Talk:Emily Blunt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Michael Buble

"She is currently not in a relationship with Michael Bublé." This piece of information is weird, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.219.69 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)  Not done -- AstroU (talk) -- Were you wrong?

Image

Image:EmilyBlunt devilwearsprada.jpg: use or delete? - crz crztalk 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't The Other Boleyn Girl on there? She was in the BBC version of that movie. Iman S1995 01:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Boleyn

She wasn't in The Other Boleyn Girl. Amo 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She was in Henry VIII, as noted. And she got them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.175.30 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wild Target"

Could someone please move Wild Target down to 2010? I don't know how to do it. Markunator (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags?

why is it important that the flag be Briton instead of England? is that in the wp:MoS? Amo 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Flags shouldn't be used to indicate nationality, location etc. on actor bios. Jim Michael (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed?

For a number of statements about Blunt's career, a single yahoo.com web page identified as a biography of her is the only cite. When I open that page, even if I enable Javascript in my browser, I see no biography: there's just a photo gallery and a lot of links to other articles and advertisements. If other people see the same thing, then we need better sources for these statements. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"British-American" and her jesting about it

Any justification for this? I know she very recently got US citizenship, but it's pretty clear from the way she was talking about it she only got it to make her residency more secure (renewing a visa can be a pain in the ass) and not because she feels American. --86.135.158.125 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There also seems to be a problem with even mentioning her citizenship and carefree/attacking attitude in obtaining it. The info about her citizenship (all of it) is either ok to be here or not ok to be here. You can't take away part of the whole, especially when it's all sourced. The whole paragraph is either undue weight or it's not. It's either too early to bring it up or it's not. But she just became a citizen and she just said it might have been a terrible mistake, and also that she didn't mean it when saying she disavows the Queen. It's a package deal in my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

86.135.158.125, you're referring to the tongue-in-cheek comment Emily Blunt made, humor evident in the video of The Hollywood Reporter article? Also reported as a joke by many websites, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4].

Her American citizenship is a notable/significant event and encyclopedic info. A random, sensationalized comment isn't; particularly not in a WP:BLP. Fyunck(click), removing the naturalized citizenship info because the off hand comment (which you deemed "bashing") was removed from the article does not conform to WP:NPOV and appears tendentious and WP:POINTy. Of course her becoming an American citizen should be in the BLP. As a neutral reminder, removing such info or adding the comment again would constitute disruptive editing and edit warring. Lapadite (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Boy do we disagree on this. If mentioning that she became an American citizen on such-and-such a date is fair, then mentioning and giving three very legitimate sources on her saying it was a terrible mistake, and that she lied about renouncing her allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, is also fair. Even the English newspapers picked it up. Goodness, she just took the oath of citizenship, and this is being quoted everywhere. If you feel that the whole subject should be dropped, then get rid of the citizenship mention completely. But the can of worms is opened once that sentence is there. Also, as a neutral reminder @Lapadite77:, removing such info or adding the original comment again would constitute disruptive editing and edit warring on your part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I suggest you don't restore (if you plan on doing) such edits - as those edits have been challenged and a discussion is taking place on the talk page - and take this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard if you feel so strongly about it. We should get clarification and consensus there. Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed @Lapadite77:, and I would suggest the same to you if someone else does it who isn't me. That would be edit warring on your part. If editors decide it here on this talk page that's also good enough. It doesn't need to go anywhere else if consensus is reached here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), so will you be taking this matter to either noticeboard? Never mind, just saw your revision. More input can be given there. Others, such as IPs, restoring the sensationalized comment doesn't necessarily support a need for it to be in article despite WP's policies. Those noticeboards are there to settle such content disputes. There's technically no consensus yet, between two editors disagreeing. Lapadite (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but right now it's a content dispute about Emily Blunt, and whether to include her well sourced views about her citizenship, and that should be handled on her talk page. If the talk page doesn't seem to settle it, then we always have other avenues. We know how we both feel about it, and others may chime in or edit it themselves and pretty much take us out of it. That's the way it usually works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unaware of this discussion. I'm also unaware of what the controversy is. She made the statements, it was documented, and later she apologized for making them. Case closed, it is a part of the public record. Connor7617 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Ms Blunt lives off the public acclamation of her acting talents. When she makes controversial statements, the public reacts to those statements, as she is a public figure, her statements are part of the public record. They are well documented and presented in a neutral manner without comment. Connor7617 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So far there is only one person complaining about your addition and you have every right to boldly add it. The sources including the British press didn't look at it as a joke. And her untruthfulness about renouncing her allegiance to Queen Elizabeth is also wiki worthy. I thought Lapadite77 and I had an understanding not to revert again so I left it as it was without my addition. Now Lapadite77 has reverted you too. I am no longer bound if he reverts you again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, this is about an off-hand joke being encyclopedic content. Blunt publicly made a joke about the Republican debate & becoming a citizen the same day, it was predictably criticized by the right-wing, and she apologized (stating, "It was just an off-hand joke. I think I'll probably leave the political jokes to late-night or something.") Yes, case closed. Now, why would this be in an encyclopedia − not a tabloid, or a news aggregator? Since when are off hand jokes from celebrities encyclopedic content? Celebrities say comments that are sensationalized by the media and/or criticized by a section of the population all the time. Everything said on social media is public record, that is not an argument. This has no encyclopedic significance. I refer to you to: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Recentism, WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS. The only encyclopedic information is the naturalized citizenship. But again, I'm all for requesting more input on the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The recentism mention is being hypocritical. Her citizenship is also recent and when I tried to remove that, you put it back. You can't have it both ways. BLP is fine with it and we have multiple good sources about it (which it requires). Getting her citizenship and deriding her citizenship are either important or they are both undue. I also don't know why you would bring up right-wing crap. For all I know the left-wing is making a shrine for her. What does that matter? The sourcing is from all over. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Her citizenship is actually relevant to her biography. Everyone's citizenship is. We don't need to add to Wikipedia every time someone gets upset about a joke. Unless Emily Blunt becomes known for years to come as "that person who made that stupid joke where...", it's insignificant. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone has their date stamp on when they became a citizen. Not everyone is a celebrity that is forced to make a public apology about their statements. This has tuned into a pretty big deal for her and her career... enough to apologize. Certainly if everyone here feels this can't be added, we move on. But I'm not convinced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A discussion was started on the BLP Noticeboard here. Lapadite (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is this: leave it out. The woman apologized for what she said was an "offhand" joke. It's merely trivia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually she only apologized for part of it. But heck the apology made it even bigger news. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please continue discussion or state your view at the BLP noticeboard discussion, @Anythingyouwant and Someguy1221:. Lapadite (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Joanna Mackie

