Talk:Emma Thompson/Archive 1

British
I have changed her from English to British due to her strong connections with Scotland. If you have any comments to oppose please discuss before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

She's British either way, but she was born in England, so that makes her English. As such, calling her British lacks specificity and could be misleading. I'm English myself, but I've lived for twenty years in the USA - that doesn't make me American, or even 'transatlantic'. I'm English - always will be, and so is Ms. Thompson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.25.105 (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see this one's doing the rounds again, the last person to change it back to British ignoring their own advice to "take it to talk". I'm not touching it, but I am wondering how far one would get likewise changing, say, Sean Connery's nationality to "British"... &mdash; Vom  (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing from those who have decided that Thompson should be described as English. What are they basing this decision on? Particularly when;


 * Her mother is Scottish.
 * The article quotes her as "feeling Scottish".
 * She lived some while in Scotland.

Obviously she was born in England, but taking the above three points into consideration, isn't "British" a better portrayal of her mixed heritage and upbringing? Can anyone, as guidelines suggest, cite where she has stated a preference for "English"?

And I do not understand how (as claimed by 68.50.25.105 above) British could be considered "misleading". Thompson is 100% British, which is more than could be said for what makes her English. Nor do I believe a comparison with Sean Connery's nationality valid (as suggested by Vom ). Connery has self-declared his nationality quite clearly. Has Thompson? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As no one has commented so far I'm going to go ahead with changing this back to British for the above reasons. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
Here is a picture that could be cropped and used...? Image:The Schlegel sisters.jpg  gren 06:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wrong photo
There is a photo of Kate Winslet on Emma Thompson's page.65.5.210.90 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...
I found "Hey pplz this isn't the real Emma Thompson I am the best one ever!" on the page. I'm going to delete it.--Mr.Weirdo 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dead Links

The link to a interview of Ms Thompson regarding parenting is dead.

Early Life - Richard Armitage
There was a link to a Richard Armitage who is a US politician, which I don't think could be correct as the agent mentioned in the Early Life paragraph. I also don't think that the actor Richard Armitage is the correct person (since he would have been quite young at the time.) So I unlinked the name until someone knows better. Derekbd (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Thompson
I've re-written the bit about her father, Eric Thompson, to be slightly more respectful of both him and The Magic Roundabout -- it's a great work.--JO 24 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Award winning.
I feel that Academy, BAFTA award winning etc. should be added to the lead as it's more flattering and acknowledges her ability straight off. Other Award winning actors and actresses have it, so why not Emma? It's within the guidelinges and isn't unnecessary as it gives important information quickly without having to read the whole article. 86.10.75.40 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary, unless you want to just put the Academy award part.  Enigma  message 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I, however, do think it is necessary, considering other actors and actresses, such as Halle Berry, or Angelina Jolie, for example, have practically glittering introductions. 90.44.199.248 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Politics
Note that 'libertarian anarchist' means something very different in Britain (where it is a philosophy of the political left) to what it means in the US (where it is a philosophy of the political right). The link to libertarian anarchism may be completely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.25.105 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too thought when I read it the other day that the link to libertarian anarchism was likely very misleading. Thompson's revelation to the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday that she has been a member of the Labour Party "all my life" confirms that this is indeed the case. Changed the link therefore to the somewhat less misleading libertarianism article which accommodates in its opening paragraphs - however begrudgingly -the traditional left-wing definition of the term which continues to predominate outside the US/English-speaking cultural zone. Wingspeed (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess is her views are what would be described in the US as a libertarian socialist or anarcho-socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Television
Emma Thompson was in John Osborne's play Look Back in Anger copyright 1989 for Thames Television.

