Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 7

RfC
Do we include in biographies of living persons, including but not limited to Emma Watson, their listing within the Panama Papers if there is no supporting evidence of financial abuse or abuse of positions of power? &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the question should be revised, as it proposes to set up a simple rule, and to apply it across all biographies. The answer should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the particular person's situation, and the relevant guidelines. Please consider restricting the scope of the question to this particular article. Thank-you. -- IamNotU (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See further discussion below. Additional phrasing could include, for example, "... if its inclusion would, given the reliable data at the time, lend undue weight to its importance (or lack thereof)". &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 03:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes

 * We have an entire section on Cameron father's offshore companies under Cameron's article. But we shouldn't mention it under Emma Watson? Because - what? Because she is famous and Cameron is as popular as any other politician? Until now, there has been no evidence that any of the offshore companies were illegal!--Momo Monitor (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there are substantial reliable sources, which there are, then it should absolutely be included. Its incredibly arbitrary to not include it.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes if it gets significant coverage.  For example, in this case, The Independent, The Times, The Telegraph, The Spectator, CNN and the BBC.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Yes She is in Panama Papers and has an undeclared offshore account. It is a fact. Wikipedia is all about multiple reliable sources which this fact has plenty. There is nothing to discuss. We cannot change (or hide) a fact that somebody who has over £10 million invested money offshore. It is not ours to discuss it here or protect her. Another strong argument for yes: not mentioning it is giving Wikipedia bad reputation of hiding well-known facts.Gpeja (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No

 * No. Mere inclusion on the list of hundreds of thousands of people (with more to come?) neither proves nor even suggests wrongdoing. Its presence with no accompanying context serves to indict by absence (of evidence). &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (See protracted discussion below.)


