Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Natalie Portman talk page (Discussion page). (January 2011 - December 2011) - Please Do not edit!

Awards

Should awards from organizations that don't have a Wikipedia page be included in the filmography table? If so, where do we draw the line? What if she got an award from the Smallville Film Appreciation Club? Cresix (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Have reverted some recent additions. --BwB (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to an influx of non-notable rewards on Wikipedia right now, and they are all unsourced. Ugh... Nymf _hideliho! 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sources

I noticed a couple of different passages in the article that cite sources that do not support the material in question. First, there's this portion of the opening paragraph of the Early life section:

Her father, Avner Hershlag, is an Israeli doctor specializing in fertility and reproduction (reproductive endocrinology).

The first source only mentions that her father is a fertility specialist. It does not mention his name, much less the specific occupation of specialist in "reproductive endocrinology". The second sources mentions none of this at all. It never mentions her parents. I removed the unsourced material about her father, and moved the second source, the IGN one, to the end of the opening sentence about her being born in Israel, since the IGN interview does mention that, so it allowed me to retain that interview in the article.

Then there's this passage in the Education section:

As a student, Portman co-authored two research papers that were published in professional scientific journals. Her 1998 high school paper, "A Simple Method To Demonstrate the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen from Sugar," was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search. In 2002, she contributed to a study on memory called "Frontal Lobe Activation During Object Permanence" during her psychology studies at Harvard.

Neither of the two sources cited for this make it clear that the Natalie Hershlag who authored these papers and Natalie Portman are one of the same. In addition, the first source makes no mention of the Intel Science Talent Search. Sources for these two points need to be provided. Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I applaud Nightscream's good catches. This is getting to be an issue with Wikipedia, with cites not supporting claims. The Green Hornet (2011 film) had been absolutely packed with false or debatable citations.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Both Portman's Intel Science Talent Search participation, including the title of the article she wrote, as well as her role in "Frontal Lobe Activation" have both been referenced to reliable sources explicitly supporting her involvement. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the question: How many people named Natalie Hershlag attended Harvard during that time period? Cresix (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Her father's name and profession are mentioned in this book biography. Her parents' names are also mentioned in this interview. That includes "Stevens", which is her mother's maiden name, though I'm not sure if her mother uses it as her own name (her grandfather changed it from "Edelstein", something I know but probably couldn't source). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good sourcing. We do have the NY Times article giving dad's name and profession and mom's full name, given there as Shelley Hershlag. If the Stevens part is confirmed by that book as a maiden name, then, yeah, add it right in as Shelley Stevens Hershlag, with a cite for the Stevens. Or, alternately Shelley Hershlag nee Stevens, I guess.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Education

Portman's education as is relevant to her biography as any other fact about her life. It has an entire well-sourced section in this article and is properly a part of the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs) has now twice removed this information from the infobox against two other editors. I can see no reason whatsoever for failing to include this information as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) clearly states:

• "... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears."

So the question is, is Portman's education (a topic with a top-level section devoted to it) a key fact in her biography? Any comments welcome. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Portman's education as is relevant to her biography as any other fact about her life". Yes, but we're not talking about her biography. We're talking about her infobox. There's a big difference. Portman's educational background has nothing to do with her acting career or with why she is notable. It's infobox clutter. As for User:Jim Michael, he seems to believe that adding the likes of ethnicity = White British to infoboxes is notable, so I wouldn't exactly take him as an expert on what should or should not be in infoboxes. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, AHW, but I disagree. If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, very little would be included in an actor's infobox: What do her birthdate, birth place, or partner's name have to do with her notability as an actress? Nothing. Unless an infobox is extreme in length (not the case here), there is nothing wrong with including important highlights from a person's life. And, trust me, having a degree from Harvard is important. Very few actors can claim such educational achievement. One of those is Jody Foster, whose infobox includes her alma mater of Yale University. Even Portman has stated that she would rather be smart than a succesfull actress. If Portman had a degree from Podunk Community College, we might have something to discuss here. But a degree from Harvard merits inclusion in the infobox. Cresix (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AHW, it's better to comment on the edit, not the editor. I respect your view that you feel it is infobox clutter, and I understand your desire to restrict the data in the infobox to the information that makes her notable. But I respectfully disagree with that limitation. I'd personally view her current partner as much less relevant to her notability than her education – the article points out that an actress with a low defined Erdős–Bacon number is a rarity. Her education certainly looks notable to me, and is mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources (the very definition of notability). If it is that notable, surely it meets Template:Infobox person: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject" (my emphasis)? --RexxS (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohio State University.