I'm hoping that this time my correction of Joanna's name will stick - I've known the Blunt family for 20 years and Emily's mum would really like to stop hearing from friends that her name is wrong on Wikipedia! Liz Hopkins (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz Hopkins, two of Wikipedia's core content policies are Verifiability and No original research. Corrections need to be cited to reliable sources. Lapadite (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I have not offered any original research. I cited two of the many reputable sources available that support my correction of what is an error of fact on the Emily Blunt page. I declared a conflict of interest because my friendship with Joanna Blunt was the reason why I took the time to find published verification and correct the page with appropriate citations.Liz Hopkins (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your edit now, which is perfectly fine. Your OP here wasn't clear on whether you'd cited reliable sources. So yes the correction is properly cited (and supported by the cited reliable sources), so there's no issue here; HenryBarnill inappropriately reverted your edit, and he was reverted. Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

British

Is she British? I saw her on TV in an interview the other day and her accent was American. I suppose she could be a method actress... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.73.136 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

She was born in Wandsworth (London) and is a British actress. -- AstroU (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Foyle's War Television Series

Can someone add in short section on her appearance in the second series of Foyle's War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.175.48 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- If you were wondering. -- AstroU (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriation of Non-American Nationalities

This is now getting beyond a joke, Blunt who categorically stated she took citizenship only for tax purposes and to alleviate her visa issues is now being described as 'English-American' as though she has been so all her life, there is no context. However, the moment anyone seemingly adds context (see recent edit) that context is immediately deleted. Seven days ago and for her entire life she has been described here as 'English'. Blunt was born in England to English parents with no American relatives whatsoever yet once again US-centric Wikipedia has appropriated yet another nation's citizen. Numerous sources confirm Blunt only took citizenship for tax and visa purposes, sourced no less than from her own mouth and is extremely proud of being British but I see someone has deleted legitimate citations confirming this seemingly to hid the fact. I thought Wikipedia was about verifiability based on sources, ihowever, it seems that is not the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:BLPLEAD says "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Lapadite (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

'neutrally describe the person, and provide context. ' Context that was immediately removed. Further, In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Blunt became notable in the UK, only much later did she become notable in the US, subsequently, the lede should add context, stating that she is English or British and that Emily has recently taken US citizenship for the reasons as stated by her, cited from legitimate sources. Blunt has stated that she is very proud to be British and this should be her nationality until such time as she states she considers herself a dual citizen. Twobells (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have pending-change protected the article for a week in order that it can closer adhere to the biography of living persons policy. Information cited "all over the internet" is not a criteria for inclusion unless a subset of that is high-quality sources with a strong track record of neutrality and accuracy. And frankly, www.gossipcop.com is not that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP to an extent (I randomly watch this article, among ~4,000 other pages). The situation is more complex than can be explained with a simple label. If it can be explained in half a sentence in the lead then I'd suggest doing that (sod the MoS, it's a guideline not gospel); otherwise an explanatory footnote might be the easiest way of explaining the situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no real objection to English-American but English born American is definitely wrong. She has not renounced her British citizenship. The best solution is simply British-American. Emily Mortimer is described simply as British in her article, which I think probably is wrong and her commitment to the US is considerably more long-standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.164 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

English-born American

I am reopening the discussion because the last consensus not to change it to this was that she did not consider herself a dual citizen, however she has stated, "... taking the oath was "really meaningful." "My two favorite people in the world are American, my husband and my daughter," she said, referring to her and Krasinksi's 1-year-old daughter Hazel. "It was kind of a special day. Yeah, it was great." [5] Therefore I think it should be included in the lead sentence that she is an American. 107.92.60.116 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• • She has never referred to herself as "American" and it's implied that she didn't want to do this but did for tax purposes. She is still English. She was born and raised in England. She still refers to herself as England.
    • @HenryBarnill: She has never directly said that. If so, show me a reliable source. 70.124.179.116 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on this subject

I see this is still not settled, and there has been edit warring on the subject. The page has now been protected to stop the warring. That means it is time to discuss the matter here so that a concensus can be arrived at. Sniping in edit sumarries is not a discussion. Edit warring is wrong even if you did have consensus, so keep that in mind when the protction expires or blocks will be issued. I suggest that an WP:RFC be put together so that a consensus will hopefully become evident. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, English-born American is definitely wrong. You ca become a US citizen and still retain your former nationality, whcih she does. I would not object to British-American but English-born American is wrong, wrong, wrong. I have no doubt from the most cursory review on her statements on this that she would concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.164 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is her American citizenship worth mentioning in the lead sentence?

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.