New image
Could anyone find a new image of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.87.215 (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Paddington?
Where does this idea about Thompson being born in Paddington come from? I can't find any good sources that mention it. I'm not suggesting it isn't true, but can anyone provide an interview where it mentions this (or something similar?) I think it would be good to source it in the article. -- Lobo (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A joke about feminism and high heels
The addition regarding Thompson being a feminist and her campaign against high-heels should not be added, or at least not supported by the cite provided. The problem here is the taking of what are evidently humorous comments at an awards dinner and making them out to be something else. I don't know if Thompson regards herself as a feminist, or believes that woman shouldn't wear high heels. But I seriously doubt the validity of taking what she said in in this occasion as notable statements of her beliefs. You only have to look at what she also said;


 * She's grateful for the menopause, because it was cold.
 * She believes her perm played a role in her recent acting successes.
 * She has sex rarely, and then only with animal noises.
 * Tom Hanks needs a good smack.

Are we to quote these as serious statements of Thompson's personal views? Or perhaps, just maybe, they were in jest? Are we so sure then that what she said about her shoes, feminism and high heels weren't also just a bit tongue in cheek? I don't believe that even the NY Times blogger cited takes them seriously. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * She gets coverage all over for this though. So joke or not, it should be mentioned in the article.  Google news search finds many results.    D r e a m Focus  01:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but news coverage of one night out does not make it notable and worth mentioning in an Encyclopaedia article about her life. This joke is not a feature of her personal life, so unless you think it's worth starting a section about "Jokes she once said"?  Although I'd think that was still trivia.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Emma Thompson
Cyberbot II has detected links on Emma Thompson which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://guru.bafta.org/emma-thompson-life-pictures-highlights
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Emma Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://voices.yahoo.com/the-best-actress-1990s-emma-thompson-284969.html?cat=40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Emma Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.readersdigest.co.za/interview%20with%20emma%20thompson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Better photo in infobox?
It might just be me, but the infobox-sized version of this image is such that the black part of her earring looks like some kind of melanoma on her neck, unless one zooms in or looks really closely. But all of the other photos of her currently in this article are much older, low-res, or would need to be cropped since the focus is not on her face. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909142743/http://footlights.org/alumni-archive?name=1980-1989 to http://www.footlights.org/alumni-archive?name=1980-1989

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How much to include of the Effie Grey court case?
Okay, this needs to come to the talk page now for some further discussion. and I have reverted each other several times over the past few months regarding how much information should be in this article about the Effie Gray (film) infringement case. As you'll see, the film's article contains a lot of detail for people who are interested in the details of the case, but I don't think we should be giving a full summary here. Two or three times I have expanded the information slightly as a compromise but B Munn continues to add back the excessive detail. S/he claims that the information is "skewed" otherwise, but I see the shorter text as perfectly neutral and definitely sufficient.

To make it easy, here are the two versions. B Munn wants: "The drama Effie Gray, based on the true-life story of art critic John Ruskin's marriage, was written by Thompson but was subject to a copyright case before being cleared for cinemas. The American playwright Gregory Murphy claimed Effie Gray infringed on his play and screenplay The Countess, which deals with the same story and which Murphy says he submitted to Thompson and her husband Greg Wise to play the roles they subsequently played in Thompson's film.[129] In March 2013 a judge, after allowing Thompson to submit a second revised screenplay into evidence,[130] ruled that the works were "quite dissimilar in their two approaches to fictionalising the same historical events,"[131] but noted twelve significant similarities between Murphy's play and screenplay and Thompson's screenplay that could not be accounted for even after taking into consideration their "shared historical backgrounds."[132] Effie Gray was finally released in October 2014, to a modest reception.[133] Thompson appeared in the film, alongside her husband Greg Wise and actress Dakota Fanning, but declined to promote it,[134] as did Mr. Wise.[135]"

I prefer: "The period drama Effie Gray, based on the true-life story of art critic John Ruskin's marriage and affair, was written by Thompson but was subject to a copyright case before being cleared for cinemas. The American playwright Gregory Murphy claimed that it was an infringement on his play The Countess, which deals with the same story,[129] but in March 2013 – after Thompson had submitted a second draft – a judge ruled that they were "quite dissimilar in their two approaches to fictionalising the same historical events".[130] Effie Grey was finally released in October 2014, to a modest reception.[131] Thompson also appeared in the film, alongside her husband Greg Wise and actress Dakota Fanning, but declined to promote it.[132]"

