Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Emma Watson and the Panama Papers

There is consensus that the article should not connect Watson's name to the Panama Papers because (1) that the mere mention of her name is not a noteworthy fact, given the thousands of names listed in the Papers and the common practice of establishing offshore companies, and (2) mentioning the Panama Papers, particularly without context, could wrongly imply wrongdoing, implicating BLP concerns. This RfC only deals with the mention of the Panama Papers, not on the inclusion or exclusion of other information related to finances. For example, the appropriateness of a sentence such as "In 2013, Watson established a British Virgin Islands-based company, Falling Leaves Ltd., to protect her privacy" cited to the Associated Press or similar is not resolved by the RfC. I express no opinion on whether it would be appropriate to include such information. Editors may edit and discuss as appropriate. Neutralitytalk 04:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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? 🖖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)". 🖖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). 🖖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. 🖖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 .... –Davey2010Talk 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? 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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, The Gnome, I would agree only if the behavior were to become legitimately disruptive. I don't believe this has escalated to that point yet. 🖖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. 🖖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. 🖖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)
The Gnome 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. 🖖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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 🖖 Talk 18:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with ATS here. The atheism category falls under WP:EGRS. We need her to explicitly state she's atheist to include such a category. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Vanity Fair controversy

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017

External links modified

Small Error in 2012-Present

External links modified

Women's rights work

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

The Queen of the Tearling

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Erroneous assertion

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

Ruling on accolade section

Description in lede

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

paige Watson story line

category change

Is she a supermodel?

Request to update main photo

New info box image

Incorrect Link

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Spelling Error

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

rfc: Infobox image

Personal Life Update

Emma Watson has had a serious BF for some time now

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

panama paper's involvement

Public image quotation

Personal life and relationships

Why does the article start by describing her as English?

Palestinian advocacy and the response to it

Watson's signature?

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Emma Watson's signature

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI