to ask her any questions or write a birthday message to her, feel free to post on my talk page. I will send the letter out on April 3rd, and the deadline for submissions to the site is April 13th. The link to the birthday page I am making for Emma will be activated at 12:00am GMT on 15 April 2006. :) Stephe1987 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Presuming she replies, you do realize that she and/or her parents and/or her reps would have to consent to Internet publication of a photocopy of the letter for it to be a suitable source for Wikipedia, right? :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose her place of birth needs discussing, but since there is disagreement amongst sources, this should be stated in the article, rather than just saying, "She was born in Oxford," or "She was born in Paris," or whatever. References should be given for both. Also, I've removed the bit about her parents divorcing when Alex was a toddler. I can't find a reference for this; if someone can, it could be added back with the reference. -- Oliver P. 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of User:Gtapro91's edits

To fully explain this reversion, I left this message on the user's Talk page (which applies in part to the other reversions):

Your edits to Emma Watson have been reverted again. Please read and understand: Per this Wikipedia policy, editors should use "only ... facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Later in the policy under Sources, it states, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In short, fan sites do not qualify. At the same time, it is my belief that a comparison of hair color between Ms. Watson and her character fails the test of what is relevant to an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a fan page); Wikipedia:Editing policy#On editing styles includes the irrelevancy issue as a legitimate reason to remove data. I would ask that you please familiarize yourself with these and other policies so that you may be a more productive editor.

I'm adding this here as my edit summary was somewhat lacking in detail. RadioKirk talk to me 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}} tag variation

I added this template variation:

This article includes unconfirmed information or data from dubious sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate, verifiable citations.

This is based on the discussions on this page and the fact that most of what we think we know about Ms. Watson comes from fan pages. Until we have verifiable sources for this data, this tag should remain. RadioKirk talk to me 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me an idea of which specific data you're referring to? We don't really have much here about her personal life. Most is on her film career. JackO'Lantern 03:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Virtually everything about her personal life is from fan sites or is data from seemingly reputable sources that conflicts with data from other seemingly reputable sources; including her place of birth, her parents' precise names, their divorce, her early life, sports, nearly all of it. At the moment, I'm not prepared to take anything more than the names of the family cats (repeated in more than one interview) as set-in-stone fact. Seriously... RadioKirk talk to me 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

While i feel "best known for" suits actors who have amore varied CV, simply using "known for" in this case, however acurate, i think makes her sound like a villian. How about changing it to "who plays..."? Also, could someone archive some of this talkpage as the file's getting so big? Amo 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Daisy Pratt Poetry?

Has Emma ever actually stated that she won this 'Daisy Pratt Poetry Competition'? We seem to be removing all unsourced data from the article.Is this unsourced?

Being a pretty big Emma Watson fan, I personally have seen it written in numerous articles, magazine interviews, fan sites, etc. --Kevin Walter 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would consider this a reliable source. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That link also states she is a natural blonde,which according to Emma herself, is incorrect.

Actually, Emma has stated that while her hair is a natural brown, she has never dyed it, and it bleaches quite easily in the sun. Remember the Entertainment Weekly photoshoot? --Kevin Walter 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is it true that Emma Watson smokes and takes Ritalin (Punk Rocker 11:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

There is no reliable source for any smoking, drinking (holding a beer and drinking it are not synonymous) or Ritalin use. We appreciate you asking on the talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're in a picture looking drunk, in a friends house with no adults, and holding a beer - you're drinking. --mboverload@ 20:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL okay... and, who gets to judge "looking drunk"? She looked like she was having a jolly good laugh at someone's expense to me... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Music tastes

Shouldn't we talk about her music tastes in this article. In many websites, it mentions that she enjoys hip hop music. Should we also write about her wanting a music career in the future. {{Punk Rocker 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)}} p.s i used to use the username Angelaire

Yes, provided you WP:CITE your information. You've been asked over and over again, Punk Rocker, to cite your sources. --Yamla 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
In her Spring 2005 Newsletter, she does state that

"I love R&B, Hip Hop and street to dance to" http://www.ewonline.net/ewletter-spring2005.html --www.ewonline.net 00:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermione=Very plain?

"...in the book series, Granger was generally described as being very "plain." Where, exactly, does it say this in the series? 70.50.173.112 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's ever said, but rather it is inferred. Her description in the books does not go to imply that she is abnormally attractive under normal circumstaces, nor does it imply she is abnormally ugly. Most of the time she doesn't look special one way or the other, capcise? Seven-point-Mystic 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Rewritten per WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Also, if you'll forgive the spelling police, it's "capisce". ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It really just doesn't say whether Hermione is pretty or not. Sure, she's pretty at the Yule Ball with her complete transformation, but that isn't the everyday Hermione. And Rita Skeeter can't exactly be trusted, can she? ;) 67.68.139.59 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hermione is described as being "plain" when we first meet her in the first book, I'm pretty sure

Brother's age

An editor wishes to note that Alex is "three years younger" than Emma. Several problems: it's an approximation; it's frankly irrelevant, especially considering he is not currently of note; and it very nearly qualifies as fancruft. Anything peripheral to the article's subject and why we would know him/her should be presented with all possible dispatch and, in this case, her brother's age simply does not belong in the article. RadioKirk talk to me 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I back your decision. --mboverload@ 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace

"Born in Oxfordshire, England" Have we found a ref for this? 65.92.207.62 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what credibility/accuracy other editors of this article ascribe to IMDB.com, but it says she was born not only in Oxfordshire but in Oxford itself. — President Lethe 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
IMDb gets roughly 0. There is almost no independent verification done of the users' submissions. To answer the original question, we're still looking... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Two ideas (neither of which I personally have enough desire to exercise): (1) search public records in England for births in the appropriate county on the appropriate date (I don't know whether such records are actually public in England, though); (2) write to Warner Bros. and ask. — President Lethe 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see above, I've already been in contact with HPFilms; nothing yet. As for searchign public records, it would have to be done in such a way that another user in another country could verify the information or it would fail WP:NOR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I would suggest removing the information from the article until it's resolved. 70.50.172.72 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
A user has already confirmed there is NO record of her birth in the UK by reference to the publically available records. This information is wrong and should be removed. The original research which backs this up was in a revision of this talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEmma_Watson&diff=45145229&oldid=44930375. For some reason someone saw fit to remove it from the active page. I have just done the same research using the subscription genealogy site ancestry.co.uk which uses UK Government birth indexes and confirmed all the info. I appreciate this research can't be used or go into the article but it must cast enough doubt to remove the false claim that she was born in Oxfordshire

Bedales

I don't think the ref for her changing to Bedales School is valid. It's from a fansite, who got it's information from the Daily Mail, a tabloid. 70.50.172.72 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound off, Brits, what's the rep of the Daily Mail? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The daily mail is a paper of dubious rumours, so it is not very reliable. DavidJJJ 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources

All {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tags have been replaced why do we still have box stating that appropiate citations are needed at the top of the page. If sources still need citing then why have they no got one of the two tags above the questionable phrases? --Jhfireboy I'm listening 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it will be gone with my next edit, in progress. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Shouldn't we delete this section, as a trivia section makes an article worse. DavidJJJ 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Watson/Archive_2&oldid=1248845372"