Can you please update this to the correct formal name "The Ohio State University"

"The" has always been an official part of the name and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.99.241 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.101.118.40, 19 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Her father couldn't have been from Israel if he was killed in Auschwitz, Israel wasn't established until 1948. He was from Palestine.

81.101.118.40 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't actually mean to make a point about her father now, did you? You're simply trying to POV-push the rubbish that Israel should be called Palestine now, aren't you? Even someone who makes a cursory reading of the article will easily see that it was not her father who died at Auschwitz; it was her great-grandparents. Even an ounce of logic would tell you that no one in Portman's generation has a parent who died at Auschwitz. Portman was born in 1981, over forty years after Auschwitz. Please go away and don't come back. Cresix (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Spam/Fraud

The citations 37-39 deal with scientific papers and have nothing to do with the article. This looks like spam or an intentional fraud to raise the reputation of the papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.154.240 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They clearly have something "to do with the article". Read the information that the citations support. The citations provide the links between a paper Portman co-authored and a paper Erdos authored. The sources in the citations are legitimate, and there certainly is no spam. Cresix (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hershlag - What's the origin/meaning of this family name?

Hershlag just redirects to Natalie Portman and has no dedicated Wikipedia entry as a general term or as a family name. This family name surely sounds Ashkenazi. As a native German speaker I suppose, that Hershlag is a transliterated/shifted Herzschlag, which would mean heartbeat. Any suggestions or sources? --PutzfetzenORG (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

British accent?

Quite early in the article, it says that she "learned to speak with a British accent" for the film version of V for Vendetta. There are many different dialects and accents spoken within the UK that are all considered British accents, and therefore I think the aforementioned sentence should be changed to "learned to speak with an English accent". Could someone do that, please? 88.112.171.126 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is appropriate. Posh Scots, Welsh, and Irish people also speak received pronunciation. Not as much as they used to perhaps, but still in significant numbers. RP developed as a common elite accent for the British Isles - it didn't exist the last time England was a separate country. Most Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people don't speak RP, but then most English people don't either. Mowsbury (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

This ought to refer to her status as an Oscar winner despite the warning inserted by a contributor. In fact there should be a short introduction of about 2-3 sentences that summarises her career (in my view). IXIA (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is way too long. --BwB (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You think the lead is too long and you want more stuff added to it? Enigma^msg 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, awards are not included in the lead of actor/actress bios. It emphasizes the awards over their other accomplishments. And in Portman's case, it is also subject to "recentism". Don't add an award to the lead without a clear consensus here. Cresix (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead proposal

Her is my proposal for a shorter lead:

"Natalie Hershlag' (Hebrew: נטלי הרשלג; born June 9, 1981), better known by her stage name Natalie Portman, is an Israeli-American actress.

Her first role was as an orphan taken in by a hitman in the 1994 French action film Léon. In 2005, Portman received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress as well as winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress - Motion Picture for the drama Closer. She played leading roles in the historical dramas Goya's Ghosts (2006) and The Other Boleyn Girl (2008). Portman's directorial debut, Eve, opened the 65th Venice International Film Festival's shorts competition in 2008.