 * No: At least, with some kind evidence to prove any wrongdoing or negative consequences first, or else this is meaningless. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Pincrete.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No: At least, not unless it has received significant coverage in RS giving some context to WHY a person's name is in the papers. Evidence of wrong doing is not necessary, but coverage of some substance is. Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No Mention of a person in the Pentagon Papers leak is not proof of any misconduct on the part of that individual. Some of the individuals listed there may have violated the law while in other cases, doing business with this Panamanian firm may have been completely legitimate. Because careless coverage of the broader controversy in the media had created a false implication that being mentioned in this controversy is somehow "proof" of misconduct, our BLP policy requires us to exclude this information from a BLP unless detailed and widely reported investigative work implicates the individual, or the person has been indicted and convicted. None of that seems to apply in this case. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the Pentagon Papers ... you must be an older person like me. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  01:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope per all the above - If there's no evidence of any wrongdoing then it's rather silly mentioning it, As noted by Cullen just being mentioned in it isn't proof .... – Davey 2010 Talk 14:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No -- not as stated in the RFC, it is not free license to put just anything in, one should just follow the cites and if they say significant things about her then say what they say. If this is not a significant part of info about the person in RSS then it would violate a core principle of WP:OR to mine the papers for names.  If it's not RSS summary or out of due WP:WEIGHT it would also seem WP:BLPPRIMARY misuse of public information to support or infer allegations, and WP:BLPGOSSIP if it is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.   This is a public figure of some note, so WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies -- there is a multitude of RSS on her so just follow the cites. Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No - we're not discussing whether she's done anything wrong or not, but whether the inclusion of her name in the list warrants mention in the article. If her name was the only one in said list, or maybe one of a hundred, then there may be an argument - but a single name in a list of 214,000?  No.  I'm only refuting the mention - if it later comes out that she has millions stashed away along with Nazi Gold, King Arthur's sword and a copy of the Necronomicon then we can discuss further but just the inclusion of her name in the list is not worthy.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Galleons, the Sword of Gryffindor and a copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them? &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  08:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The sword of Gryffindor is in the Lestrange vault - everybody knows that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No - not in this article, at this time. Evidence of wrongdoing is not required - we report what the sources say. There would not be a problem in that respect, as long as NPOV is followed, for example quoting high-quality reliable sources saying only that her name had been found, that she says it was for privacy reasons, and that nobody has accused her of anything. However, if that's the case, then it's just trivial and routine celebrity news reporting. If nothing further comes of it, then in a year or two it will be irrelevant information - so there's no reason to put it in right now. There's nothing so far to indicate that the breaking news will be of any lasting significance, and as an encyclopedia, we should wait and see. This argument doesn't necessarily apply to everyone though, the answer might be different if someone is a head-of-state or in some other situation. -- IamNotU (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly No Irrespective of the number of persons or corporations mentioned in the Panama Papers, there has been officially no prosecution for any crime whatsoever related to the persons or corporations appearing in them. There are, at this stage, only investigations. In any case, this RfC can only focus on the article's subject. Anything more general should be tabled elsewhere, as we all know. Specifically about Emma Watson, then, she has not been charged with any violation of the law, she has not been questioned, and she has not made any notable, public statements. The dominating rules here are the rules dictated by the policy on biographies of living persons. This should be quite, quite clear. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
(Moved from above) Being in the panana papers as a context of wrongdoing, avoiding taxes. What makes you think it doesn't suggest wrong doing? Do you just start from a null point of view? If so, then you must be persuade that the whole papers and media coverage were about avoiding taxes. Back up your "just words" air talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.33.74 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does no such thing. Your response is precisely the reason why this RfC exists: the presumption of some guilt absent its suggestion, never mind proof. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 05:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe the panama papers are just papers or air or meaningless. Then please explain why the Iceland Prime minister is stepping down. Come back when you have some stronger arguments as to why the panama papers should never be cited and referenced in the article. However, your argument, that the panama papers are no more than just a laundry list or a list of attendees for a public gala is absurd and bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.33.74 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You approach this from exactly the wrong angle—that we, as an encyclopedia, need proof of no wrongdoing to keep this out of biographies of living persons. "'Iceland Prime minister is stepping down', so Emma Watson [and anyone else on the list] must therefore be guilty of something" is precisely the WP:SYNTH issue that led to this RfC. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 06:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said she is guilty. The facts of what happened should be presented because they exist in reality, a reality where the context of books has meaning and aren't just blank pages. Are you speaking from a stance that the panama papers should never be referenced or cited in the article. The panama papers investigation has just started. and things have yet to unfold. Your original comments suggested siding with Ms Watson before more facts came about. You said something to the effect that the list is just of people and it is like people in a diary or lotto list or gala list. When you say that it is just sa list of people, and the context or surrounding circumstances of the list do not matter. It makes me feel like things, any thing, in reality doesn't matter and you should disregard it or pretend it doesn't matter even though it is in reality. To see your perspective, that parts of reality don't exist or are meaningless, makes me feel more dumb because it leaves out the details of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.33.74 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All the more reason this stays off BLPs—the undue weight it affords the papers without additional evidence; the absence of evidence because the "investigation has just started"; and, the ease with which you presume some proof of some sort must be forthcoming. The links herein are all necessary components of an encyclopedia, which is not a news site. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 06:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Meantime, please remember to sign your comments using  (four tildes) so the bot doesn't have to keep following you around.  &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  06:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to distinguish between violation of the law and moral transgression. Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigned from the position of president of Iceland because of the "moral outrage" and not on account of a legal indictment. This does not mean that anyone else listed in the Panama Papers is guilty of either a moral transgression or of a crime. A person seeking to legally pay less taxes is not violating the law, since it's the law itself that allows that person to avoid taxes. Again, this argument refers to the legal aspects of such an avoidance. Whether it is "socially moral" or not, it's for the rest of the citizenry to decide, e.g. through elections if it's a politician, or by forcing him to resign if he's already elected, etc. In any case, we Wikipedia editors for certain are not in any position to judge. We rely strictly on third-party, reliable sources and not on our personal moral perspectives. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This should, of course, be included. Come on, it's in Cameron's wiki even thought it was his father's offshore company. But people really think that it shouldn't be in Emma Watsons article? Well, there is no argument that there should be an entire section on Cameron's father's Panama Papers but not a single mention of Emma Watson buying a house with an offshore company. The only reason would be that Emma Watson is popular and Cameron is as popular as most politicians. --Momo Monitor (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a massive difference—Cameron is a politician who is facing significant call to resign—warranted or otherwise—which is encyclopedic. No one is calling for Watson to resign anything, never mind a political post. Your argument actually supports a "no" response. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that we have there has to be proof that there was wrongdoing. We aren't the investigators. We just include what the RS say. And there are a lot of RS on this topic out there. Its non inclusion is utterly arbitrary and POV pushing. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong question. I put my answer in "yes" and folk who support exactly the same position have answered "no". Because we care about reliable secondary sources. The question is not relevant to either the Cameron article or this one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

