Talk:Emma Watson

Age:

IMDB

Removed text taken from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0914612/bio Everyone feel free to paraphrase that and integrate the facts into the article. Paranoid 12:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This long-standing factoid that she was named after her aunt is apparently untrue, but I only tried one source -- see [1], which says it was her paternal grandmother... :-? ugen64 02:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

It had to have been her paternal grandmother. If you remember from a few years ago, her birth name was listed as Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson II on all of her fan sites. Since she wasn't named after her mother (whose name is Jacqueline), the only other choice is her paternal grandmother for someone having the exact same name. The thing about II was incorrect, however, because her grandmother wasn't born with the last name Watson. Stephe1987 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's one of the problems. There isn't a single source outside of fandom that I can find that says anything other than she was named for a grandmother. It's only at the fansites that someone, somewhere, made the (since spread as fact) supposition that their names are identical. The grandmother may simply have been named Emma; "Duerre Watson" may have been nothing more than the parents' attempt to make sure both last names were represented. Until and unless I ever get an answer back from HPFilms, it's all conjecture. RadioKirk talk to me 19:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about what I said before. Looking around, I think her aunt's name was either Emma or Charlotte. Duerre was her mother's last name and Watson came from her father. The (II) part came from IMDb by accident because our Emma is the second Emma Watson in their database. The paternal grandmother thing was probably also a confusion, driven by IMDb's numbering system. Stephe1987 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious entry removed

Anonymous user:200.73.180.22 added the following:

She also acted in british TV series Full Moon (1999)

I can find no mention of this anywhere: it is stated several times that the first HP film was her first professional engagement (indeed see this article). --Phil | Talk 09:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mhmm, I'm inclined to agree with you. ugen64 23:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dubious Entry II

User:202.7.166.170 has recently made multiple edits under the trivia section and before reverting I wanted to ask the other community memebers if they thought the edits relavent. Thank you -Hoekenheef 14:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They all need to be sourced before they can be kept. The one about hair is obviously not NPOV. If verified, the bits about birthplace and ancestry are worth keeping I think (the others can go as far as I'm concerned). I'd rather see them in the bio part than tacked on as "trivia" though. --W(t) 14:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Makes sense. -Hoekenheef 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia Section

I removed the trivia section once before and was reverted. I am now doing so again. This section is just plain silly and contains no relevant information. I now address each point as follows:

1. The Jane Austen reference has nothing to do with her. Unless her parents named her specifically after said character (which would still not be worth mentioning, I think, but would at least be a connection) then this is a random bit of coincidence of no encyclopedic value.

2. The IMDB reference is dumb. I doubt there is anyone that thinks she is "Emma Watson (II)", as the IMDB system is not so opaque. Even if a few poor souls are fooled, this is not relevant to her life or career.

She was named after her grandmother, who has the same name as Emma, but had a different last name at birth (which is why our Emma is not Emma Watson II even though fan sites from the early 2000's listed that as her birth name). Also, I would like to point out that IMDb puts the parentheses around Roman numerals to note that there is more than one person with that name in their database. Emma Watson (I) was an actress who played Marie-Laure Bresson in 1983 episodes of "Angels", Elizabeth Herbert in Florence Nightingale (1985), Dannie Bennett in the 1986 "Casualty" episode called "Gas," and Rosemary in To Be the Best (1992). Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Her height is not encyclopedic and may even still be subject to change since she is only fifteen. It was incorrect anyway.

Her height is 5' 5" (1.65 m) and she is done growing; 90% of girls have reached their full height by age 16 and Emma hasn't grown in a little over a year. (And to the people who say she is 5' 3" or 5' 7", she's not because Emma has given 5' 5" as her height for a while now.) But I agree that it's not encyclopedic. Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

4. I am sure she shares a birthday with a lot of people. This is not encyclopedic.

I agree with you and I hate when people add that to IMDb trivia—especially when they share a birthday with someone they haven't even worked with. But if it said Emma Thompson, I can see why someone put it—they made a pretty big deal about it a couple of years ago during the filming/release of Prisoner of Azkaban.Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

5. The fact that she has worn dental braces is the kind of thing one puts in a gossip magazine for young adults and not an encyclopedia.