We really need some input from other users now or we'll just go round in circles. To my eyes, these say the same thing but one version is simply more succinct. I really think a large paragraph going into all that detail is unnecessary for Thompson's article, especially when it's all there on the Effie Gray page if someone wants to know more (and we could always directly link to that section like "was subject to a copyright case"). I'm not trying to hide anything, I just don't want to give wp:undue weight and interrupt the flow of the article. I would also note that B Munn's entire contribution history comprises edits related to this court case, which suggests a strong personal interest (probably far beyond that of the average reader) and even makes me wonder if there is a personal investment in it. If that's the case, you should let us know per wp:COI. Oh, and re your edit summary: I didn't intentionally remove the link to The Countess - obviously I have no problem with that being there. It looks like that article was only created in April 2015, after I initially wrote the paragraph on the film, and I've just been pasting back material. Nothing malicious about it. Anyway - I'm really hoping for some external opinions on this. If no-one chips in I will open an RfC. -- Loeba (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Loeba, We went back and forth over this post back in April and came to an agreement. Are there external circumstances that have caused you to revise it now and to delete once more information that skews the court's ruling to give the misimpression that it was entirely in Ms. Thompson's favor? Or do you believe that by deleting the fact that the judge "noted twelve significant similarities between Murphy's play and screenplay and Thompson's screenplay that could not be accounted for even after taking into consideration their "shared historical backgrounds," gives a fair and balanced view of the court's ruling and Emma Thompson's rather more ambiguous role in the case? You say you did not intentionally remove the link to The Countess, but your revision shows you deleted information on both sides of the words, The Countess, thereby invalidating the link. You say my editing "suggests a strong personal interest (probably far beyond that of the average reader)." Which I think characterize the extent of your interest as well. Do you have a personal or professional connection to Ms. Thompson or any of her associates? B. Munn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Munn (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If the judge wrote those words, they would seem pertinent, as long as the overall finding in Thompson's favour remains clear. However, on reviewing the source, I cannot see any statement along the lines of "twelve significant similarities ... that could not be accounted for".   What I do see is "..though a few of the more significant purported similarities warrant some discussion".   Something being "more significant" is not the same as it being "significant", and they are described as being purported similarities.  And indeed one of the similarities then discussed is specifically described as being "extremely insignificant".  So it would appear that the collating of the similarities, and their description of them being "significant" and "unaccounted" is someone's analysis of the source material. Whose?
 * Please let me know if I've missed anything in the source. But otherwise I'd say that some of the content in the longer version is not supported by the cite, and has a hint of original research to it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