I agree, this *is* the wrong question. The use of an offshore trust may indicate nothing more than good financial management, as the Panama Papers article has taken great care to underline. It is not up to us to decide wrongdoing. One of the questions is whether some of the things that are currently legal, should be legal, but I don't think anyone faults anyone who is taking advantage of a strategy that is legal to conserve their wealth. I suggest that the article mention that she has an offshore, per this leak, and then quote whatever she may have had to say about it. And leave it at that if there is no coverage of any investigation or other indication of tax evasion or other wrongdoing. WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE is the guideline here imho. Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would again note that this supports only a "no" response to the RfC. Inclusion of the data and her response would continue to suggest that there must be something to which Ms. Watson (or anyone else on the list) has to answer. This violates OR and SYNTH and, therefore, BLP. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this argument, because accurately reporting what reliable sources say, even if there is no proof of wrongdoing, following NPOV, doesn't constitute original research, or a conclusion not stated by the sources. For example this source doesn't suggest any wrongdoing, so citing it would not do so. On the other hand, I do agree with your argument above, that in Watson's particular case, without any proof or even accusation of wrongdoing, it's merely routine celebrity news reporting. Given WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, including it at this time in a biography would simply be undue weight in an encyclopedia. Arguments on the basis of OR or SYNTH are unnecessary. In other words, evidence of wrongdoing is not necessary, but some indication of lasting significance is. -- IamNotU (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and you are absolutely entitled to disagree. Nevertheless, I maintain that, while UNDUE is unquestionable, when data allows the reader to synthesize facts not in evidence ("Forget her rebuttal, she's on the bloody list—something's amiss."), this invokes SYNTH, which is part of OR. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 22:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is somewhat related to original research. But we can't adopt a general rule that there must be some actual evidence of wrongdoing, before citing a source about something like the Panama Papers in a biography. There's no direct evidence either, that David Cameron has done anything illegal, so you could argue that we shouldn't write about it in Wikipedia because it might lead people to synthesize that he has. But as you said, there's a massive difference between Watson's situation and Cameron's, which is that just the accusation of it is likely to have lasting significance for him either way, so it rises above routine news reporting. If some people jump to the conclusion that he's guilty of breaking the law, despite the article not having said that, we can't really help it. If it turns out that there's some kind of ongoing scandal with Watson, with lingering questions in the media about wrongdoing, but no actual evidence, then it would be appropriate to write about it, since that also rises above "not a newspaper". As long as information comes from a reliable source and is given due weight, making decisions to include it or not based on whether we think it's true, may be in itself original research. In any case, I guess we agree on what should be done in this article. Btw., did you see my comment at the top, regarding the scope of the RfC question? -- IamNotU (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. And the scope of the RfC question was intended to leave open-ended—as it should be, in any living encyclopedia—that whether such data in Ms. Watson's (and any other similar) article should be included (or, conversely, excluded) can change with the circumstances. It is an RfC requirement that it be posed in a neutral manner; I chose its language with that in mind. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  02:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. This is the first time I've participated in an RfC, so I don't really know how they work. I didn't want to give a blanket "no", that we should never include a listing in the Panama Papers in a bio, if there's no supporting evidence of abuse. It depends on the person, and the sources. I think some others have expressed the same concern. Anyway I guess I made it clear in my comment. Thanks. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does ATinySliver keep deleting references to Emma Watson's being named in the Panama Papers? The only reason I can think of is that he/she has a personal interest, probably out of admiration, in protecting her reputation. Clearly, her being mentioned in the Panama Papers is notable; it's been written about in many major newspapers. This is an abuse of power on the part of ATinySliver. It's not your job to opine on whether her being named in the Panama Papers implies wrongdoing; let the readers make that conclusion on their own. Don't attempt to suppress information to protect the integrity of an actress that you like. ThisIsNotFair1993 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This personal attack on another editor is not appropriate. There are many valid arguments against including the information being discussed here, so there is no basis for inferring that an editor's being opposed to including it means they have some sort of ulterior motive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Why does AtinySiliver doing" ... clearly Appeal to motive motive is nothing, and nobody cares, and you shouldn't.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)΄
 * This is not a personal attack. It's not racist, personal, or a threat. I simply called out another editor on what appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's policies, i.e. soapboxing, just as you did to me (though, I don't think your attack was justified). ThisIsNotFair1993 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ThisIsNotFair1993 should be reported for this distracting and obnoxious personal attack. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With my thanks,, I would agree only if the behavior were to become legitimately disruptive. I don't believe this has escalated to that point yet. &#128406; ATS  /  Talk  09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Meantime, this personal attack is the only edit from this created-today account—and everything contained therein is 100% wrong. This is an encyclopedia; it is neither fluff piece, nor hit piece. Contentious details are removed as per policy until such time as a discussion—such as this one—ends with a consensus to allow it. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 20:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that this is a personal attack; you're dismissing my edits and points because my account was created recently. Just because your account was created before mine, doesn't give your opinions more weight than mine. An editor's reputation or tenure at Wikipedia shouldn't matter at all. The Panama Papers should be included on this page. It was written about and verified by major newspapers. ThisIsNotFair1993 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I dismissed your attack—period—because it's wrong—period. So is your opinion, as it directly violates encyclopedic policy absent a clear consensus to include contentious material—period. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I dismissed your attack. because it's wrong." Does this sentence look right to you? I can see that you're popular around here. Unfortunately, this means that you've gained enough clout to tamper with and manipulate articles as you see fit with impunity. This was an eye opening experience. ThisIsNotFair1993 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. (No pun intended.) Engaging in personal attacks is indeed wrong, on account of specific Wikipedia rules. This is what is being pointed to you and not some "personal opinion" on whether you're wrong. You are assigning motives to other editors and this violates, inter alia, the obligation to assume good faith in the other editors. E.g. "ATinySliver keep deleting references to Emma Watson's being named in the Panama Papers [because] he/she has a personal interest, probably out of admiration, in protecting her reputation." Where do you get the right to put up such stuff? The relevant rule is quite clear: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are considered personal attacks]." I hope this has been "eye-opening" indeed for you, i.e. educational. And I hope you calm down and keep contributing here. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * is correct—I do not "tamper with and manipulate" anything, I help build an encyclopedia. "Impunity" suggests something worthy of punishment, which clearly is erroroneous. There's a small handful of editors who would argue against my being "popular". Finally, if I've gained any "clout", it's the result of many years of good-faith efforts to build a better encyclopedia. If you possess no such "clout", that's your shortcoming, not mine. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  19:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the validity of any arguments you'd care to make (and, for the record, you haven't yet made any), they are rendered null and void on account of your personal attacks against ATinySliver. Kindly please stop this kind of distracting behavior. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016
If it says that Emma Watson is "British" then shouldnt the categories say? 21st-century British actresses, 1990 births, Actresses from Paris, Alumni of Worcester College, Oxford, Brown University alumni, British child actresses, British female models, British feminists, British film actresses, British television actresses, Living people, People educated at Headington School, Oxford, People educated at The Dragon School, People from Oxford & British Universalists Also shouldnt we add? British atheists