---

Should her American citizenship be mentioned in the lead sentence? —Fundude99^{talk to me} 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe not the exact words of "American citizen" but English-American actress would work (or British-American). She was born in England but she also has American citizenship. She lived in Los Angeles for years but has since moved to New York. She's in many US-based tv shows and films. If she'd come to the US as a 5-year old from Ireland she'd be an American actress of Irish decent/citizenship. That would be a no-brainer. But she came to the US after she started acting, in 2008 I believe, after leaving her residence in Canada. The thing is she has been granted US citizenship and for most people you would now be considered an American. The fact she holds dual citizenship just adds an extra layer. Lives in US, acts in US, citizenship in US... yes I think British-American actress probably works well in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• OK - no particular policy or strong particular on handling, but it just seems significant enough a part of the bio and of article content to get placement in the WP:LEAD, and the article handling feels reasonable enough to me. Markbassett (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with English or British-American but the current wording English-born American is hopelessly wrong. She is dual nationality and still is dual nationality. Her British nationality should also be stated .. Same goes for Emily Mortimer etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.164 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly fine with British-American it's just when you link it (British-American) it states, "British-Americans are Americans whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)" which could give the impression she was born in America with British ancestry.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  However her infobox states she was born in "Wandsworth, London, United Kingdom", and the first line of her Early Life states "Blunt was born in Wandsworth, London." I don't see how someone could err in where she was born. Plus linking British-American would probably be overlinking anyways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• The source cited for the "English-born American" claim -- her website -- does not support that claim. It states clearly "British" as her nationality. So if her self-identification is relevant, she is British. The only other option, if nationality is stated at all, is to say that she has dual nationality; American and British. English is irrelevant since it is not a nationality for these purposes (the same applies to Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish). Neither is "British-American"; it's not clear it's even a thing (I'm pretty sure there is no such nation as The United: Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and States of America). 2605:6000:F369:D000:5D8A:F002:1AE6:88C7 (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you cared to look, her so-called website is actually a fansite. Calidum ¤ 04:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• It should be "British-American", Then again if no other sources can be found then it should be removed entirely - A fan site doesn't cut it. –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 16 October 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.

Protected edit request on 16 October 2016

@Beeblebrox: Consensus has been reached to describe her as British-American, can you update the article? Thank you!

—Fundude99^{talk to me} 15:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Blunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307153737/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/person/emily-blunt/biography.html to http://movies.yahoo.com/person/emily-blunt/biography.html

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) 17:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

American?

I understand that She has American citizenship, but She's not actually American. She still has her original prestigious and glorious British Citizenship. She was born in London to her high-class English parents and from the British nobility politician elite class famous socialite family. and She is having a dual citizenship (British and American) but Her American citizenship is just a formality. Her Nationality is English and but Her Citizenship is just dual (British and American). so She is basically English(nationality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.1.162.158 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Having American citizenship does make her an American. She has citizenship, she lives in America, she stars in American tv shows, American movies, has American children, and is married to an American. Therefore she is American.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 18:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Having American Citizenship doesn't make her American. Clearly She has no single low-class American blood in her body. She doesnt have stupid american accent. She speaks with her English accent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFAAfYOYYtc because She is purely English Blood with English high-class root, Her Parents are Elite Socialite English, Her Home is in Hammersmith in west London the upper-class billionaire area the richest area on earth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3373044/Emily-Blunt-greeted-mother-father-star-flies-home-England-Christmas-husband-John-Krasinski-daughter-Hazel.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.1.162.158 (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, this isn't the place for you to you to launch attacks on Americans. So I'm done here, if you want to change the description, get consensus through an RfC, if not, I'll report you. Good day.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Fact is She is nothing related to American. She is having an American boyfriend doesn't make her American. Stop putting American into her body when she has not single one american in her whole blood. Her home and Her parents are in London. End of Story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.174.127.107 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see her described as "British-American" in the lead. Although she may technically be able to be described as American through her recent citizenship, it's pretty misleading and seems to be more about appropriation than anything usefully encyclopaedic. —Vom ^(talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

only her American husband's citizenship. No American involved in her blood. She is 100% English blood from head to toe. Don't try to put something into her blood. even though She holds a dual citizenship. This is about Nationality, not Citizenship. You American editors please stop trying to change a non-American person into American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.38.73 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emily Blunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019121618/http://stutteringtreatment.org/aboutstaff.php to http://www.stutteringtreatment.org/aboutstaff.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://movies.yahoo.com/person/emily-blunt/biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821020923/http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/whats-on/film-tv/emily-blunt-doing-dishes-helps-3911796 to http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/whats-on/film-tv/emily-blunt-doing-dishes-helps-3911796

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nationality debates -- Salma Hayek example

Thought it worth pointing to the Salma Hayek article as another option in the nationality issue. Hayek is described quite simply as "Mexican and American". 2605:6000:F343:F300:F5A7:2C7C:9049:BBB2 (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emily Blunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302221915/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/b/7803/Oliver%20Simon%20Peter+BLUNT.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/b/7803/Oliver%20Simon%20Peter+BLUNT.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160319042641/http://www.paulsellar.com/other.html to http://www.paulsellar.com/other.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mother's name

I know this has been discussed, but the book People of Today 2017, edited by Lucy Hume, lists Blunt's mother's maiden name as Joanna Margaret Dixon. Her own father was a Robert Dixon. See here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Emily Blunt

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emily Blunt's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "miller":

• From Wayback Machine: Miller, Ernest. "Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine for Scientology". LawMeme. Yale Law School. Archived from the original (Blog) on 16 November 2012. Retrieved 2007-01-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From A Quiet Place (film): Miller, Julie (February 2018). "Emily Blunt: World, Meet Your New Mary Poppins". Retrieved January 19, 2018. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

English vs. British-American

Since I've been "advised" by an admin to discuss it here, I guess I should do so. AFAICT she's not American, doesn't identify as American and is listed as British elsewhere e.g. IMDB; I was also under the impression that it was Wikipedia's policy to identify someone as the nationality they're best known as. To suggest she's "British-American" seems to be misinformation, not least as hyphenated-Americans are usually understood to be American-born people of a particular ancestry. -- Vometia (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the article you're editing.

