Talk:Emma Watson

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

In the "External links" section, add the official fansite https://www.emmawatson.net Calvin Bullard (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:NOBLOGS. Tollens (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Model

Recently, I've observed an ongoing debate among editors regarding the inclusion of the word "model" in the lead sentence and infobox when describing Watson. Some editors have been adding "model," while others have consistently reverted these edits, removing "model" from these specific sections. The editors advocating for the inclusion of "model" find themselves puzzled and seek an explanation for this discrepancy.

On the other hand, editors opposing the use of "model" argue that previous revisions should be consulted for the rationale, as they have already explained their stance in the past. --Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Modeling isn't (per ROLEBIO) what made her notable, regardless of how many magazines mention her modeling. Seasider53 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The main reason Watson is notable is for being an actress. Model and activist shouldn't be included per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which states the first sentence of a biography should list the main reason the person is notable. The first sentence should read Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson (born 15 April 1990) is an English actress. Nemov (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that link. I believe "activist" should stay, I have nothing to say further. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

She is known as an activist even less than she is a model, so no. Seasider53 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Can you provide any evidence that she is known as an activist even less than she is a model? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on the person who would like to add content to show she is as well known as an activist as an actress. It is not up to others to prove a negative. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bibliophile Dragon A better question would be can you provide any evidence that being an activist is the main reason she's notable? Nemov (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Activism may not be what brought her fame but it still is one of her professions. And I've seen many famous magazines like Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine) etc. address her as an actress and activist. So even if it can't be mentioned in the first line of the article, shouldn't it be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? Otherwise it may seem like her profession as an activist is being neglected. I know there is a part in the article dedicated to her activism but many others celebrities' like Ariana Grande also have a section like that and even though Ariana is very outspoken about many topics, her main job isn't activism and she is not a professional activist. That's why I think "activism" should be mentioned at least in the introductory paragraph if not in the first sentence of the paragraph. Idk nothing so just (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Idk nothing so just it's mentioned with due weight in the lead. The main first paragraph should be dedicated to why she is notable in the first place. Nemov (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say she is well known for her modelling. Kimand299 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Watson's relationships

There is no reason for this article's Personal life section to include an enumeration of 10(!) past boyfriends. In what way is that of "historical, societal, scientific, intellectualic significance"? I suggest deleting that part.

I would like to know everyone's opinion on this matter: Should any of Watson's past relationships be mentioned in the personal life section of her Wikipedia article? Or should none of them be included, considering that Wikipedia is not a gossip site, and the mention of her marriage, if it were to happen, would be the only relevant information regarding her relationships in the personal life section? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov, @Seasider53, @MrOllie I would love to know your thoughts on this matter. Is that okay? I would like to reach a consensus on this matter if that's alright with you. Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If you would like a consensus you can start by restoring the article back to the status quo until you have support. Nemov (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Simply blanking reliably sourced material entirely is not acceptible. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It is if the information is trivial, which it was. Seasider53 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's to be determined via discussion. Please restore the status quo. Nemov (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a listing of past short-term romantic relationships is the purview of a gossip site and is not relevant for this article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is rather simple... If something has received adaqeque coverage via reliable sources it should be included with due weight. If it doesn't, just remove the parts that fail that standard. Removing an entire section because WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't sufficient. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • We can't shoehorn trivial information into an article just because it is mentioned around the internet. Seasider53 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Also see Wikipedia:PUBLICFIGURE; essentially, we have a WP:BRD case here. Content was removed, content was restored....at that point discussion should have followed; just reverting back and forth is editwarring (all involved should consider this a warning). I would urge to restore at least the adequately sourced content, and discuss about its inclusion or exclusion afterwards....no touching the article, or we might have full protection and/or blocks for edit-warring. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We create biographies on wikipedia, not a gossip column like you have in People magazine, Seasider and Bibliophile Dragon in my opinion have done the right thing in removing the relationship stuff. I only think it's worth mentioning, when one gets married or has children within a relationship. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus agreed upon to remove the information from the page, so I am reverting it to how it was originally, with the information back in, and ensuring all sources are RS. Proper procedure, ie removing the information with consensus, was not followed here, so I'm restoring the information until consensus decides it should be removed, following discussion. IN any case, bio pages typically include relationship information, there is no wikipedia policy that says it needs to be removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nationality