86.152.49.239 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the changes, since the British (FITB) categories exist. As for British atheists: while spiritualism and atheism can intersect, they don't necessarily, and we would not add such a category unless she went on record saying she's an atheist. — ATS &#128406;  Talk  18:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with here. The atheism category falls under WP:EGRS. We need her to explicitly state she's atheist to include such a category.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 one external links on Emma Watson. 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/20100421082835/http://www.emmawatson.com:80/en/Emma/About/ to http://www.emmawatson.com/en/Emma/About/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070802050811/http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com/ to http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com/#emma
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507004001/http://www.emmawatson.com:80/en/Screen/Filmography/ to http://www.emmawatson.com/en/Screen/Filmography
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://danradcliffe.com/news/fullnews.php?id=630
 * Added tag to http://www10.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/movies/17pott.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105163625/http://www.teenvogue.com/industry/coverlook/2009/06/teen-vogue-cover-girl-emma-watson_090622 to http://www.teenvogue.com/industry/coverlook/2009/06/teen-vogue-cover-girl-emma-watson_090622
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510071258/http://www.emmawatson.com:80/en/Screen/Filmography/Filmography-Continued/ to http://www.emmawatson.com/en/Screen/Filmography/Filmography-Continued/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414192235/http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com:80/#register/verify_fail to http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com/#news/show/220
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414192235/http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com:80/#register/verify_fail to http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com/#news/show/330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414192235/http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com:80/#register/verify_fail to http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com/#news/show/376
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818155143/http://www.emmawatson.com:80/en/Latest/Emma/One-Night-Only-Say-You-Dont-Want-It-Single/ to http://www.emmawatson.com/en/Latest/Emma/One-Night-Only-Say-You-Dont-Want-It-Single/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/fashion/article-23705207-details/Harry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311111908/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/showbiz/article-23923326-emma-watson-is-style-icon-at-elle-awards.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23923326-emma-watson-is-style-icon-at-elle-awards.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425073700/http://www.emmawatson.com:80/en/Projects/People-Tree/ to http://www.emmawatson.com/en/Projects/People-Tree/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"an admittedly nervous Watson"
Is there a compelling reason to include this in the article? I know she mentions it in the speech but giving this much attention to it when it's so irrelevant to the section/article left a bad taste in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.70.203 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. As you say - she states it herself, it's sourced, and it's a passing comment mentioned once - not really giving it as much focus as you seem to think.  It's not irrelevant at all - the statement is directly connected to her work, and directly related to taht particular instance.  In the quote she uses her nervousness as a positive statement to her work - again that's relevant.  It's not as though we're synthesising that because she was nervous the once there she's always nervous in public spaces or speaking.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo leak
Private photos of Emma Watson from a clothes fitting (not nude pictures) have been stolen. This tragedy happened a short period after she was criticized by "feminists" for exposing a part of her breast in Vanity Fair. In 2014 she was threatened with a leak of (non existing) nude pictures of her, right after she had spoken as a UN Ambassador for Women on gender equality. Emma Watson is taking legal action against this horrifying incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say this is out of scope for a Wikipedia article; looking at other articles about prominent people, Jennifer Lawrence e.g. (who had certainly a rather worse experience than Emma Watson), I see no mention of said incident. A thorough reading of Biographies of living persons might help here (Presumption in favor of privacy, e.g.). Lectonar (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If at all, this should be as just-the-facts-ma'am as possible, nothing more than:
 * In 2017, private photos of Watson taken during a clothes fitting were stolen and made public. Lawyers were contacted, and a publicist offered no further comment.
 * — ATS &#128406;  talk  19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed with ATS. The tone of the proposed addition as written is not at all encyclopedic. In particular, "tragedy" is a word with a specific meaning that doesn't encompass this, and "horrifying" is axiomatically non-neutral editorialization that doesn't belong in an objective article. I will stop there.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not horrifying, not a tragedy - not worthy of inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I too don't think it's worth mentioning, unless the situation were to escalate further. And, just to correct : the incident Lawrence was involved in is actually mentioned under Jennifer Lawrence. Though, it should be noted that the decision to include it was reached after an extensive discussion. -- ChamithN   (talk)  20:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad....I read too quick. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take it as a "bad" - if anything it shows that it's such a minor blip in the article it can easily be missed, so isn't really noteworthy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I should emphasize again: we should keep the feelings of the person involved in mind; I am not sure that Emma Watson is that happy about reading about such happenings in her article (sourced or not). Lectonar (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair controversy
Does this really warrant mention? It's hardly encyclopedic and seems like such a minor episode that it might be worth removing, especially if past dating history and other such information is typically excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges (talk • contribs)
 * The incident was used by feminists and others to label Watson a hypocrite.
 * Now, what's this really about? — ATS &#128406;  talk  23:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
You need to add that Emma Watson is in the new live movie, Beauty and the beast. 75.111.17.201 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This data already is in the lead, Career and Filmography sections. — ATS &#128406;  talk  00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017
Please remove Emma Watson from the Category: People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (WP:BLP). 212.95.7.93 (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done removed per WP:CATDEF: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ChamithN   (talk)  08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emma Watson. 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/20071229044646/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/316/316273p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/316/316273p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006100309/http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/press/news/article/jameson_empire_awards_announce_2011_nominees to http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/press/news/article/jameson_empire_awards_announce_2011_nominees

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) 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Small Error in 2012-Present
Later that year she starred she opposite Tom Hanks in the film adaptation of Dave Eggers's novel The Circle, playing Mae Holland, a young tech worker who takes a job at a powerful Internet corporation, only to find herself in a perilous situation concerning privacy, surveillance and freedom.[92] The film, directed by James Ponsoldt, was released on April 28, 2017 to negative reviews.