6. If Lycos Top 50 internet pools are really that important, someone can put this factoid into the main section of the article. This is the only bit of information that seems like it may be relevant, but a trivia section is not neccessary to keep it.

Why is Lycos internet pools important? Stephe1987 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Not encyclopedic. There is no signifigance attachted to this fact.

Trivia sections in general are probably best avoided in an encyclopedia article, but they should at least contain relevant and interesting factoids. This is just a collection of useless and irrelevant facts and degrades the quality of the article. Indrian 17:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Death rumour?

The article stated rather baldly:

There are no truth to the rumors sparked on the internet that she has died.

I rather think that any such comment should be even more carefully supported by proper citation than normal. —Phil | Talk 11:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one that put it there. I'd read that somewhere but I forget. Thanks for taking it off for me. My bad.

Who cares about rumors? The point is that they are not true. Plus, Emma is obviously alive, so the "death rumor" shouldn't even be mentioned. Stephe1987 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I'm going to make the same complaint I made about the Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint articles regarding the photos: this article is too short to have two photos and not look ridiculous, especially since (as is currently the case on the Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint pages) one of the photos is right on top of the other. Someone needs to either move one of the photos down or delete it all together (I suggest the second one, since it's less flattering). --Hazey Jane 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that they should only have a photo of themself as a person. I hate it when they post photos of actors as the character they were playing. The Yule Ball photo belongs in the Hermione Granger section, NOT Emma Watson. Stephe1987 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so simple, unfortunately. Wikipedia must be very careful with copyvios. The pic was chosen because, as I point out in the pic summary, it is "simultaneously illustrative of the subject in real life", and because there is not a single fair-use-eligible pic of Emma older than, I think, age 10. On the other hand, now that we have the DVD here, I could use a cap from the special features... RadioKirk talk to me 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with screenshot from interview on the DVD :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

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

• Who are you to say no more fansites? I don't see a consensus here on that. And you should sign your comments.--Azathar 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism?

This page is being vandalised so harshly. Maybe there is a need to protect this page from it? I really don't understand why people would find it funny to vandalise an article in an open encylopeaedia??? I mean, come on, don't they have something better to do?

--- Removed "She is also the hottest person alive :)" comment in filmography section. -P. Gawtry

I've seen on articles for politicians an anti-vandalism warning, stating that anyone who vandalizes that page could be blocked without further warning. I don't know how effective it would be, but could it possibly work here? --D-Day 12:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt. Is there a template for it? I've never come across that before. --NymphadoraTonks 17:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just posted the anti-vandal warning on the page. If anyone reads my user page, they'll get a strong idea of how I feel about vandals.(Of course, you'll also get a strong idea of why I hate vandals on this page in particular. ;) ).

Fan sites

Do we really need a list of fan sites at the bottom? We should either use them as sources and expand our own article, or get rid of them; after all, a google search for "Emma Watson" would be just as fruitful, if not more so... – ugen64 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The fan sites section is unnecessary. --WhyBeNormal 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagree other celebrities have fansites listed, why should we make an exception in Emma's case? --Azathar 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum: Are you going to removed the fan sites from all other actor/actress pages as well? Also, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, and Bonnie Wright all have fan sites listed on theirs, so, what is your justification on getting rid of Emma's?--Azathar 04:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We should look into cutting down the fan sites on other pages. The reason is that they have little or no information, and are chiefly opinion forums. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or portal. We only add external links when they are sources for material in the article, or can provide substantial additional info to our readers. -Willmcw 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll leave that campaign to you then, as I don't feel they are an issue in an article, as long as they are at the end of the article. But, before you go and remove links, you may want to get some sort of wiki-wide consensus, and perhaps get some sort of policy created, otherwise, you may see lots of reverts from ppl who don't agree with you.--Azathar 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Our policies are at "Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia:external links. The latter says, under the heading "Maybe OK to add":

• Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

There is a general consensus to keep external links to a minimum. -Willmcw 05:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minimum does not mean none at all. Like your quote says, there can be a link to one major fanisre, or a web directory. None currently exists on this article. Instead, some editor decided that no fansites should be listed, and inserted a comment stating such, hence why i removed the comment. Part of wikipedia is that we are all suppose to work together, not one or two editors dictate what is good or bad for a specific page (Not that I am saying you are doing so Willmcw). I still don't see a major issue with a link to one or two major fansites, done tastefully and at the end of the article.--Azathar 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems we have with links is that everybody wants to add their own. Is one of the fansites for Watson pre-eminent above the rest? Otherwise, we'll be arguing with folks who say, "well you have that link why can't I add my link too?" If there is one major site out of many then we might add that one. But on the other hand, why? What will it add to the article? -Willmcw 06:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, why not then add the celebrity's official website to it the list of links. Most celebs have an official one, which also include links to some of the unofficial ones. As to your answer, Wikipedia is not a web depository of images, so, having a link to outside fan sites can give fans some ideas of where to search for images. And an encylopedia should be able to give some one other avenues to search. Search engines are fine, but they can be bulky and cumbersome sometimes. Like I said, I think you are going to get alot of reverts if you go and try to removed all fansites from every celeb article, so, its somethings that should be made into some sort of policy or published guideline before you go doing it, and I mean more then just a paragraph buried on a page about other policies. But, since I am not an Admin, I'm not going to bother trying to fight about it, I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours. Since there seems to be consensus on this article 3-1 for no fan sites, I won't be adding them in anytime soon, but I don't think its the best decision.--Azathar 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible approach

One possible approach is to consult known websites which are reasonably trustworthy, like The Leaky Cauldron or MuggleNet to see which fansites they list. In fact, possibly the easiest (and laziest Template:;-)) method is to point to those lists: for example MuggleNet lists some of Emma's fansites here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in a manner identical to that used at Lindsay Lohan's WP page, I've added a link to the Yahoo! directory of Emma fan sites. RadioKirk 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Today, a fansite was added, then removed, then added again (then removed again, hehe). Given that we've added the Yahoo! list, I worry about allowing one fan site, then another, then another, ad nauseam, until we're right back to deleting them all, all over again. RadioKirk 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sites

I've had a look at the three sites linked at the bottom of the article and much of the information contained is incorrect.Do we really need any of them,other than the Imdb one?

Latest Edit

What a mess! Who hacked this article anyway? If I knew how to fix it. I would.--D-Day 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Line removal

Am removing distateful and very probably false addendum that someone has made to the opening paragraph regarding Ms. Watson's sex life. This stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Validity of editor's notice

!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: Please note that vandalism of this page will not be tolerated. Vandalism will be taken as including/adding your own views, deleting large sections of text, inserting manifestly false information, as well as any blatant and disgusting innuendo that does NOT belong in an encyclopedia. Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours without further warning. Your activity may also be reported to your ISP for possible legal action. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. --

I wonder if this is truly valid, and in keeping with Wikipedia policies. I know vandlaism is wrong, but to write it up in this way appears to me to not be in the spirit of wikipedia, and I think it should be reviewed by someone not connected to this article.--Azathar 06:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I put it on there. The editors note is the same one used from many U.S. politician articles such as Bill Clinton, with the exception of the innuendo note because it corresponds to this article, and the reporting the user to the ISP, which I didn't add, and have no idea where it came from. I guess that means Ms. Watson could sue for sexual harrassment if she wanted to, but I highly doubt it.--D-Day 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well it is a nice idea in theory, what is an ISP going to do about vandals who are vandalising an free, open-source encyclopedia. I don't think they are going to do much, too much effort for something so little. Sometimes, the best thing to do is get the page protected for a few days to a week, and usually the vandals eventually move on to something else. If you want to keep it up, all the power to you, though I don't know if Emma is in the same category as a US politician, and it could be removed by some sysop.--Azathar 06:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the part about the ISP. I know for a fact that an ISP will act in particularly egregious cases and, frankly, some of these have been particularly egregious... RadioKirk 21:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that the warning is for US politicans only. Most of the warning on this page comes from it though, with one or two modifications. If it is though, I'll develop another one. --D-Day 15:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't feel we should have this notice, it is against the spirit of Wikipedia and mostly because of WP:BEANS. A lot of articles get vandalized and we have blocking policy and protection policy that handles these things, as well as the test templates which informs the user, nicely, that it is not good to vandalize. I am considering removing the notice. «»Who?¿?^meta 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the warning as false. This article has no special status. Note I have also edited Bill Clinton to remove the offending material. TacoDeposit 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have such a warning, simply because I am tired of fighting the daily vandalism on this page. Whatever we can do to discourage vandals is fine by me. I do not believe that this notice will in some way discourage honest contributions. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I am sympathetic of your frustration regarding vandalism, a warning stating that vandals on this article can be blocked without further warning, thus implying that this article enjoys special status above articles without the warning, is wrong. The standard is to warn vandals on their talk page before blocking, except in particularly egregious cases. TacoDeposit 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the warning has helped anything, but the vandalism on this page is just pathetic. I really don't know what to do now. Is it time to take it to an admin? --D-Day 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the admin who mentioned removing it, I have also blocked users that I have seen that have vandalized the page. I recommend you use WP:AIV during the vandalism, and warn the users with the {{test}} templates when it happens. Every article gets sporadic vandalism, and one minor test edit by random users doesn't validate protection or special status. IMHO. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Editors' notice re: Philosopher's Stone

<!-- EDITORS: Please do not change "Philosopher's"—see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view#Nationalism -->

I have added this tag after every occurrence of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (and, so far, so good). It seems odd how people could change it to the US title even in the sentence in which the different titles are noted, and why. I hope this helps people with a problem recognizing the "world view". RadioKirk 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Place of birth

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

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

The Evening Standard is a tabloid of dubious reputation. This does not count as a reliable source. --Yamla 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Emma Watson was born in Oxford, England and moved to France for five years shortly after she was born. So her brother was born in France, but Emma was born in England. Stephe1987 03:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

French Connection

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

Jacqueline Duerre

Someone today changed "Chris" (Emma's father) to "Christopher", so I did a little research: Reporting in the UK and US on the actors' hirings identify her father as "Chris". Meantime, several fansites identify her mother as "Jacqueline Duerre", including the closest thing to an "official" Emma site I can find [2]. This could mean Emma was named for her mother's mother, or that "Emma" and "Duerre" are completely unrelated as relates to the actress. So, for now, I've passed over the reference as I investigate.

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

Contact her publicist? We can do that?Vulturell 05:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone is free to contact her publicist. However the material from the publicist which isn't available elsewhere might be challenged as unverifiable. At a minimum, it'd be necessary to post the response on the talk page. -Willmcw 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw is correct on both counts—and, on the second, my plan is to do precisely that. RadioKirk 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what could be done is post a scan of the response, scan the letter and post the scan. That would be considered verifiable, especially if you leave on the Publicist's contact information.--Azathar 07:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Presumably, this would be done by e-mail, or by phone with an e-mail for confirmation. If her pub's e-mail is not publicly known, I would have to edit it from the screenshot. I'll play it by ear... RadioKirk 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have spoken with Amy at HPFilms (through Leavesden Studios publicity, at present the only representatives for Miss Watson), and she tells me that it may be a while before we receive the answers to our questions (Emma is in school at the moment). Nevertheless, I have sent the questions to Amy via e-mail, and I'll keep on top of this as best I can. RadioKirk 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Pic

Is that pic really Emma Watson? If so, would it have that copyright license, instead of fair use? Doidimais Brasil 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've confirmed that, indeed, the pic is of Miss Watson and is from ES magazine [3] but, to be honest, unless the uploader can demonstrate the magazine intended it for fair use, I tend to agree with you, it should be removed. RadioKirk 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the choice of licensing was wrong, but yes indeed, that is Emma. Why didn't you think it was her, Doidimais Brasil? Just curious...--Azathar 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Azathar, well, I have my, uh, reasons *embarassed*. Doidimais Brasil 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I was just curious.--Azathar 02:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Everything's going to change now, isn't it?" ;-) RadioKirk 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