The article says that Watson is English. It should say that she is French-English or French-British, like that of Tara Strong which says she is Canadian-American (actually it says Canadian and American). 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Seasider53 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously; one instance can be found here: Talk:Emma_Watson/Archive_7#Why_does_the_article_start_by_describing_her_as_English?. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, can you hyperlink Paris, France in the infobox? Several articles on celebrities have the name of the city they were born in hyperlinked, but this one doesn't? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Common terms should not be linked. Seasider53 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say can you hyperlink Paris?174.94.54.119 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK. Seasider53 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

But Rupert Grint Has the name of his birth city hyperlinked. So why shouldn't this one be hyperlinked? Would you care to explain? 174.94.54.119 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Because Harlow is a lot less known than Paris is. Seasider53 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It matters not where you are born. My father was born in India. He's not remotely Indian. His parents were both British, as are Watson's. Jacqueline Luesby, Emma's mother, all her family are from Lincolnshire. Emma Watson now spends most of her time in England, where she went to school and where her family live. Give her a break. She is English (or British). 2A00:23C4:B654:1D01:618B:DFA4:2AA:95D5 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

2405:201:5007:9887:ECF9:F5D5:8211:C2E8 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Emma is Ishani not Taylor.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Article Picture

talk for editing the picture Adry9509 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Current picture is from 2013, and irrelevant , a newer picture would be better as from the simple wikipedia Adry9509 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep the picture from 2013. Courtesy link Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 8. For the moment, there is consensus for the picture from 2013. Furthermore, the license for the picture you used isn't confirmed yet, so it shouldn't be used for the time being. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Picture is from the simple wiki page, under cc by 3.0 by an interview from the vogue magazine taiwan. Adry9509 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• The file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the used license is valid. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The original talk was from 2021, Emma Watson's appearance is now drastically different from the 2013 picture, as she has grown older. Adry9509 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but it was reinforced by a more recent discussion in 2023. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

According to me, it would be best to update to a more recent picture, until there is any opposition to the edit. Adry9509 (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I oppose your edit, for the time being. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not to be rude, but you seem as the only source for consensus in the 2022-2023 discussion, even then there were multiple people vouching for a newer picture. Adry9509 (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

emma Watson is not rhea. 2402:8100:2274:2D86:E996:6654:F4E8:A55A (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

‘Self-partnered’

On 25 February 2021, the following was removed from the ‘Personal life’ section:

In 2019, she described herself as single with the self-coined phrase "self-partnered".

References

That edit also added a reference to one of Watson’s many romantic interests; the edit summary was:

This guy is supposed to be her fiance, so it's probably a good idea to note this and remove the "self-partnered" stuff.

That does not seem to be a valid reason to remove the ‘self-partnered’ reference. If it was notable then, then it is notable now.

I wanted to put this back in the article, but given all the back and forth on how this section should describe Watson’s romantic life, I thought I should start a discussion first.

This discussion is relevant to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13#Self-partnered. Brianjd (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The article history shows there was a lot of back and forth, but there doesn’t seem to be much relevant discussion. I only found Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 7#Personal life and relationships. Brianjd (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said at the linked RfD, the removed content may be added back. Jay 💬 14:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added it back. Jay 💬 14:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2025

she does not have child till all the Harry Potter series. 2405:201:5007:923C:41BF:D212:CA9D:2312 (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Years Active

I think we should acknowledg her hiatus an I thought the Wiki rule is that if someone has not done an Acting role in 5 years or More they should be considred Retired/On Hiatus Bottom line I think years active should be changed to 2001-2020 2A00:23C5:FE33:2801:C812:A240:3600:6C53 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Great-grandparents

All of Emma Watson's maternal great grandparents are from Lincolnshire and Leicestershire and 100% English. If you are saying that one on her father's side is Polish then you need to be far more specific.~2025-33626-83 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2026

Add "English retired actress" for her since she retired from the film industry since the 2020s

Add "English retired actress" for her since she retired from the film industry since the 2020s ~2026-22677-8 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. — SimmeD (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. As stated by her publicly she is on hiatus but will act again in the right role. She was even at Cannes this year with a filmmaker friend. ~2026-44030-5 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Not retired