“ In August 2015, Blunt became naturalised as an American citizen. She took dual-citizenship in the United States, suggesting the status helped her tax and visa situation. She said she felt conflicted over abandoning her sole allegiance to the United Kingdom. ”

References

This very clearly makes Blunt English-American (or British-American), as stated. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not straightforward, though. The construction X-American is typically used with regard to people who were born and raised in the US, with their heritage being traceable to some other location. Irish-American, for example, is commonly used to refer to Americans from Boston with Irish ancestry, even if they've never set foot in the latter. Blunt's situation is quite different: she was born and raised in the UK and is culturally British. It's just that she recently became a naturalized US citizen. So I don't think British-American (or English-American) works in her case. To be honest, I don't think calling her American works at all; citizenship alone says nothing about who that person is, other than that they hold a piece of paper from a government saying they belong. -- Hux (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the point I was making in my initial comment; plus, my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that Wikipedia's policy on a person's nationality where it's changed is that it's listed as their nationality when they became well known. As it is, I still say it's entirely misleading in its current form: "naturalised American citizen", especially one who was born, brought up and made a name for themselves elsewhere isn't what people tend to think of if someone is described as "American". --Vometia (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Filmography

The article needs a filmography. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So true. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It already exists. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal life - FHM

The article states, "In 2015, Blunt placed 98th in FHM's Sexiest Women of 2015." I'm not sure how this relates to her personal life. If it merits consideration as valuable input about her, perhaps it should be added to the separate article, "List of awards and nominations received by Emily Blunt."

50.207.55.130 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on "British-American" consensus

I have read through the above, and it is very confusing, and very complex, I cannot see a clear point where the consensus is either for or against, on this being the case, I see a clear discussion on mentioning her citizenship, and clear discussion on "English-born American" but nothing really on British-American. If this can be pointed out then that would be helpful, as it is currently trying to be used as a precedent in another case, of similar contention.

I personally think that a set of these articles needs wider BLP discussion, on this issue as it is potentially very difficult to get right, and is very confusing. Sport and politics (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The existing discussion which was held on the BLP page was focused exclusively on the inclusion of comments regarding a joke surrounding the acquisition of US citizenship, and not about describing Blunt as British-American. If this is not the correct discussion which has lead the above claimed consensus can this please be linked to. Sport and politics (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody who commented on the RFC above agreed that British-American was okay. I don't know how it could be any clearer. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A comment from one of the paticipants " Then again if no other sources can be found then it should be removed entirely - A fan site doesn't cut it." Is hardly a ringing endorsement of the inclusion. The above RfC was in relation to the use of English-Born, and not on being labeled as "British-American", hardly the way to claim a consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

JDDJS. I see it was determined there was a "British-American" consensus but the lead states "is a British actress. She is now also an American citizen." I'll trim this to "British actress with American citizenship". I think the current lead intro gives undue weight to her nationality as she's not notable for that but for her acting. Lapadite (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Titles

223.24.20.21 (talk · contribs) you need to explain how this edit is beneficial without passing unnecessary commentary on me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m not the person to explain. It’s you that need to explain on your edit, Why you expect me to explain When You didn’t explain anything in the first page. You just edited it for personal reasons to how you like it. Now You need to expian How Titles are not necessary for such Notable Famous People here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.20.21 (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Titles" for "Notable Famous People"? What does that even mean? This article is not about her relatives. Their WP:COMMONNAME is sufficient. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0 is completely in the right to remove these problematic additions. Please see MOS:POSTNOMINAL and MOS:JOBTITLES. Even beyond that, infoboxes should be kept as simple as possible. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This arcticle is about HER, she is from a Notable British Family, her grandfather, and her uncle and her dad are Notable and politicians, the titles are already included in ex commander of British Armed Forces Major General Peter Blunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.20.21 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Residence

Emily Blunt’s residence was stated as Chelsea, London while her husband John Krasinski’s is stated as New York. I deleted her ‘Residence’ as this was misleading as it was suggesting they live apart even though they are still happily married at time of writing. Yet I have had my edits reverted as ‘they did not appear constructive’. Scf1985 (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Iv'e removed her residence from the infobox unless it's absolutely clear where the couple currently live. In a recent interview with Stephen Colbert, she said that she lives in New York. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hollywoodfanatic instead of edit-warring, please describe why you want to change the infobox image. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing of Emily's main profile picture.

Hi everyone, i would like to change her main profile picture because its cropped awfully and its not a recent photo of her. Anyone else who is more equipped to change her picture and gain a consensus please go ahead and change it to a newer and nicer picture. Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Of the two recent photos, "Emily Blunt avp 2014 (headshot).jpg" is far better. She is looking the correct way and her head isn't half in shadow. I'm not saying it's the greatest pic in history, but it's better than "Emily Blunt Cannes 2015.jpg" imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

is it possible for someone to change it completely to something else that is way more decent. Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

How is it "way more decent"? It's an unflattering side shot and there's no good reason to change it to that, when there's a better alternative. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Of other choices on wikimedia:

I think either of these would be far better for the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

i definitely think that these 2 proposed by Fyunck are better than what Krimuk2.0 insists on keeping. I suggest replacing it with the left picture, i.e. Emily at the 2012 TIFF. And as per my original post, i mentioned any other nicer pictures are preferred. Hence please take note, plus that picture chosen prior isn't unflattering a tad bit. Thanks Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. I see no reason why the current photo should be altered, there does not seem to be anything wrong with it. Also, you should not be edit warring; doing so could potentially cause your editing privileges to be revoked. Anon. U. 14:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

anon as i mentioned to Krimuk2.0 I've no idea what edit warring is in the first place as I'm new here. How this whole "warring" started was that the picture i've changed kept getting reverted. My intention was never to start a "edit war" but simply to update her picture as mentioned in the discussion. Once again discussion only works if everyone is open minded. If everyone is just gonna be stubborn and not compromise then what's the point. Besides, even if you stated that the picture has nothing wrong with it (not unpleasant etc), can't her profile pic be updated as per the other infos? Is that such a bad thing to do for her? Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we are primarily concerned, here, in the encyclopedia (which is not a fansite and not US Weekly), with a photograph that meets Wikipedia's very strict copyright licensing requirements. We imagine Blunt (if you know her well enough in real life to call her "Emily", please read WP:COI and refrain from editing the article directly; if you do not, please read MOS:SURNAME and follow encyclopedic guidelines) is really not terribly concerned, given her other obligations, about an arguably less flattering photograph of herself in this context and that this issue is not something that volunteers must wring their hands about "do[ing] for her" (as if she were our personal friend) when there are other issues requiring urgent work on the encyclopedia.