lol--Azathar 20:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I finally found a decent promo shot (and have now added the source info) RadioKirk 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Promo shot" fair use under debate; inserted poster instead. RadioKirk 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're using "fair use" pics when editors have donated GFDL pics. -Willmcw 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno... every other bloody page uses film premiere pics—then again, each occurrence is a potential lawsuit... ;) RadioKirk 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"editors have donated GFDL pics" - which in reality means someone has stolen a photo off some other site and incorrectly tagged it here. None of the photos that were previously on this page were legally licenced, or if they were they lacked correct attribution and the uploader failed to provide it when asked. It's not on to simply take photos off other sites - would you also take the textual content? No... So what's the distinction here? You would have thought they at least one editor of this page would have taken their own photo of Emma Watson somewhere and would be willing to licence it under GFDL/CC - that's what Wikipedia's all about afterall.
But if you do beleive there are GFDL licneced photos of Emma Watson on Wikipedia or Commons then please tell me where... Thanks/wangi 22:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Emma Watson.jpg

This claims to have had its copyright released. Can anyone confirm this? RadioKirk 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

—Edit: This is not one of Emma's better shots, either; does it add anything to the article? RadioKirk 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were actually PD/GFDL (which I highly doubt), it would add something simply because it's the only copyright-kosher picture of Emma Watson we have. In any case I doubt it's PD or GFDL so it'll get deleted soon. – ugen64 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: Watson and Jane Austen

I have restored (actually, rewritten) an old trivia point on Emma Watson and the Jane Austen character. I (for one) found this interesting, and I believe other readers will, too. This time, however, it's fully researched, with citations. RadioKirk 19:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex symbol

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

Okay, in that case I'll remove the category since it cannot be verified. Thanks/wangi 03:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But of course RadioKirk beat me to it! ;) wangi 03:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You're welcome ;) RadioKirk 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

but she is a sex symbol :(

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

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

Hey, don't worry about "screwing up" the encyclopedia—it's yours, too, as long as your intentions are good. I cannot answer for the reasons the other editor made the reversion in this case, but I've also removed the "category" in the recent past. Watson, who turns 16 in April, certainly could be considered a sex symbol to a great number of people; however, until she's given the moniker by something resembling an official presence or publication, the statement is POV. <- This article would be a very good starting point as you grow with Wikipedia and contribute to an encyclopedia that must, by its very nature, be neutral in its presentations. I hope you stick around, and happy editing! RadioKirk talk to me 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that being a sex symbol has to do with anything, so there is no reason why it should ever be put in here. It is a fake status that tabloids arbitrarily assign to celebrities and is irrelevant to Emma and her life. Stephe1987 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I sure hope she's not in the sex symbol category! She is only 15, and still has over two years left before she turns 18. Of course, Charlotte Church won the "Bum of the Year Award" when she was only 16, which was also inappropriate. Just because she was of "legal" age didn't mean she was an adult or ready to be given such an award at a young age... and it sure didn't have a great effect on how she is now. She could have done a lot better with herself had they waited until she was at least 18, possibly even waiting until next year when she turns 21, to allow people to be placed into such categories.24.130.207.247 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This category should be in place now she's 16. See the following for reference to Emma Watson and co-stars becoming sex symbols, dating to late 2002: [4].

A Japanese reporter asks the young actors if they feel they have become junior sex symbols.

Emma blushes and giggles, and passes the question on to her co-star.

Daniel, who reveals that he has an un-Harry Potterish predilection for punk music, tells reporters: "I'm flattered by all the fan letters I get. But I don't have a girlfriend or anything."

That's the entire reference; but, I still believe this is really beside the point.

It's not up to Wikipedia to bestow "sex symbol" status on Watson or anyone else; that pushes a POV. Once a legitimate expert (whatever that is [grin]) in the entertainment field—or, better, several of them—calls her a "sex symbol" then, by all means, the category should be there. RadioKirk talk to me 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't she be in the sex symbol category, because a lot of boys and young men like her. Angelaire

Photos, again...

I guess one of my mini-crusades on Wikipedia is weed out all the photos getting used incorrectly and under the wrong terms/licence. It's something I've not been doing much of lately (rather i've been MoS:DPing) but this page is on my watchlist and it's a constant source of such images!