We didn't come to an agreement, I just didn't obsess over the page and in fact barely looked at my watchlist the past few months. But on Sunday I was doing some "housekeeping" and updating and noticed that this paragraph had got too detailed again. The link to The Countess got removed unintentionally because I went back through the article history to paste "my" version of the paragraph, which was initially written before the play's article was created. I think the shorter version is "fair and balanced", yes, because the judge ultimately ruled in Thompson's favour and he wouldn't have done that if he was greatly concerned about the similarities. Murphy's appeal was also rejected, so I'm pretty confident that there's little basis for his complaint and we can cover the court information swiftly. Nevertheless, I've added a mention of the second draft to put things in proper context. I do want to be accurate and if I was desperately looking to whitewash Thompson I would have tried to remove the content from Effie Gray article as well. That's not my motive - I'm concerned that we're waffling on and boring readers. But if (thanks for contributing) is correct about the judge's statement being misrepresented then that's a strong reason not to include your information, and we may indeed need to look at the Eddie Gray article. At present, it's shamelessly trying to show that the court case was unfair and hinting that Thompson got away with plagiarism, even though there isn't a single good quality source that claims this. -- Loeba (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Loeba, Escape Orbit makes a very good argument, but let's face it, in the end, he/she is doing what he/she is accusing me of -- making his/her own "analysis of source material." The judge wrote (verabtim) in his ruling: "There are, however, some similarities between the works, even after controlling for their shared historical backgrounds." I changed the abstruse legalese of "even after controlling" to "even after taking into account." The point the judge was making was that there were many ahistorical, unique elements to Murphy's script that appeared also in Thompson's script. If the judge in this case had ruled on the evidence of infringement, Thompson would have lost this case. The judge chose instead to rule on the basis of "substantial similarity." I am reading all the court papers in this six-year-long legal saga and writing an in-depth article on the case for publication. You have convinced me there are too many points to give a brief account of this case on Ms. Thompson's Wikipedia page that might be fair, balanced and accurate to all parties concerned. I think your revised paragraph above answers the need for brevity and accuracy as far as it goes. I would ask that you change "second draft" to "revised draft" and that you reactivate the link to The Countess page. Thank you. B. Munn — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Munn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that;
 * the word "significant" was unsupported and introduced by yourself.
 * in the paragraph above you interpret where the judge says "some similarities between the works" to mean "many ahistorical, unique elements" in common. The judgement specifically says these elements are "scène á faire", "very small" and "of little significance".
 * Your interpretation of the judgement is therefore open to question. You are, of course, free to introduce these opinions in the writing of your article, but not on Wikipedia. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , interesting. Thanks for looking closely at the court document. In light of this, could you perhaps take a look at Effie Gray (film) and make sure it is unbiased and accurate? B Munn, thanks for being flexible about this and I hope you'll be more careful editing Wikipedia in the future. -- Loeba (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Loeba, I have taken your and Escape Orbit's criticisms of my post about the court battle over the film "Effie Gray" and have rewritten the information about the judge's finding re. similarities in the case. I have also reinserted the fact that the judge's ruling was based on a second revised screenplay. This was done to succinctly give a more balanced view of a a very complicated case. Please let me know if you or Escape Orbit have any problem with the edits. I am impressed with your encyclopedic knowledge not only of Emma Thompson, but of this rather insignificant court case, which compels me to ask a question I have already asked, but to which you have yet to respond: Do you have a personal or professional connection to Ms. Thompson or any of her associates? To which I would like to add the question: Have you corresponded with Ms. Thompson or any of her associates within the past two weeks? Thank you. I look forward to your response B. Munn — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Munn (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reworded things a little for the following reasons;
 * As stated above, the similarities are described as "purported" and the court judgement dismisses them all as insignificant. I don't see the value of therefore dwelling on them as they are details that do not feature in the final decision.
 * The only reason for focussing on these similarities would be if there was a subsequent challenge to the judgement based on them.
 * Following the judgement in the article by these details, however, does have an air of providing a challenge to it. They are not a challenge, but matters that were dismissed prior to the judgement. As a compromise, if they are to be mentioned at all, they should be mention first.  Thereafter the judgement is the final word and a conclusion of the matter for the reader.
 * The word "unaccounted" is not in the judgement and suggests that Thompson has failed to account for these similarities. There is no evidence the judge ever asked her to account for these particular similarities, and we shouldn't be suggesting that she should have accounted for them.