Currently ^ is the current iteration.

Mistake is in bold. Not sure what the editor intended for it, but it's clearly a mistake.

Sorry, first time creating a talk page, I'm sure I'm making a mistake in the etiquette of this.

The Prinz (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing done wrong there. Thanks for pointing it out.  I've fixed it.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Watson. 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/20101028055758/http://emma-watson.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1286571816&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& to http://emma-watson.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1286571816&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

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) 16:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Women's rights work
I recently came across a short film Watson played in, Hurdles. The film debuted in September 2016, Watson helped to narrate and produce. Hurdles addresses gender equality. At the very least, it should be included in the Women's rights work category, if not in the Filmography category as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyFollowers8319 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017
EmmaWatsonNov2010.jpg Joreljr (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  18:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Queen of the Tearling
Please wikilink The Queen of the Tearling in the upcoming projects. –2.247.246.3 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the page for The Queen of the Tearling along with the source that backs the statement says that she loved the book, and makes no mention of any interest in a role. Wait until an official announcement is made first. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's no reason to not wikilink it, at least the trilogy exists and folks can find it at goodreads, etc. OTOH the upcoming project appears to be stalled or dead, with a stale non-public tt2983180 page. Plan B, delete it as WP:CRYSTAL. –2.247.247.18 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per Jalen Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emma Watson. 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/20140903210348/http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2009/06/12/behind-the-scenes-at-emma-watsons-burberry-shoot/gallery/383244 to http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2009/06/12/behind-the-scenes-at-emma-watsons-burberry-shoot/gallery/383244
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612021505/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/fashion/article-23705207-details/Harry%2BPotter%2Bstar%2BEmma%2BWatson%2Bcharms%2BBurberry/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/fashion/article-23705207-details/Harry+Potter+star+Emma+Watson+charms+Burberry/article.do

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) 13:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Watson. 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/20140422061026/http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-teen-choice-2013-awards-winners-list%2C0%2C549831%2Cfull.story to http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-teen-choice-2013-awards-winners-list,0,549831,full.story

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) 21:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emma Watson. 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/20120112194421/http://www.caprihollywood.com/en/component/content/article/38-articoli-flash/297-my-week-with-marilyn-at-capri-hollywood-2011.html to http://www.caprihollywood.com/en/component/content/article/38-articoli-flash/297-my-week-with-marilyn-at-capri-hollywood-2011.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) 12:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018
Emma Watson is dating Chord Overstreet, who was in Glee. They have been keeping it low until today March 9th, that they came out holding hands in Los Angeles. Jennsan900 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stephen Chbosky, Emma Watson and Todd Lieberman.jpg