Anyway, to the point - I would have thought at least one person here would have taken their own photo, or have access to someone who has (and get it licenced from them)?

If not perhaps you guys can all keep it in mind...

Thanks/wangi 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo! Movies is the source. I could be wrong, but I was of the belief that Yahoo! uses only those images released for promotional use. If not, when the film is released on DVD, I can screenshot it. RadioKirk 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RI. – ugen64 06:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Deletion: 'Selected' Filmography

As her filmography is currently limited to the Harry Potter films, I removed the word 'selected' as it seems to imply that she's acted in more films than listed. -UK-Logician-2006 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch—I never saw that changed... RadioKirk ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"recognized primarily for"

as with the above, since she's never been in anything else, i'd suggest changing this to "recognised for". unless she's recognised for something i'm missing...

Hm... that's tough. As an actress, she's known only as Hermione Granger; to teenbois (is that how they spell it? I'm so behind...), she's recognized at premieres and public appearances as a babe-in-progress. Tough call... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

teenbois — I think that's pronounced and spelt "looser" ;) Anyway, I think the edit I just done[5] improves this/wangi 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL except, that would be spelled and pronounced "loser"—"looser" means "not as tight as". "Loser" is probably the most commonly misspelled word among the younger set. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Drat, just as well we're not editing Wiktionary...  ;)/wangi 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!!!! RadioKirk talk to me 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

protection

I kinda think that this page needs to be protected, because of it it getting vandalised as much as the Michael Jackson article, but that's just me --Karrmann

I disagree. It does not seem to be vandalised more than other similar pages. Additionally, I think the editors here do a good job of reverting the vandalism. Remember, if the page is protected, nobody can update it. However, if enough people think it should be protected, I can certainly apply the appropriate magic dust. --Yamla 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went over the page history; sure, it gets its share, but this is nothing like some of the vandalism I've seen—and I've been fairly active for only a few months. RadioKirk talk to me 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I noticed that there is a lot of controversy over copyvio photos, but i don't really like the idea of a movie poster illustrating the article. right now I'm browsing emma fansites (dear god please take me now) for a decent pic. What can I put on here that is acceptiable? --Karrmann

Technically, all images tagged as fair use (such as the one you have put in) are allowed; see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos. (Note that the latter is only a proposed policy at this point.) However, to qualify as fair use, pictures must be sourced and properly attributed. While (in my opinion) the current picture is acceptable, I'd prefer something that came directly from either Warner Brothers or from Emma Watson's official site (if there is one). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Fallingdown's new pic should stay, as it is properly sourced and tagged. --Karrmann

Emma's age when hired for Philosopher's Stone

Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were introduced to the press in July, 2000, and the official press release came in August. [6] The film was released in November, 2001.[7] Emma (born 15 April 1990) was 10 and 11, respectively. RadioKirk talk to me 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Editor note

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

--Karrmann

dates

RadioKirk, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "parenthesis" - a parenthetical phrase is one that's set off and can be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence (see comma (punctuation)). Now among other things, implying that "2006" in "In February, 2006, ..." was a parenthetical phrase does not make sense because the "2006" is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

But really, this is no debate - every source states that "month year" is correct as is "day month year" but commas are used in "month day, year". – ugen64 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say I do have full understanding of what is parenthetical ("... in February (2006), Watson began..."), but the standard itself has changed over the years. I'm decidedly old-school when it comes to what's supposed to be correct, not what is current standard. For example, I refuse to misuse "presently". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does get annoying when people say "presently" when they mean "now" - if the standards are still muddled then I will accept that. Sorry if I seemed abrupt :) – ugen64 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe 'salright. I'm still baffled by the inability to Use Headline Capping in Summaries, despite the ironically named "Manual of Style". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Emma, hyperactivity and Ritalin

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

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

You're welcome! :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Please learn how to cite. --Yamla 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

With all possible respect to several people who just don't get it, let's say you're a famous person and I have a blog that's read by a lot of people (respected or not). All I'd have to do is type that a source on your movie set saw you taking medication for ADHD. That's literally all I'd have to do. Within just a few months, other bloggers will have picked it up, tabloid media (online or otherwise) will disseminate it, and then someone will put it on your Wikipedia page as fact, claiming, "it's true, it's all over Google!"

