Talk:Katie Leung

• Strong bias 217.43.77.36 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Racism

Please, stop deleting the part about the racist "fans"!!! If you look below, it has been decided that we should at least mention the racists, but in only 1 sentence. I am about to add 1 sentence for the third time because someone (or some people) keep getting rid of it without disscussion on the talk page. If you think it should be removed, discuss it here first. As of right now, we have agreed to at least mention it though, so please don't just erase it without saying why.

I agree. The one sentence mention is OK. Nandesuka 00:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed my edit (again). Hopefully this is the last time I have to add this back in.

I actually understand now why it was deleted this time--someone added to the paragraph and that they are clearly racists who's opinions should be ignored. after my part about the racists overlooking the fact the Cho is Asian in the books too. I agree with this comment, but this is not the place. Whoever added such a pov comment is just as bad as the person(s) deleting the section on these "fans".

"Equal Time" for racism?

I'm conflicted about the discussion of the freaks who are protesting her kissing Daniel Radcliffe. I could understand mentioning them, but do they really deserve half of the text in the article? I worry that we're basically taking a minority opinion of a few weirdos and presenting it as if it's some sort of mass movement, which it certainly is not. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? Nandesuka 22:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree , there should not be a whole section pertaining to this. That's a major POV, and like Nandesuka stated, it's not a major movement, or even notable for that fact. A mention of it and a reference is all the article needs. Now if a whole country decides to ban her or boycott the movie, thats a different situation (as if that would happen). Keep the racist remarks out of the article, as they are not pertinent to the history of this person. <> Who 22:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

These biggots are gonna be screaming when they make book 6 into a movie--Ginny kissing Dean, man, if these losers are upset about a white kissing an asian, I don't want to think what they'll say about a white kissing a black. You would think these harry potter "fans" would be a bit smarter, do they overlook the incredibly obvious anti-racist themes in the books?! I agree that the older article gave too much detail on this topic, but now there is none, so I will add one sentence like mentioned above. How do stupid people like this still exist--I for one was very glad to see the two major mixed race couples in the series so far (Harry/Cho and Ginny/Dean), and even glader to see that JK didn't even draw attention to the fact that they were interracial and whatnot, shows that some of us in society are progressing a bit, though I do wonder about these protesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.15.55 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree as said by unsigned. --takagawa-kun 06:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

DOB

There isn't a "good" source at the moment for her dob, but the majority of them say 12APR1988, so I'm changing it to that until we can get a confirmed source. Some sources (note I am not referencing IMDB or Katie-Leung online): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

What's the logic for distrusting IMDB, which is generally considered the canonical online reference for movie metadata? They say her DOB is 8 August 1987.Nandesuka 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly common knowledge on Wiki, to not fully trust IMDB. We may use a ton of their data for filmography, but when it comes to disputed information, they are not the reliable source. Like Wiki, they are user edited, unlike Wiki, there are not thousands of people cross referencing newly entered data. It is fairly easy to add mis-leading info on IMDB without the worry of someone changing or removing it for some time, if ever. I searched for awhile, to try to find a better source, I could not find one, hence I went with the majority. ∞Who?¿? 21:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed her date of birth to "unknown". If we don't actually have a reliable source for the DOB then it makes no sense to give one date ahead of another. People are going to use the wikipedia article as a source; if our information is just based on "well, there were more web sites that had this as an answer," that impacts our credibility. Presumably when they start promoting the new movie, there will be press kits that will include a canonical answer. We can update this then. entry accidentally unsigned by Nandesuka ∞Who?¿?

Sounds good to me, thanks for the fix. ∞Who?¿? 19:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I know plenty of the fan websites state her birthday as August, but all of them are user edited. Warner Bro's doesn't even have a profile for her yet, and if they do, I would love to have the link. Here is another more credible link showing her birthday as April answers.com. ∞Who?¿? 05:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper source. Sunday Mirror UK. Dated 9 May 2004, states she is 16. 2004 - 1988 = 16, if her dob was August, she would have been 15, seeings April comes before May, her birthday had already passed. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Acutally, there was a letter Katie sent to a fan that stated her birthdate as August 8, 1987. Currently, the site is down due to bandwith problems but when it's working again, I can post the link here. (71.116.170.149 06:14, 21 July 2005 UTC signed for anon ∞Who?¿? 06:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

• Thank you that would be very helpful, especially if we can prove the source. ∞Who?¿? 06:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New evidence

        Here's the link to the letter that Katie herself wrote.

http://www.katieleung.info/katieleungletter.jpg (added by 71.116.180.55)

Thanks for the link. I still would like to get some consensus on whether other users want to trust the source or not. I am thinking that Katie Leung's people would have requested it's removal, if it were fake, however the lack of their efforts to make an official site, is either to keep her underwraps until after new movie, or just lack of effort. It would also be helpful to see the link on the website, for context and see if it is easily found. Mainly because if it is highly visible, it has a chance of being disputed/accepted. Anyone have any thoughts on this letter? ∞Who?¿? 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to accept this as prima facie evidence of her birthday. It seems like it would be a lot of trouble to go to to fake just to promulgate a bogus birthdate. Nandesuka 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats true, but you can never know with fans, I dont think the letter would be made to fake a date, but just to say "Hey look, she wrote me a letter." I am almost willing to use it as a source, but see no problem with leaving the date at 1987 as TonySapphire has set it to. ∞Who?¿? 21:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean the letter is not believed to be a reliable source?

Can we remove the {{disputed}} tag, now that we seem to have converged on "1987" as an acceptable answer? Nandesuka 04:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why not, most of the anon's dont' really listen to it anyway. I cna't stand the way it looks with it, I'll remove it. ∞Who?¿? 04:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Kissing / awesome

source is here:

Jo: So, you're filming that at the moment?
Dan: Yeah.
Jo: Kissing scenes?
Dan: Let's hope so!
Jo: Is she gorgeous?
Dan: No... yeah, she's very pretty. She's really cool, though, Katie's awesome!