In 2011, Portman won the Academy Award, the Golden Globe Award, the Screen Actors Guild Award, and the BAFTA Award for her lead performance in Black Swan. "

What do others think? --BwB (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments in above section. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the comments by Cresix, and the lead is not too long right now. Compare it to any featured article, and they are all the same length. Nymf _hideliho! 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The lede isn't really excessively long for an article of this size, it is supposed to provide a summary of the article. So I do not see the point in rewriting the lede for the sole purpose of making it shorter. decltype (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose — Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the major points and milestones in the article, and be more than just an abstract. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Natalie Portman obliged to do military service as an Israeli citizen? Or is she exempt from it due to her dual citizenship and residence in the U.S.?

Is Natalie Portman obliged to do military service as an Israeli citizen? Or is she exempt from it due to her dual citizenship and residence in the U.S.?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.37.67 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The Simpsons episode on which she guest starred should be added to the filmography part, after all, it's supposed to mention her works on "Film and television". As stated above, on the "2006 - 2009" section: "Portman voiced Bart Simpson's girlfriend Darcy in the episode "Little Big Girl" of The Simpsons' 18th season". The notes for such should specify the title of the episode ("Little Big Girl") and that it's a voice-acting role. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In her article the filmography is limited to movies. I think her TV roles have been so limited that I'm not sure they should be added. But if others feel that this should be added we can discuss. Cresix (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cresix. However, maybe we should change the table caption "Film and television roles" to "Film roles"? - PM800 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the change, subject to change if there is a consensus to include TV roles. Cresix (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, not including them because they've been limited? That's a weird rationale. Why more specifically do you think they should be excluded? Nymf _hideliho! 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You put words in my mouth Nymf. I didn't say they couldn't or shouldn't be included. If you'll scroll up a few lines, I said, "I'm not sure they should be added. But if others feel that this should be added we can discuss." And that's exactly what we're doing. If enough editors want the TV roles in the filmography, I don't have a problem with it. Cresix (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And how about putting her TV roles in a separate section? --186.82.60.241 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's put TV in other section and add items with good sources only. --BwB (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. Just curious as to why you think they shouldn't be in the filmography, so I can argue why they should be in there. Nymf _hideliho! 12:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nymf, you may have acted in good faith and not intended to do so, but yes, you did put words in my mouth. Your comment "not including them because they've been limited" indicates that I said or implied that TV roles should not be included. I did not. Anyway, water under the bridge; let's move on. Cresix (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that the page isn't protected, I've decided to add the three television apperances she's done (there might be more tho) with sources (The Simpsons episode and a couple of Sesame Street ones). If there's any opposition, feel free to revert it. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, and the SNL one too. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards List

Would this info be better present in table format or left as a list?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Example:

Year	Film	Award	Category	Notes	Result
2002	Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones	Teen Choice Awards	Choice Movie Actress: Drama/Action Adventure		Won
2005	Closer	Broadcast Film Critics Association Award	Best Acting Ensemble	shared with Jude Law, Clive Owen, and Julia Roberts	Nominated

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a list is fine, but if you do do it as a table, you'll have to do it without all the hardcoding of CSS values present in that version. Nymf _hideliho! 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the values but that was just an example that can be improved apon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Only child

Why was the information that she is an only child removed? She is indeed the only child in her family. Estheroliver (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? Cresix (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a source, so I just added it. - PM800 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't notice it, but maybe it's not so surprising since the article has suffered more edits than previously due to the announcement of her pregnancy and at the Oscars. See here; the bit had been there since 2005, so I thought it was a solid and important thing, but somebody had removed it just three days later. Estheroliver (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First Name