 * I hope my changes addresses this to everyone's satisfaction. I'd also like to observe that, as a single purpose account, your suggestion that other editors have ulterior motives is just a bit silly.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it, you say you're now okay with the shorter version then add stuff straight back in? No, it can't stay because Escape Orbit has discovered that the case was being misrepresented. Even aside from my feeling that the paragraph was too detailed, it was also inaccurate. And lol, when have I ever implied I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the case? I sense a bit of snark. As for having a connection to Emma Thompson - I wish. -- Loeba (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Loeba, The entry, as you have rewritten it, is completely imbalanced. No one would suspect reading it, that the producers of Effie Gray (Thompson and Greg Wise among them) initiated this suit against Murphy. Now the similarities between the two scripts have been labeled by you as "insignificant." There was a reason the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling awarding $500,000 in legal fees to the producers of the film, and it was not because the twelve similarities between the two works were "insignificant." Because of your objection to "accounted for," I have inserted the Court's more prosaic "even after controlling for." Finally, you keep removing the fact that Emma Thompson was permitted by the judge to submit a second revised script, although this is a substantiated fact, and a point that was vigorously protested by Murphy's attorney, believing, not without reason, that contentious passages in Thompson's original script might be revised or removed. If Emma Thompson's Wikipedia page is not to be, or appear to be, a mere tool of her publicist, a more balanced review of this court case must be given and the few facts I have added are true and backed by newspaper accounts. Your intent seems to be to present the entire case in the most favorable light possible for Thompson. Why? A comprehensive, well-researched, fact-checked article, which I am writing for release in 2017 will provide a complete overview of this case. I hope you will read it. No snark implied regarding your "encyclopedic knowledge," which I genuinely believe you have. Re. your having a connection to Emma Thompson -- "I wish" -- does not answer my questions, so I will, with all due respect, ask them again: Do you have a personal or professional connection to Ms. Thompson or any of her associates? Have you corresponded with Ms. Thompson or any of her associates within the past three weeks? Thank you. B. Munn — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Munn (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try to address your comments to the correct person. It was I who last edited the article, not  Loeba .  And I did not label the similarities as "insignificant", Judge Thomas P. Griesa did, in his judgement.  Yet you appear to determined to make the most of them, despite them playing no part in his judgement.  You have to wonder how "comprehensive, well-researched, fact-checked" your article will be if it contains statements (e.g. "noted twelve significant similarities"), like you first added to the article, that are the precise opposite of what the source says.
 * I've done a minor edit, in line with what I said above. If the similarities are to be mentioned, they should be before the judgement's conclusion to make clear that they were both taken into consideration, and dismissed, before reaching a judgement.  They should not be brought up as if they are an unanswered, unexamined, after-thought.
 * I have not, or ever have had, any connection with Emma Thompson, her agents or this case. I have no opinion on the merits of the case, having seen neither work and was not involved in the creation of either. My opinion on the case would be irrelevant anyway.  I'm simply reading what the source document says. This is what is done on Wikipedia.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you're still obsessing over this case. I thought I was making a fair compromise by putting excess detail in a footnote - can we please keep it that way? I'd rather delete it altogether but I'm willing to compromise and it would be nice if you could do the same. -- Loeba (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Who's obsessing? This information has been available on this page since October 2016 -- after much debate at that time between you, myself and Escape Orbit. Why this sudden attempt to obfuscate important information by diminishing it to a footnote?  You would "rather delete it all together." Really?  By what authority would you take such a unilateral action?  This is an important fact in this case supported by evidence?˜˜˜˜


 * Well once again I haven't logged into WP for many months, that's why it's a "sudden attempt". The discussion last time leant towards downplaying the significance of the court case - you were, and still are, the only one arguing for extra coverage (and apparently you were misrepresenting the facts all along anyway). That's why I've tried to trim it back again on my return. The text I put in a footnote is not an "important fact" in regards to this Emma Thompson page. It can go on the page about Effy Gray, the film. Taking a unilateral decision? On the contrary - I'm saying I would personally like to see it all deleted, but know it's fairer to compromise so I put it in a footnote instead. I also came here to discuss again rather than reverting, unlike you I might add. As for obsessing - it just amazes me that you haven't edited since April, yet almost as soon as I made that change you were back to revert it. It definitely suggests that you have an unusual interest in making sure this case gets detailed coverage on the article. Anyway, what do you say to my compromise?  Loeba (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emma Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130915134935/http://www.saga.co.uk/lifestyle/people/celebrities/brideshead-revisited-emma-thompson.aspx to http://www.saga.co.uk/lifestyle/people/celebrities/brideshead-revisited-emma-thompson.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/62625%7C0/Sense-and-Sensibility.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)