Get the picture?

RadioKirk talk to me 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Emma Watson drinking alcohol

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

Am I the only person remaining on this planet who can recognize an obviously posed joke? Gawd, the human race is in freakin' trouble... RadioKirk talk to me 03:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this (look under UK), it would appear she is at a private residence and probably has adult approval, therefore it is totally legal. The media is gonna have a field day with that one though..... -Maverick 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Radiokirk, I hope you weren't referring to me when you said that the human race would be in trouble. That is not a very civil thing to say.

It is rather useful if you explain the photo rather than comment in a sarcastic, unhelpful tone. And thankyou, Maverick for explaining the photo to me. --Rachel Cakes 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment about the human race stands because, frankly, we are; however, I let my bad mood get the better of me last night and took it out on you individually. That was wrong. Please accept my apologies. RadioKirk talk to me 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen two other pictures of her with alcohol and I definitely don't think she's just posing with them. Of course, they could just be fake. 70.48.166.233 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They are not fake. In the two pics with the Corona, she's in a restaurant, and they imply she actually drank the beer, which is illegal until she turns 16 next month. In the other one, that's one of a series of about 20 pictures in which she's at a gathering with some friends. -Maverick 17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to at least three people here (I stopped reading about 1/3 of the way down as some of the comments are not particularly nice...), it's legal if you're 14 and older, if it's brought by someone 18 and older and served with your food. Still, how obviously posed does a pic have to be? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Said pictures can be found here. Another photograph shows her with the same corona bottle but empty.

Already seen 'em (had to hunt a bit, though). She sure looks like she's having all kinds of fun with a joke, to me (if you're holding an empty bottle, you must have drunk it, I guess...). There's also a picture with her holding a bottle with a reddish label that may or may not be a Budweiser—and which she may or may not be drinking—there's another on a different site purporting to be her actually taking a drink of something, but I blew up the snap in a photo editor and the person's hand appears to be empty. Whether she actually enjoys a beer is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned; the point is—at least, with the two restaurant shots—she's clearly having fun at someone's expense, media-field-day worthy or otherwise ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the apology, Radiokirk. That was a very gracious of you.

Anyway, back to the picture. I guess that Emma is growing up and I think she is taking the mickey out of everyone, and she is probably trying to show everyone that she isn't a little girl anymore.

At least she has a sense of humour about it. I'm not sure whether or not she wanted the photos to be leaked, but I guess she couldn't have cared that much otherwise she wouldn't have posed for them.

But yes, the media is going to have a field day with these pics. --Rachel Cakes 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, they're not pink from laughing? Thanks for the anatomy lesson... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My face goes pink from drinking even if it is just half a serve of alcohol. Which is really annoying. Not sure how common it is, though.

Either way, I sincerely doubt that she would be with a group of her peers, at a party, holding a beer, but not have drunk anything. It's time to face the facts: she drinks. She is growing up and seems to be trying desperately to shed that goody-two shoes image. Which is understandable. :) --Rachel Cakes 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not arguing that she doesn't, or even that I have a problem with it if she does. It does not belong in her encyclopedia article, however, primarily because it's neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. More immediately, the argument that "her cheeks are pink, therefore she drinks" is ludicrous—laughing does it, embarassment does it, etc. RadioKirk talk to me 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I think this stayed out of the media because she's a minor or because McCauly Culkin (sp?) did a whole lot more at that age. DyslexicEditor 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I think in one of the Harry Potter books the three main characters drank meade. DyslexicEditor 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Place of Birth and Mother maiden name