That being said, I do think the existing photo is jarring in its remarkable unflatteringness, and the photo with "320566" in its filename would be the most undistracting-but-encyclopedic of the three choices. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not really related to this, but just out of curiosity: do Manual of Style guidelines like MOS:SURNAME apply to talk pages as mentioned above? That was the impression I got from the comment, but I am not sure if I understood correctly. IMO, its very common for actors to be addressed by first names informally because their screen presence leads to a sense of familiarity for viewers, and since discussions on the talk page aren’t really part of the article, it wouldn’t really cause harm to anyone. I may be wrong due to WP:BLP’s strict guidelines, but it isn’t attacking to refer someone informally by their first name. Add stage names to the mess, and it gets even more murkier. Truth is that I have seen many discussions reference the subject by their first name, and none of them were warned as done here, which ignited my curiosity. 2.51.18.236 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Warned" is overstating it quite a bit; I was simply trying to raise the level of discourse, as I think it's almost never appropriate in mature conversation to talk about strangers by their first names even if "their screen presence leads to a sense of familiarity" to some. Even if it's arguably appropriate on talk pages versus mainspace, cultivating good practice in talk page space strikes me as a beneficial goal from a stylistic standpoint. Almost daily I have to correct inappropriate usage of given names in biographical articles and making exclusive surname usage a habit everywhere on Wikipedia cannot hurt anyone. It certainly isn't a "warning", though. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Being totally honest I've always found the image weird ever since stumbling on this article, Anyway I would say one looks better slightly better, I wouldn't say it's as great but given the weird look I'd say it's better. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima if Calling Ms Blunt by her first name seemed to offend some guideline sure. Then i will refer Ms Emily Blunt as Ms Blunt. Again never heard of such conditions when it comes to discussion page so noted. My whole point was to find a licence free and nicer image to update on this site plain and simple, hence i do know the 'Strict Guidelines' you referred to. Please note that the undertone of your reply is condescending (by choosing to nitpick my choice of word instead of seeing the bigger picture) and that's not the point of this open discussion. Thank you for your contribution. Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this image on Flickr to be licensed for Commons. Would that be a better fit for the infobox image? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the two I posted much better. That one is too cropped for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

agree the 2 posted by Fyunck are much better. Thank you for your effort though. Krimuk2.0 Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur that File:EmilyBluntTIFFSept2012.jpg is a better choice than File:Emily Blunt avp 2014 (headshot).jpg (currently used for infobox). It has better lighting for her face and she looks happier there than in what's used right now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Support I agree! Let's get more people to reply and then we shall proceed with the change. Hollywoodfanatic (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need a full rfc thing here for a simple infobox pic. It looks like the original pic is not very popular and the wikimedia EmilyBluntTIFFSept2012.jpg (of which I posted two pics) is what is most liked (3 to 1 for choice 1 over choice 2). Simply change to that and all should be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Add upcoming role as Invisible woman in upcoming movie Marvel's Avengers:Endgame SiriusLee314 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done please don't add your fan casting to articles. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused about nationality

I see her listed as English but I understand she has become an american citizen, I seen in the edit page it says ""<!-Do not change without getting a consensus->", I guess I don't fully understand this, I edited pierce Brosnans page to "irish" as a result of it being the exact same situation. Just want to make sure I'm doing this correctly Wilyachillout (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dual nationality is a thing. Gaining a new citizenship doesn't really change the matter, nor replace the prior one. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Any particular reason we're using a low-res, out-of-focus image (the plane of focus seems to be on the detail of the front of her dress, for some reason) for the lead? Are all the other images worse... even if we have one a year or two older, an image of reasonable quality would be less of an embarrassment, no? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Gulliver’s Travels

Why isn’t this listed in her film roles? 2601:5C0:4200:4380:B1CA:B209:2C0E:E586 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning for British-American

I understand a while ago, the consensus was to label her British-American rather than English-American. The source box said she couldn’t be changed from British-American because English is not a nationality, British is. If this is why, then that’s a very poor reason. Can someone confirm if this reasoning is true, or were there more reasons for coming to this consensus? Scf1985 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are confused on. Tennis player Andy Murray is listed as a British tennis player not a Scottish tennis player, though he is from Scotland. We tend to use National entities such as US, Russian, German, British, etc, rather than regional entities. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Who does? When the overwhelming majority of English people with Wikipedia accounts are listed as English rather than British, you are clearly not speaking for the majority of Wikipedia Scf1985 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

They are? That's not following guidelines unless there is proof that is how they self-identify. In tennis bios we usually use British (as that topic is what I'm most familiar with). Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In tennis terms, you may be right. But Emily Blunt is an actress and many actors are referred to as English, Scottish, Welsh, etc as opposed to British. I don’t know why, but they are. My main reason for bringing this up wasn’t to be a pedant, but to question the apparent reasoning in her source box page for her consensed (is that a word?) nationality Scf1985 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at the Project Britain resource. Per their data: Most people in Scotland say they are Scottish rather than British, most people in Wales say they are Welsh rather than British, however most people in England say they are British rather than English. Americans also tend to do the same thing. Of course Americans also tend to say England when we mean UK or Great Britain (we're pretty sloppy on that issue). Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Don’t know where you’ve got that information from, but as an Englishman myself I can categorically say the vast majority of English people do not think that. It is true that a lot of us are proud to be British, but many of us identify as English first, like I do. I can honestly say in my 33 years I’ve never met anyone face-to-face who has actively said that prefer to be British than English Scf1985 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