Hebrew wikipedia says that her given name in hebrew is נטע-לי, Neta-li. This is different than נטלי, Natalie.--גמדקנאי (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that her name in English is Natalie, I assume that someone made a literal translation in the English article. Since most English Wikipedia editors are not familiar with Hebrew, we'll need some more opinions before anything is changed. You might inquire at Hebrew Wikipedia to see if there is an explanation. I suppose it's possible someone made a mistake there. Cresix (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notice about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Cresix (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Hebrew article says she was born as נטע-לי, but this was added by an anonymous editor 2 months ago (and this was his/her only contribution to wikipedia). The editor didn't cite any sources for this change, so I'm not sure if it's true. Ben Gershon (Talk) 18:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think someone should place a "citation needed" tag in the Hebrew Wikipedia article. If someone there or here could find a reliable source, that would be very helpful. Cresix (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already placed one, and גמדקנאי started a discussion about it in the talkpage there. Maybe in a few days we'll have more info. :) Ben Gershon (Talk) 02:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how this lady is called in what language, but generally, a person can have different versions of her given name in different language. For example, many guys who are called רועי (Roʕy = my Shepherd) in Hebrew are called Roy in English, not Ro-ee, Ro'ee, or Ro'y. Eddau (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the hyphen in Hebrew names has a different meaning than in English onesEddau (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reference to "Neta-Li" isn't even a claim that it's actually her name, but more an allusion that she rented an apartment in Jerusalem using the name Neta-Li Hershlag. Dan ☺ 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The name נטע-לי was removed from the article in hebrew wiki because no reliable source could be found. Ben Gershon (Talk) 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to sort this out. Cresix (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli American?

Per WP:BRD I look for consensus on this disputed issue: should the first sentence describe Portman as "an Israeli American actress", or "an Israeli and American actress"? The article said "Israeli American actress" until Mowsbury (talk · contribs) changed it on March 1. A number of users tried to undo this change, but for some reason Cresix (talk · contribs) reverts it every time, claiming there is no consensus for the change back (as if there ever was one for the original change).

As a matter of fact, Portman is Israeli American. And although she holds both U.S. and Israeli citizenship, this sort of bureaucratic nitpicking is usually not explained in the first sentence, but later in the article, see e.g. Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigerian and U.S.), Joakim Noah (French and U.S.), Shiing-Shen Chern (Chinese and U.S.), Michael Roos (Estonian and U.S.), Sergey Brin (Russian and U.S.), Rupert Murdoch (Australian and U.S.), and so on.

So, should this article's first sentence describe Portman as "an Israeli American actress", as it did before March 1, 2011? --bender235 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion

For editors who are interested, this is the background discussion between Bender235 (talk · contribs) and me:

The definition of Israeli American that you cited here is actually applicable to Portman. She is "an [Israeli] immigrant who obtained American citizenship", isn't she? --bender235 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said she didn't have dual citizenship. You completely missed the point. Your edit summary said, "EVERY Israeli American has Israeli and American citizenship. Per definition", which is untrue. Some Israeli-Americans do not have Israeli citizenship, such as Tami Stronach, Lyor Cohen Elliott Yamin, Rahm Emanuel, Carmit Bachar, Didi Benami, Gil Shaham, Necro (rapper), etc. etc. etc., all of whom are listed in List of Israeli Americans. Read the lead to that list, as well as my edit summary: "This is a list of notable Israeli Americans, including both original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants" (emphasis added). Portman is distingusihed from these because she has both Israeli and American citizenship. Thus, your edit summary is false, and you changed her article from more accurate (Israeli and American citizenship) to less accurate (Israeli-American). And BTW, Portman did not obtain American citizenship after she moved to the USA. She had American citizenship at birth by virtue of the fact that one of her parents has American citizenship. No offense, but this is an encylcopedia, and accuracy is important. There's a reason the hidden comment that you removed was in the Portman article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, valid point. But that doesn't change the fact that Portman is Israeli American. She is Israeli American with an Israeli citizenship, but in the end still Israeli American. So why not write Portman is Israeli American, with a footnote that she holds dual citizenship? --bender235 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because there is nothing wrong with noting dual citizenship in the body of the article. Cresix (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