Erroneous assertion
"She was confused by the backlash" This is assertion or interpretation, lacking common sense or evidence. Her brisk retort is certainly not indicative of any confusion at all. The context indicates that the right term would be bemused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.223.16 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Done.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018
I would like her picture to be updated. The current picture is from 5 years ago, and she looks very different now. It would be great if the picture could be changed to a much more recent picture. ANDES27 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ruling on accolade section
Was that really that necessary to include Razzies in the accolade section despite the fact that these type of awards are the least important and insignificant, and citing other articles such as Will Smith don't placed that award in the accolade section. Perhaps the type of ruling being applied onto the article of Will Smith's accolade section should be applied onto Emma Watson and other actors and actresses' accolade section as well. Pennyvas (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to ping And1987 here since they added it, and would surely be able to explain better. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They've better make a formal ruling regarding its inclusion of a razzie award on the accolade section that has proven nothing to contribute to the article but by making as insignificant and useless. The type of ruling that the Will Smith article of not placing that razzie award in its accolade section should be discussed immediately. Pennyvas (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why I decided to add it was because I noticed that Ralph Fiennes, Watson's co-star from the Harry Potter series, has two nominations for these awards listed in his filmography section. The same can be said for Gary Oldman, who also has a nomination listed in the article for the awards and nominations that he received.
 * Still, it's inexcusable. Regardless of Watson's co-stars, Gary Oldman and Ralph Fiennes getting that razzie nods, that type of award should be removed. Again, that award contributes nothing to the article, and are clearly useless and redundant. Pennyvas (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove them from Oldman & Fiennes' pages, discuss it on the relevant article talk pages - not here. The Razzie is a recognised award, despite your low opinion of it, and I think it has a place in the article.  Is it any less valid than those from the San Diego Film Critics Society - who I'd never heard of until I looked at this list or the "Capri Art Film Festival Awards" - which doesn't even have an article?
 * Can you clarify why it is inexcusable, and why "that type of award should be removed"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You know why the Razzies are inexcusable? Some readers find that award very offensive. I myself also took offense when I'm reading that despicable award, and it's very insulting and degrading at the same time. As for Oldman & Fiennes' pages, I'm only mentioning them as a proof. I'm also stating that if the Watson article shouldn't remove that award and exclude it, then how come the Will Smith article in its awards and nominations article never published the Razzies in that article within the first place? Pennyvas (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So it's a personal preference then, based on your statement and terms used to describe the awards? You'll have to do better than that. WP:OTHERSTUFF covers your second argument. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also "other stuff" that people live through (or not) in this world to which the descriptions "very offensive," "inexcusable," "insulting," "degrading" and "despicable" are arguably more applicable than to a successful actress being criticized for a particular film performance that perhaps wasn't her best work, and this level of hyperbolic plangency is not helping you make your case. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So the overall resolution is to keep these type of awards, huh? Fine. Then I'm just gonna put that Razzie section onto Will Smith's award section. None of these makes sense anyway. Pennyvas (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You might find it removed from the Will Smith article under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one article has something is no indicator that another should.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that wasn't in the Will Smith main article. That Razzie section was placed in List of awards and nominations received by Will Smith. Unless you want to removed it based on what you've said, i won't mind about it. Pennyvas (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As you can tell from my lack of knowledge, I have little or no opinion over Will Smith's awards. The only opinion regarding them I do have is that they shouldn't be used as a yardstick for inclusion (or exclusion) for other actors and actresses. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But the fact is that the Razzies are no serious awards. Just onto the article List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence, Dcfc1988 have it removed considering that the Razzies weren't considered as a major award, unlike the Oscars, Golden Globes, Screen Guilds, and Saturns. Pennyvas (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFF. To save me having to link to it for a fourth time, do me a favour and read it, would you? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, now it makes sense. The razzies stay where it is. This debate is finished here already. Unless we wanna talk about on creating a new article titled List of awards and nominations received by Emma Watson to separate the awards from the main article. Pennyvas (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Description in lede
Emma has been described as a "British actress" in the article for the past few years. On 24th May, the editor Sellsomepapers changed this to "English actress" without discussion or reason. Subsequently other editors who have restored the original have been repeatedly reverted by one other editor. Can we get this fixed without an edit war? --Tigranis (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had changed it to English because her article states that she had English parents, and she was also raised in England (along with the fact that she is described as an English actress in the categories). There seems to be a problem in that British people not born in their respective countries aren't described as if they were to be if they had been born there (i.e the whole Christian Bale Welsh-English fiasco). Sellsomepapers (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More likely she is British. This is because England is not a country and has not been one for 311 years. (It is a constituent country or nation of the UK - a subnational division.) I cannot find subnational identities being used to introduce persons elsewhere in Wikipedia articles, e.g. a Sicilian or Cretan or Maharashtran or Sarawakan or Brandenburger for respective states, some of which have had much longer histories than the UK--139.143.150.32 (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If she's British, not English, why is she a member of the following cats:
 * Category:21st-century English actresses
 * Category:English activists
 * Category:English child actresses
 * Category:English female models
 * Category:English feminists
 * Category:English film actresses
 * Category:English television actresses
 * Category:English Universalists
 * Just playing Devil's Advocate. Without checking I don't even know if there are "Category:British activists", for example. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories can exist for any reason. I don't think they have to conform to any particular format apart from being recognisable and collecting different article headings in them. However, the fact that an error has been made and compounded is not grounds for giving it authority or repeating it. There are categories for British versions of some of these (I didn't check all) and in some "English" categories the people in the articles are actually described as "British".--139.143.150.32 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019
Rubytuesday25 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Remove the awards and nominations category and just add those to Emma Watson's filmography instead. I also want to add the nominations Emma Watson has had that aren't listed on her page. Rubytuesday25 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Having the awards listed separately is standard practice. In addition, this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. NiciVampireHeart 07:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019
Asdfghjkl9658 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

paige Watson story line
paige Watson was a indian officer born in 1955, shulanka india she was an orphan who grow up in north shulanka orphanage she was an orphan that grow up and ran away with a famous singer Madonna and they were 6 as when they both ran away on a moving train between north and south shulanka she and her friend then sat on the roads collecting money off people and then they were 20 when they both left and got married to two indian men tutur and magari from west shullie india not so far away her first job was road work as she stayed with that job for about two or three years as she worn out of that job and turned into a officer as she stayed with that job and never left she is now famous for her act as an indian police officer an found her way to fame she went from indian orphan at shulanka or[hinage to famous indian officer now moved to shakago to present some secrets of her act —′ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.25.192 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

category change
If it says that Emma Watson is "British" then shouldnt the categories say? 21st-century British actresses, 1990 births, Actresses from Paris, Alumni of Worcester College, Oxford, Brown University alumni, British child actresses, British female models, British feminists, British film actresses, British television actresses, Living people, People educated at Headington School, Oxford, People educated at The Dragon School, People from Oxford & British Universalists Also shouldnt we add? British atheists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:50A7:B500:0:0:0:717C (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is she a supermodel?
I've seen at least one semi-reliable source which states that she is a supermodel. I've searched Wikipedia and Wikidata for Emma Watson as a supermodel, but they returned nothing.