So why can't it be English-American? Was she an American citizen when she started acting. Kay girl 97 (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest we avoid the term "English-American" in favor of "English and American." In the U.S., at least, we have a long history of terms like "x-American" referring to someone who is American by citizenship but also identifies with their x heritage. This is the standard American interpretation of that kind of hyphenated label. That, however, is distinct from a person who holds dual citizenship. (There is even a whole article on the related epithet Hyphenated American.) For a precedent, we can look at other pages where we've had similar debates, like Saoirse Ronan, where users settled on a label in the vein of this same suggestion ("Irish and American" rather than "Irish-American"). Wolfdog (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of opinions being given here but none make a reason for changing from British to English which is based on the verified sources only not editors' POV, which is not relevant. No reason provided for changing the previous consensus. It must stay as British-American.--Muirofsara (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In the reference [2] she describes herself as "British", which takes priority.--Muirofsara (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, someone change it to "British" then.--135.196.181.166 (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Since there has been an objection to the edit carried out in the format suggested above of British and American, I am simply editing the article as "British-American" in line with the references.--Muirofsara (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thing is though, had Emily Blunt not become an American citizen, she would almost certainly be listed on here as English rather than British, just the overwhelming majority of Hollywood actors are. Yet now she has US citizenship, she has to be listed as ‘British-American’, as if the fact she was ‘English’ before means nothing and comes across as a bit abrupt. For that reason, I think she should be referred to as ‘English-American’ rather than ‘British-American’. Scf1985 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Muirofsara: ‘No reason provided for changing the previous consensus. It must stay as British-American’. You clearly didn’t read the start of this thread Scf1985 (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have stalled. Could someone reply to my comment, please? Scf1985 (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think someone mentioned above that we go by sourcing. It seems most sourcing uses British-American such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Famous People, the BBC, etc... So I'm not sure what the big deal is? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a basic language thing. If you are going to make hyphenated compound (stating that both parts are equal), both parts should refer to the same equal concept. American refers to citizenship, so the other part should equally refer citizenship which in this case is British.Tvx1 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, fyunck, you’re clearly making a big deal out of it, as are many others, hence my response, and I have said as such before. The question is, before her US citizenship, was she on here as British or English? I look at fellow actors Paul Bettany and Minnie Driver on here who have simply shuffled over from English to English-American without any fuss. Yet with Emily Blunt, presumedly because she’s that little bit more revered and popular, the pedantries of her nationality are such a big deal. Scf1985 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm making a big deal out of it??? You have several people here saying it should stay British and only you saying it should be English. You are the only one making a "big deal" out of it. We are simply answering you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My preference is for English as British is too general. She comes from England therefore she’s English. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So if several people are saying it should be British rather than English, then why are most actors listed on Wiki as English? This is a question I’ve asked you before, but not answered. Are we going to change all their bios to ‘British’ as well? English, British, English-American, British-American, she is all of them. Whatever the choice, I will respect it. But all I’m doing is asking sensible, rational questions. Sorry for the ‘big deal’ Scf1985 (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being known as only "English" or being known as "British-American." You would want the two hyphened terms to be equals. As opposed to English-Californian. Or London-French. British is the term used rather than UK-American. This was mentioned in an answer to you by someone else a couple paragraphs ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry... was there any objection to my proposal of "British and American" per my reasons above? Wolfdog (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with "British and American" but your original proposal didn't say that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder about Wikipedia discussions: opinions about the subject (e.g. British is too general) or unsubstantiated statements (e.g. lots of other articles do this) are not of any worth. Wikipedia discussions and articles are about verified content only. If you want to share your personal biases then that is what Twitter is for--185.2.196.87 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m damn sure not taking advice from an IP who only has 9 contributions.Trillfendi (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If you also read my comment from a few paragraphs ago, you’ll also see I’ve cited examples of others who have been changed to English-American without any debate. And I’ve seen many other people on here as English-American (or Scottish-American) without so much as a murmur. But only on this page, probably because of Ms Blunt’s status as an international A-lister, is there a brouhaha about the issue, whether the majority of people agree or not. I‘ve pretty much had my say or this subject now. If people like my comments, they like them. If they don’t, they don’t. All I have stated are the facts Scf1985 (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

‘Opinions on the subject?’ ‘Your personal biases are what Twitter is for?’ What’s the point in having a discussion section for Wikipedia, then? Scf1985 (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting

On a different angle, I'm not sure why this is British-American, it should just be British. Yes, she holds American nationality as of recent (in addition to her British one). An article claims she was reluctant to take this (and it was mainly for visa and tax reasons). IMDb still refers to her solely as British[6]. Rotten Tomatoes refers to her solely as British[7]. Ditto for Biography.com [8]. And Metacritic [9]. Ditto for Look to the Stars[10]. Empire Online as English [11].

In fact, every single reliable source I could find on the first dozen Google pages for "Emily Blunt", other than Wikipedia, refers to her as British, one as English. The exception being two sources (BBC and Mashable) that solely copy the Wikipedia summary for her, hence using British-American due to Wikipedia opting for that.