Emma watson has stated publicly and repeatedly that she has not retired from acting, including in recent interviews with Jay Shetty and the Hollywood Authentic, and she will act again in the right role. She has previously called the retirement reports untrue and clickbait. It’s very disappointing that Wikipedia have included untruths. This should be corrected. ~2026-44030-5 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I’ve just said the same thing. Her “years active” should be 1999 - present. It’s always been that way and Emma hasn’t made any official announcement. So I don’t get why Wikipedia let that happen. What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Polish Great Grandmother missinformation

There is a claim in the article stating that Emma Watson’s great-grandmother was Polish. This information appears to be inserted mid-sentence and does not fit naturally with the surrounding text, suggesting it may have been added later without proper integration. More importantly, no reliable source is provided for this claim, and I have been unable to find any evidence supporting it in interviews, biographies, or other reputable publications. Per Wikipedia’s verifiability standards and policies on biographical information, especially regarding living persons, unsourced ancestry claims should not be included. I suggest this sentence either be properly sourced with a reliable reference or removed. Johnwilliam2 (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed for now. Y Seasider53 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ethnicity

It appears Watson is of Western European and Western Asian descent ~2026-78919-7 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Years Active

Information to be changed: Change "Years active: 1999-2022" to "Years active: 1999-present". Reason for change: The actress has not officially retired. She clarified in recent interviews (e.g., Financial Times or British Vogue) that she is simply on a creative break and focusing on other projects, but remains active in the industry. ~2026-81858-5 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I can also prove that she is not retired from various interviews. Emma’s interview with Financial Times What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Another interview with Hollywood Authentic where she absolutely doesn’t say she is retired. Emma’s interview with Hollywood Authentic What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Even in her interview with Jay Shetty on his podcast, she says she is not retired and that if the right projects comes, she’ll take it. Emma’s interview with Jay Shetty What-the-hell-12! (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The "Years active" section needs to be corrected.

The "Years active" section must change back to "1999 - present". Emma is taking a break, she hasn't retired. She repeated it over and over again. She is just exploring other things in her life. She has said she would come back for the right project with the right people. She even said that in her latest interview with Jay Shetty on his podcast. Please, someone correct this mistake that has been made. Emma’s interview with Jay Shetty What-the-hell-12! (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Support per change to "1999–present".

Additional context from recent sources:

- Jay Shetty podcast (Sept 2025, linked above): Watson explicitly says retirement reports are "clickbait", she "profoundly misses acting", and is "open to returning for the right project".

- Hollywood Authentic interview (2025): "I will absolutely act again" and describes current phase as a break, not end.

- Financial Times (linked in previous comment): Emphasizes hiatus due to finding promotion "soul-destroying", but no retirement.

This aligns with WP:BLP (avoid unsubstantiated implications of career end) and MOS:PERFORMER ("–present" for ongoing status/hiatus). Multiple users now agree in this and related threads (e.g., 5 Feb section).

Could an autoconfirmed editor please implement? Thanks! What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Please, change “Years active” from “1999-2022” to “1999-present”.

Please change years_active = 1999–2022 to years_active = 1999–present

Rationale: No reliable source states retirement; Watson describes 2020s as hiatus/break. She confirms in 2025 interviews (Jay Shetty podcast: open to return; Hollywood Authentic: "will absolutely act again") she remains an actor. Consistent with previous stable versions and MOS:PERFORMER / WP:BLP.

Sources already linked in thread. What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Please discuss the proposed change here first and attempt to reach a consensus with other editors. I note that the article is currently inconsistent, as the first sentence does not describe her as a retired actress but the infobox does. Day Creature (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

In response to the decline: thank you for noting the inconsistency between the lead ("English actress", no retired qualifier) and the infobox ("1999–2022", implying end of career).

To build consensus as requested:

- Multiple recent threads (e.g., "Years Active" 5 Feb, "The 'Years active' section needs to be corrected." 6 Feb, and this one) support restoring "1999–present".

- No editors have opposed the change; all comments cite reliable sources showing hiatus/break, not retirement:

- Jay Shetty podcast (Sept 2025): calls retirement reports "clickbait", says she's "open to returning for the right project", "profoundly misses acting".

- Hollywood Authentic (2025): "I will absolutely act again".