However, due to here status as a celebrity, doesn't that make her a supermodel? Since "supermodel" is defined as a celebrity model. Maybe she is not a supermodel because she didn't become a celebrity due to modeling. If it is determined that she is a supermodel, then that is something that should be in this article. --User123o987name (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to update main photo
Emma Watson turned 30 today and this picture is from 2013. We should consider updating the photo. Been looking around briefly but if anyone finds a picture that follows Wikipedia guidelines please update if possibleTheWikiJedi (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

New info box image
Is it me or is that the most un-Emma Watson photo of her? Looks like someone else to me. Govvy (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Link
The link to the Cinderella movie is to the 1950 version, instead of the 2015 version: Correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_(2015_Disney_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.220.219 (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020
X= an English actress Category:21st-century English actresse Category:English people of French descent Category:English Universalists Category:English activists Category:English child actresses Category:English expatriates in France Category:English female models Category:English feminists Category:English film actresses Category:English television actresses Category:English women activists Y= a British actress Category:21st-century British actresse Category:British people of French descent Category:British Universalists Category:British activists Category:British child actresses Category:British expatriates in France Category:British female models Category:British feminists Category:British film actresses Category:British television actresses Category:British women activists 81.101.15.25 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amkgp  💬  11:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Error
Under Personal Life, ″Barack″ is incorrectly spelled.
 * ✅ — Corrected. teammathi 23:22 8 August 2012 (CET)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Emma Watson interview in 2017.jpg

rfc: Infobox image
While the current infobox image for Watson depicts her promoting a relatively recent film work, it does seem a bit more low quality to me. I feel that the previous image used in 2013 is higher quality and depicts her profile more clearly, as infobox image's shouldn't solely be used for their recency. Thoughts?--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The current one is fine. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal Life Update
Somebody should probably put something up about the new developments in her dating life.Can&#39;t think of a cool username (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have some reliable sources (ie not WP:DAILYMAIL) that discuss verifiable and encyclopaedic content, then feel free to add it. Woody (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Emma Watson has had a serious BF for some time now
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a34727655/emma-watson-leo-robinton-step-out-in-london 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's probably the case given the amount of reporting, but he's also not a public figure and the relationship hasn't been confirmed by the couple. For these reasons, I'm a bit hesitant, but maybe other editors have different opinions?--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Emma Watson in 2016.jpg

panama paper's involvement
i see information about her name in the panama papers is hidden in the personal life section code. was there reasoning established for this? i think it should be included, alongside her representative statement that it was created to keep her address / personal info private at the time for stalking threats, etc.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion here in the archive was that it shouldn't be included. There's no reason for that to be changed now, and I've fully removed the hidden text, as should have been done at the time.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Public image quotation
Hello Asdfghjkl9658! I would like to discuss your recent additions to Watson's page. I noticed that you sought out to emphasize the following text: "I have met fans [with] my face tattooed on their bod[ies]. I've met people who used the Harry Potter books to get through cancer. I don't know how to explain it, but the Harry Potter phenomenon steps into a different zone" both through a quotebox and the formatting for a quote itself. I appreciate you reworking it so it doesn't align right under the image, but I do want to ask why you wish to emphasize the quote itself and how it serves to improve the biography? IMHO, it's an excessively lengthy quote or a standout definition regarding her public image and works better integrated into the body of the section, but of course, WP is a collaborative website. Thanks!--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. You're right and I completely understand what you're saying and respect and appreciate what you do. Anyway, I just wanted to "show" a little bit of what might be great improvement in the future on articles like this one, as it is shown on other entertainers' articles. Thanks for the words. Asdfghjkl9658 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for taking it into consideration - experimenting with format is always interesting, but, as I'm sure you already know, preserving the integrity of the page is always important. Thanks again for your contributions and dedication toward this page. Best wishes!--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal life and relationships
Due to the amount of reporting on her current relationship with Leo Robinton I considered including it in her biography - however, it occured to me that similar weight could be given to her past reported relationships, including William "Mack" Knight Chord Overstreet and Matthew Janney. Obviously, the inclusion of this information can be considered both informative and tabloidic, depending on each view of what is and isn't encyclopedic. What are other editors thoughts on this matter?--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does the article start by describing her as English?
Just curious. I came to this article because her name was in the news and I had no idea who she was.

She was born in France and therefore entitled to French citizenship. Her parents presumably had UK/British passports so she is British by citizenship and nationality.

She went to University at Browns, RI.

