Talk:Mary Anne Hobbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mary Anne Hobbs, has edited Wikipedia as
Mary anne hobbs (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Did she really help found loaded magazine - sounds dubious at best!


I am not going to lie, this article is not encyclopedic at all. 24.74.16.11 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

"Born 1966" contradicts her MySpace profile, which says she's 33. Please return the birthdate with a reliable source. - Zeibura (Talk) 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just spotted the same birthdate contradiction! I've found some more contradictions:

  • On 24 May 2002 Metro [1] said she was 37 -> born ~1965
  • On 2 May 2004 The Times [2] said she was 39 -> born ~1965
  • On 30 October 2006 The Independent [3] said she was 35 -> born ~1972
  • This article [4] currently (11 Jan 2008) says "born May 16th, 1964" -> 44
  • Her MySpace [5] currently (11 Jan 2008) says she's 33 -> ~1975

Metro and The Times seem to agree, and at least six years ago in the 2002 Metro article she's asked "What's it like being closer to 40 than 30?" so I think this article's current 1964 is probably correct. (All this confusion is quite ironic given the answer she gives to that question!) -11/01/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)