Why is Wikipedia choosing to title her as British-American? There are no reliable sources for this. The source given on the page itself is an article that discusses her acquiring American nationality (the source given does not refer to her as British-American, though). It seems a Wikipedia editor simply decided to define her as British-American because she has acquired that nationality. Far more reliable sources call her British, I see no reason for Wikipedia to make their own judgement on her status - WP:BLPPRIMARY. I believe this argument, thorough and backed with reliable sources, is complete and valid enough to support the change.ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Procrastinating Reader: Personally, I agree with you. Many other famous people who have been citizens for a lot longer and have lived in America longer than they have the UK are listed simply as English (or whatever their native country is), but people on here want her listed as British-American as if she has a British father and American mother, or something. I believe it’s within Wiki rules that the lead nationality should be the nationality they identify as, and someone who has taken citizenship for apparently reluctant reasons doesn’t come across as someone who ‘identifies’ as American to me. The fact her US citizenship in mentioned in her infobox is adequate enough for me Scf1985 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

She has dual citizenship and lives in the USA, so it could say she is a British-born American actress also. It can be done so many ways. Personally I like what some articles do in this case and say she is a British and American actress. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "British-born American" puts too much emphasis on the "American". She's basically English, with British and American nationality. --121.99.126.230 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Both you and ProcrasinatingReader are right, and s/he is the only person who has followed WP policy and looked to see how she is described in reliable sources. Everyone else above is engaging in OR by trying to decide themselves how she should be described. The fact of dual citizenship doesn’t (necessarily) force a change in the nationality descriptor (see Boris Johnson and work down) - what matters, indeed all that matters, is how she is seen in RS. As Procrastinating has found, she is widely desribed as British. That this is the case, and with three of us now having observed this fact, overrides all of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH set out above from other editors. MapReader (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting 2

Just to revisit this a bit and per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. She gained US citizenship in 2015. She has had notable activities as an American and in the US since then. It would be appropriate to describe her as an American actress as well as a British (or English) actress in the intro sentence now. I suggest changing the intro from "... is a British actress" to "... is an American and British actress". I would object to "British-American" as that can be interpreted as an ethnicity tag that includes the meaning of a type of American and she is much more than just that. The conjunction makes the equal importance of both nationalities clear. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Most RS's refer to her solely as British. Imo I don't think reluctant citizenship for tax purposes (src above) and minimal usage in RS is a good reason to change the labelling. However, it's been a year since I last reviewed this and perhaps RS has changed, so open to a change if RS's can be provided for this. There does need to be a certain amount of logic in the labelling, though, example -- I don't think it makes sense to ignore the subject's preferences and RS commentary and label for solely economic citizenship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The nationality description in the intro is not really an issue for how the subject consideres herself or how other sources describe the subject, it is a Wikipedia manual of style issue for how Wikipedia bio articles describe the context of her notability. I understand that she is American by convenience, not allegiance, but she does live and have notable activities in the US as well sufficient to describe her as an American actress along with being a British actress. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We do turn to RS in edge cases, I gave an example of such a case above. And we do consider the subject's preferences in it, in fact that's often the main determining factor for WP:UKNATIONALS determinations. Imo the main reasons to label as another national fail here - for informational purposes we do have it in the infobox but I think "is an American and British actress" to be misleading and not in line with sources, either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If both are listed, it should be "is an British and American actress" rather than the other way around – she was British first, American second. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, WP turns to sources in all cases, not just ‘edge cases’. Any other way of establishing a fact - including a lot of the discussion above - is OR, or OR by synthesis. If acquiring an additional citizenship doesn’t change the way someone’s nationality is seen by reliable sources, then we follow the sources, and note their citizenship within the article and infobox in the normal way. Cf. Robert De Niro, who is seen and rightly described as an American actor despite his having taken Italian citizenship. MapReader (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting 3

Per MOSBIO, we should include her nationality(s) in the lead sentence. OK, what do editors think? --Malerooster (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is already covered off in the article, and the discussion above reached the correct conclusion as regards the opening sentence - i.e that we follow the RS, as usual. MapReader (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Her name is wrong. It is posted as Emily Olivia Leah Blunt. Her name is Emily Olivia Laura Blunt. Please change Leah to Laura.

Source: https://instagram.com/stories/badpostblunt/3072979749157507331?utm_source=ig_story_item_share&igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY= Lance Hendrix (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not sure what that instagram link is as from what I can tell she does not have an instagram account. Cannolis (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Full name

Her full name may well be Emily Olivia Laura Blunt, but we would need a reliable source first and Twitter is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This one [12] is in German but might suffice? Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absolutely. Note the editor who added this also provided some links to legal documents, these are also not acceptable as sources in an article about a living person. Hut 8.5 21:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Elle is a reliable source, so yes. Birth records only show Emily Olivia L Blunt. ⌚️ (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This[13] refers to her as "Emily Olivia Leah Blunt" (not Laura). Same for IMDb.[14]. Multiple reliable sources opting for Leah. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So much edit warring in the past few hours re. the name of the subject, yet no further comments on talk or attempt to achieve consensus. Good editing. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I always find it ironic when my original edit is restored . ⌚️ (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. It ain't the best source. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

She said in a interview that her middle name is Laura, not Leah. So, I think someone should change it. The interview is on YouTube, called 'Emily Blunt Interview', posted on April 2 of this year from a channel called 'Pop Star Extraordinaire Maya'. Nidamaya (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

She is English

She is English, i find it strange how it's only English actresses that are ever classified as British never the Scottish or Welsh actors 92.234.17.165 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

She's British-American. Why is she not listed as a British American actress 2A02:C7C:5AA0:E900:E02E:347F:D139:61B4 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Leah or Laura?