Is it that she identifies herself as English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selimap (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Children born on French soil to foreign parents are not automatically French citizens (see:French nationality law). She left France as a child, and never obtained French citizenship, so is not described as a French actress.
 * Her choice of university has no bearing on her nationality.
 * Her parents were British nationals, she grew up in England, and holds a British passport, so her nationality is British, but the choice of descriptor (British or English) can be subtle, and apparently is left to consensus. You can read about it on WP:UKNATIONALS and in the footnote to MOS:CONTEXTBIO. A glance at the page history shows that the choice has not been especially stable.
 * Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian advocacy and the response to it
I was genuinely surprised that there is no mention of Emma Watson's recent expression of support for Palestine and the resulting accusations of "antisemitism" by several Israel politicians and diplomats. This seems an event of significance, newsworthiness and encyclopaedic value — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Watson's signature?
It seems pretty standard that if a signature is available, then it's included in the article? WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, but many other articles seem to follow this precedent. Generally, sigs don't change much over years, and especially when there's nothing to back up a claim, there's no reason to assume that just because it's old, it's out of date? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking signatures are protected by a number of laws, having a copy on wikipedia of a living person does violate copyright law, infringement laws and possibly laws to do with forgery. I would avoid all of that by not having these on wikipedia, but then again. There are too many stupid editors that like these things! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is indulging in criminal acts by displaying signatures? Bear in mind that When to use the PD-signature tag exists, which does say that signatures are not protected by copyright, and as you don't state which laws you refer to, I can't comment any further, apart from to clarify that an editor "sent an email to the U.S. Copyright Office, and receiving the reply "A signature is not protected by copyright""
 * "There are too many stupid editors that like these things!" - just as there are too many idiot editors who don't understand copyright law, perhaps? It's not wise to end a statement that insults the very person who asked for comments regarding their inclusion of a signature in an article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is dependant on the country, I am a UK resident, "It is illegal to copy someone's signature". A signature can be classed as artwork, artwork has to also abide by copyright law." International law rules can be applied. If the person is deceased the law acts different in accordance. If the person is living, they can issue a take down notice. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also a UK resident, but my location (and yours) is secondary to that of Wiki itself which is America, and as such American laws apply. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind my edit was primarily based on this guideline (MOS:IRELEV) and essay (WP:SLP). I decided to remove it since, as the MoS states, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." I'd consider the signature an unnecessary image, as it does not really offer any additional article comprehension. It's relevant, but not necessarily significant. I also agree with User:Govvy that there are many editors who include these for no substantial reason other than because they're available, such as when it was first added here back in September 2020 (another case can be seen at Timothee Chalamet's article again, no adequate reason for inclusion). I've seen other editors also remove it from other articles as they see it the same way. Of course, as the essay explains, there is no consensus for including it or not, and it should all be up to what we ultimately decide to do, but as for me, I don't see it useful. As for the legality of it, I don't know much regarding that part, but the essay does address it as well. —  Film Enthusiast ✉ 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing to consider is that infobox_person has no less than three specific params for signature - "signature", "signature_size" and "signature_alt". What you're really proposing is a change to the infobox specifications, not a change to this particular article.  Checking the archives shows that it has been discussed several times, but there's never been a consensus to remove it.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not really implying that. I just don't see it necessary for most BLPs, including this article, though I'm sure the parameters are there for certain reasons/exceptions (articles where it is applicable or significant to include for some purpose, hence, why they even exist), but in my opinion, not necessary for this type of article. My concern at the moment is for this article in particular. — Film Enthusiast ✉ 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was away for the weekend, anyway, I agree with that it should removed. I don't see any encyclopaedic need to have it in the article either. Govvy (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it as a valid and reasonable part of her bio for a BLP article. Watson's signature is a part of her as much as her hairstyles are.  I don't think it can be said that the standard sig parameters are there for exceptions as the two terms are pretty much exclusive to each other.  I once again refer you to the infobox discussions where there has never been consensus to remove.  If you want policy to remove it - that's the place to go to.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022
In referencing the first Harry Potter film that Emma starred in, it was not Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone; instead, it was Sorcerer’s Stone. Cmccanless (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022
Add to personal life:

"In May 2016, Watson's name appeared in the [Panama Papers]."

EJKAE31 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: - Check the personal section hidden comments where it says " "  Also note the talk page archives for discussion surrounding this, where it was decided to be non-notable.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Emma Watson's signature
People can now forge her signature which isn't right you should never have posted her signature it is rude and disrespectful 74.193.8.140 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See Emma Watson's signature? where this is discussed. It's not "rude and disrespectful" at all.  There are literally thousands of BLP articles that include signatures - if you have a problem with that, head over to WP:SIGNATURE and rant there instead.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022
2A00:23C7:9012:5501:D4DC:8D58:E986:5A0 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Emma Watson studied geography for A levels and received an A grade
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also seems like WP:TRIVIA Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023
Last paragraph of “Activism” section, replace “environmental justice” with “sustainable fashion”

The reason: the reference used links to an article about how she work a sustainably made outfit to meet Al Gore, a prominent climate activist. Wearing sustainable outfits is not the same as environmental justice, which is the concept that those who bear the brunt of pollution should have the power and influence to reduce that pollution and live within a healthy environment. 75.168.94.15 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The article says: "Watson has been a longtime advocate for environmental justice." -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023
This is a request to add the paragraph below to the Emma Watson page, either in the section “Activism and advocacy”, immediately AFTER the current second sentence (“In 2015, Malala Yousafzai told Watson she decided to call herself a feminist after hearing her speech.[157]”) or by creating a new section, “Critical reaction to feminist activism”.

The source I am citing and quoting is:

https://thecritic.co.uk/feminist-fallacies-men-can-be-feminists/ The author is journalist Julie Bindel.

My suggested addition is:

 Epsilon Moron (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Are there more sources? If this is the only article mentioning this, then including it would give undue weight. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  00:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)