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

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

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

Just wondering (although you are correct about the original research claims - unless the person cites the exact newspaper page/date), how do you know for sure that all the bits of info you stated are not true? I mean, they certainly may well be not true, but she wasn't born in Oxford? Do you know where she was born? JackO'Lantern 08:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the birth announcement in The Times should go in, even with an exact citation, because it is not explicitly about the actress. (I.e. the announcement, for obvious reasons, would make no reference to her later acting career.) As researchers, we could reason that it almost certainly does refer to the actress, noting the coincidence of the date and the parents' forenames, but it is the fact that we would have to make such an inference that makes it original research. I think we should only include information about the actress if it is explicitly published as information about the actress, without us having to work that out for ourselves. As for how I know that the things above are untrue, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;) Ahem. I mean, it doesn't matter how I know they're untrue, because I'm not trying to assert their falsehood in the article. Only information that goes in the article needs to be verified. Of course, if anyone thinks they can verify that they are true, we're in trouble. But I'd like to see anyone try. :) The IMDb doesn't count, because it's mostly submitted by random members of the public, isn't it? Actually, the date of birth is suspect for the same reason that the place of birth was, but challenging that would lead to an even longer argument, so I think I'll leave that in for now... -- Oliver P. 09:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All your points noted and I apologise, I was not aware that research was not allowed, and thought accuracy was important. My research, if you wish to call it that, of course does support your removal of 'made-up'rumours. What I did took about 10 minutes using publically accessible web resources, so while the information is not as you say 'common knowledge' it is public domain. I also acknowledge your point about invasion of privacy, this was something that was bothering me whilst I was checking but I felt the article would be better accurate. If I offended then I apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.79.113.130 (talk • contribs)

I don't think there's any need to apologize; other editors are merely explaining why some included information can't stay as it is. If I read WP:NOR correctly, it's not so much that original research is forbidden as it is that original research must be accompanied by citeable evidence for it to survive scrutiny by other editors. I, for one, appreciate your work and hope some confirmation of several missing details is forthcoming. Meantime, feel free to read the pages I've linked in this response; they'll help a lot. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is very odd about the birth place. Are you saying (and you certainly may be right) that no good source has ever reported her birth place? That's very odd for a relatively major actress. Maybe the IMDB's mistake just got spread around and no one bothered to correct it (not the first time). Radiokirk, you said up above somewhere that you could contact her agent and ask, so could we ask about her birth place (or date)? Since this is certainly the kind of basic information we should have, and the kind of info we need to have here, considering a lot of people are going to submit the Oxford birth place in the next while, thinking us ignorant. (And we would cite her agency if we find out, which I think we can and should do) JackO'Lantern 19:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a request in to HPFilms. I've had no response since the initial reply. Maybe now would be a good time for an e-mail reminder :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

lol indeed. JackO'Lantern 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am also going to write to Emma for her birthday and I will include those questions with the letter I am sending to her. If you want to ask her any questions or write a birthday message to her, feel free to post on my talk page. I will send the letter out on April 3rd, and the deadline for submissions to the site is April 13th. The link to the birthday page I am making for Emma will be activated at 12:00am GMT on 15 April 2006. :) Stephe1987 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Presuming she replies, you do realize that she and/or her parents and/or her reps would have to consent to Internet publication of a photocopy of the letter for it to be a suitable source for Wikipedia, right? :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Compliments

Emma Watson is such a great actress. I enjoy watching her star in the Harry Potter series along with Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe. They are such talented young actors and I wish them the best of luck.

Oh, by the way, hi Emma. Though I highly doubt she'll ever read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertinesfan13 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comments. While we appreciate your thoughts, for future reference, the discussion ("talk") pages of articles are not for comments about the topic, but instead for comments on how to improve the article or questions regarding editorial integrity. We are not a blog or discussion forum, and comments about the subject of an article are not appropriate here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of User:Gtapro91's edits

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

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

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

{{unreferenced}} tag variation

I added this template variation:

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

Can you give me an idea of which specific data you're referring to? We don't really have much here about her personal life. Most is on her film career. JackO'Lantern 03:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtually everything about her personal life is from fan sites or is data from seemingly reputable sources that conflicts with data from other seemingly reputable sources; including her place of birth, her parents' precise names (hell, her precise name, for that matter, though that's a bit more stable [grin]), their divorce, her early life, sports, nearly all of it. At the moment, I'm not prepared to take anything more than the names of the family cats (repeated in more than one interview) as set-in-stone fact. Seriously... RadioKirk talk to me 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)