I don't know, but the article currently says one thing in the first sentence and Infobox, and another in the eraly life section. That needs to be fixed. Sbishop (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. In the video interview cited, Blunt states the correct name is Laura. Lapadite (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lapadite: Blunt has stated in an interview with Vanity Fair (which is a much more reliable source than "Pop Star Extraordinaire") that it's "Leah". Other RSes, including Rappler, Empire, San-Diego Union Tribune and CNN also support "Leah". I can't seem to find any RSes opting for "Laura". Pamzeis (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The channel name is irrelevant, the source is Emily Blunt herself, the primary source on her own name. At 12:37 in the video interview, Blunt states: "People get my name wrong on Wikipedia. They say my name is Emily Olivia Leah Blunt, but it's not, it's Emily Olivia Laura Blunt." She herself did not state it was Leah in any of the sources you linked. The Vanity Fair video where she says yes to the question with "Leah" can be put down to not paying close attention to everything said in the question. The fact is she is on video stating that it's Laura. Other sources using Leah, likely just repeating the incorrect name other sources had, doesn't override the subject herself confirming her own name. We're not going to write "Blunt confirmed her correct middle name is Laura, but San Diego Union-Tribune uses Leah" because secondary sources are not the authority on the subject's name, the subject is. Lapadite (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing co-actor's names

Joeyconnick how is the mere mention of a co-actor's name WP:PROMO? Also, on an unrelated note, WP:FORMERLATTER is an essay on stylistic choice rather than a policy to edit-war over. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't edit-war over former and latter. I made a change, you reverted it, and I let that reversion stand. "The last of these" is inarguably more complex than just listing the name of the film. Funny how you argue that including a co-star's name or two is fine if done in moderation, but God forbid we mention the name of a film twice in the same paragraph.

Again, the mention of co-stars for the sole purpose of mentioning that those actors were also in the film is inappropriate in an article that is not about those films. It's "promo" because without a content-based rationale for including them, all it is really saying is "oh hey look at who this person acted with... isn't this impressive?" Also again, if co-star names are required to understand a quotation about the reception of the film or a noteworthy pairing (like with Krasinski, to whom she is married), it makes sense to include them. But if the content of what's being said can be understood without the inclusion of co-star names, then why are we including them? We are not, I repeat, the entertainment press. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we aren't the entertainment press, but unless there is policy that explicitly states that the names of co-actors should not be mentioned unless in the most dire of needs, you cannot call it a PROMO-violation. If a mere neutral name mention makes you think "hey look at who this person acted with... isn't this impressive", then that's your reading, and not everybody else's. Also, "why are we including them" ==> because writing a good biography isn't just a boring collection of X did Y. Also, it's funny that you don't extend this PROMO reading to the mention of directors and reviewers (no thoughts of ""oh hey look at who this person was directed by... isn't this impressive?" or ""oh hey look at who this person was reviewed by... isn't this impressive?" this time?), but only to her co-star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. It is Wikipedia custom to mention co-leads when an actor is co-starring, and to mention any notable lead star(s) if the actor is playing a supporting role or is part of an ensemble of major actors. In an actor's early work section, if they performed alongside major names it is also customary to mention those names, as that is significant info. Mentioning that Blunt played Judi Dench's granddaughter in her first professional acting job is notable info. Mentioning that Devil Wears Prada, the film in which she had her breakthrough role, was opposite Meryl Streep is notable info. Mentioning any major names she co-starred with is also notable info. As well as director names. This is customary in all actor bio articles. If you disagree with that custom, which is also prevalent in other encyclopedias, discuss it at the film project. Lapadite (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

QC to KC

Queen Elizabeth II is dead. Emily Blunt's father is a KC. (Bar registry entry : https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/A2386207891BDB25739C1ABCAB488AAC.html

see also : King's Counsel

Death of Queen Elizabeth II Upon the death of Elizabeth II and the succession of Charles III, the General Council of the Bar wrote that all QC titles changed to KC "with immediate effect". This was not a matter of decision by the Bar Council, nor by the Crown Office. It is the automatic effect of the Demise of the Crown Act 1901, s 1.) Madmannimann (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship

Shouldn't she be described as a British-American actress? 2A02:C7C:5AA0:E900:E02E:347F:D139:61B4 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As she is both Sanbear (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Only if that is common in reliable sources. Whereas the RS mostly appear to describe her as a British actor/actress. The citizenship info is in the infobox and article already. MapReader (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

She should be described as British-American as she has immigrated to, and lives in the United States. As of now she is a dual citizen, but resides and works in the US. Its less accurate to say just "British" than say just "American" as she is naturalized. I vote to make her "British-American" Matteow101 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current standards would be "British and American". Trillfendi (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trillfendi can I ask where I can find this standard? Matteow101 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Her citizenship is already fully set out in the article and infobox. The descriptor in the lead follows reliable sources, as for any article in WP, and the RS regularly describes her as a British actor/actress. MapReader (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article describing her as British and American

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emily-Blunt

even the simple wikipedia says she is american as well

https://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Emily_Blunt

Matteow101 (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Britannica is a deprecated source, is it not? As would be another Wikipedia. We rely on reliable sources, both from the general media (such as respected news media sites and publications from the English speaking world) and the specialist media press. MapReader (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo of J Law

first photo in Career 2005-10 isn't Emily Blunt, it's Jennifer Lawrence 109.159.69.163 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

While the photo in question does sort of resemble Jennifer Lawrence, a google image search confirms it's Emily Blunt. Jessintime (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox - relatives parameter

The names listed in the relatives parameter of the infobox probably do not warrant inclusion, as the infobox template says that the parameter is only for relatives that are "independently notable and particularly relevant". Also, see this discussion on the inclusion of in-laws in the infobox. The politician uncle and brother-in-law actor listed in the infobox are not relevant to the actress's notability, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus that in-laws should be included in the infobox. Likewise, the actress shouldn't be listed in the infobox of their respective articles.

The purpose of an infobox is presenting the "key facts" of the subject of the article, and the names in the parameter aren't key facts of the subject. The MOS states: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." This extra trivia just contributes to infobox bloat. Lapadite (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That all sounds logical inandof itself, but feels icky to do so right around when one of the previously-cited relatives, Crispin Blunt, is being particularly notable in a negative way, which smacks of PR handling. Keithzg (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Movies

Blunt starred as Juliet in Gnomeo & Juliet (2011), but there is nothing about the movie in this article, which I'm pretty angry about because that movie is one of my favourites. 82.5.217.208 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Blunt's performances, including Gnomeo & Juliet, are listed in a separate, linked article List of Emily Blunt performances. Opolito (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)