- Financial Times / British Vogue: describes long creative pause due to "soul-destroying" promotion pressures, but reaffirms ongoing identity as actor.

- Per WP:BLP: we should not imply unconfirmed retirement for a living person.

- Per MOS:PERFORMER: "–present" is appropriate during hiatus if no retirement announced (consistent with historical versions of this article and similar cases, e.g. other actors on breaks).

- The lead already reflects active status ("actress"), so aligning infobox removes inconsistency.

With sources provided across threads and no opposition, is there consensus to update to "1999–present"? Happy to discuss further if needed.

Thanks! What-the-hell-12! (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to restore “Years active” to 1999 - present (unsourced change on Jan 25).

Please change the infobox parameter | years_active = 1999–2022 to | years_active = 1999–present

Rationale: The current end date "2022" was added by Orangesclub on 25 January 2026 (see diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Watson&diff=prev&oldid=XXXXXXX – replace XXXXXXX with the actual oldid from the history if you want to be extra precise, but even without it's traceable in history). The edit summary was "she simply isn’t active at this point. That is objective and related to if she officially retires or not.", which appears to be an unsourced personal interpretation rather than a verifiable fact.

No reliable source states that Watson has retired or ended her acting career in 2022. Reliable sources from 2025 interviews describe her situation as a hiatus or break, not a permanent end: - Jay Shetty podcast (September 2025): explicitly calls retirement reports "clickbait", states she is "open to returning for the right project" and "profoundly misses acting". - Hollywood Authentic interview (2025): "I will absolutely act again". - Financial Times / British Vogue (2025): long creative pause due to finding promotion "soul-destroying", but reaffirms her identity as an actor and openness to future work.

This change to "1999–2022" implies an unconfirmed retirement, which violates WP:BLP (avoid unsubstantiated implications about living persons) and WP:OR (no original research/assumptions). Per MOS:PERFORMER, "–present" is appropriate when the person is on hiatus but has not announced retirement (consistent with earlier stable versions of this article). It also resolves the noted inconsistency between the lead sentence ("English actress", no retired qualifier) and the infobox.

Consensus appears to be emerging in the February 2026 talk threads (e.g., "Years Active" 5 Feb, "The 'Years active' section needs to be corrected." 6 Feb, and related discussions) in favor of restoring "1999–present".

Thank you for considering! What-the-hell-12! (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 21:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@GearsDatapack Thanks for checking. I did use an AI tool (Grok) to help phrase the request better because English isn't my first language and I wanted it to be clear but the sources, the point about Orangesclub's unsourced edit and the interviews Emma has made (Jay Shetty where she says retirement is clickbait and she's open to return, Hollywood Authentic where she says "I will absolutely act again") are from my own research. I read those interviews myself.

The change of Orangesclub on Jan 25 was just assumption without any source and Emma never said she's retired – she's on a break. The lead calls her "actress" so the infobox should match. She is still an actress even if she is om a break. Can we discuss the actual sources/policy instead? Happy to rephrase or add more links if needed.

Thank you again for your time! What-the-hell-12! (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

claim in article not supported by evidence

Theres a section where it says that Emma describes herself as a devout Buddhist, but the citation for that claim never mentions that explicitly. The citation is a piece about spirituality in Hollywood and in one section, Emma describes how she was interested in the practice. But she doesn't describe herself as a devout Buddhist. LiptonTipton (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is there a whole sub-headline for her driving offences...

She's just a person. We all get tickets! Why is this significant enough to include on here page haha ~2026-17842-77 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Focus on the section is that a camera caught her driving 8 MPH above the limit. Recommend removing. CivicBeach (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Profile Picture

The profile picture is dated. Wouldn't it be better to have a more recent picture of Emma as her profile picture? Just a thought. What-the-hell-12! (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Emma Watson/Archive 8#Infobox image. We need a new discussion if we want to change it. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Does not have an MSt

According to multiple reports she doesn't seem to have graduated with a master's degree and instead seems to have just 'advanced' to a DPhil at Oxford so the infobox MSt degree should be removed.

https://www.dragonschool.org/eminent_dragons/emma-watson/
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25068816.emma-watson-drops-oxford-university-degree/?ref=rss
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25827997.emma-watson-studying-phd-oxford-university-doctor/ ~2026-32996-50 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)