Talk:Emily Blunt

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)

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)

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)