True. But it is wrong not to note her Israeli American heritage. Is she Israeli American? Yes. Does she hold dual citizenship? Yes. So let's mention both facts. --bender235 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that if she was born in Israel to Israeli parents and with Israeli citizenship and even states that even though she lives in the USA her heart is in Israel, that she has Israeli heritage. The article could state "she is Israeli American and has dual citizenship", but that is needlessly redundant. I don't mean to assume bad faith, but your pushing this issue so hard makes me wonder if your goal is to create a good article or to win an argument. The article is perfectly fine, accurate, and readable to state that she has dual citizenship. Please don't climb the Reichstag to make your point. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, stop acting like you own this article. And interesting, by the way, that all of sudden the note "she is Israeli American and has dual citizenship" would be "needlessly redundant". Wasn't it your original point that Israeli Americans don't have to have dual citizenship? --bender235 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, my original point was that you changed the article from more accurate to less accurate and that you removed an important hidden comment from the article. After you continued to press the issue, I subsequently made the point that stating both dual citizenship and Israeli-American is needlessly redundant. Now, I'll ask you to watch your tone. Any discussion on my talk page is finished. If you want to make a change about the American-Israeli issue, please get consensus on the article's talk page. If I need to make any further comments, they will be there instead on my talk page. And if you feel compelled to continue messaging me here, I'll remind you that this issue is about the article, not about you and me, and that further disucssion should be for anyone interested in the article. I also suggest that you might do well to read WP:POINT and WP:HARASS. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You actually have the nerve to accuse me of harassment and disruptive editing, just after you called on me to be civil? You gotta be kidding. Who exactly made you the owner of this article, and who exactly put you in charge to determine what needs consensus to be change, and what does not? This is ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page where it belongs. If you message me again about this issue I will immediately make a report at WP:ANI with no further discussion. Cresix (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(end of previous discussion) Cresix (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion

The basic issue is, should the lead state "Israeli and American" or "Israeli-American". Cresix (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Or, more specifically, whether the fact that Portman holds dual citizenship should be mentioned in the lead instead of, for instance, the "Personal life" section. --bender235 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning dual citizenship in the lead. The problem I have is the less accuracy of stating "Israeli-American" rather than "Israeli and American" (Israeli-American suggests that she may not have dual citizenship), as well as the redundancy of stating "Israeli and American" along with "dual citizenship" in the lead (elsewhere in the article is fine). The most accurate and efficient description for the lead is "Israeli and American", but if there is a consensus for the redundancy of "Israeli and American (with dual citizenship)", I'll accept that. Cresix (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know its a bit wordy but how about;

Natalie Hershlag (Hebrew: נטלי הרשלג; born June 9, 1981), better known by her stage name Natalie Portman, is an actrcess of dual Isreali and American citizenship.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me, though, as you acknowledged, wordier than necessary. But I can accept it that way. Just not Israeli-American. Cresix (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That is just an extended version of what's already there. The point of this argument was to shorten the first sentence, not the opposite. As can be seen in the numerous examples I posted above, we usually only describe the nationality in the first sentence. Which citizenship a person holds, and since when, is explain later. I don't see any reason why we should handle this any different here. --bender235 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy takes precident over length. Yes, Portman is an Isreali American, that is an American of Isreali descent but being a dual citizen of both countries she is also an American Isreali. In this case "Isreali and American" is actually the most simple and still accurate form. I suggested the latter to be completely clear and void confussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite correct. You cannot state it more precisely than "Israeli and American" because "Israeli-American" is not as accurate. Bender235, your goal may be to shorten, but that simply cannot be done without removing accuracy. So take your pick: "Israeli and American" or "dual Israeli and American citizenship" because Wikipedia does not shorten at the expense of accuracy (i.e., "Israeli-American"). Cresix (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Following that argument we would also have to include here complete filmography in the first sentence, because it is more accurate than just calling her an actress.

Like I said, Portman isn't the only person with a dual citizenship. In all those precedents, we explain that citizenship blah-blah not in the first sentence, but in a separate section. Why not here? --bender235 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Following that argument we would also have to include here complete filmography in the first sentence: No, the lead for actors (as well as most other bios) almost always includes nationality, not the entire filmography. In fact, MOS:BIO presents nationality as a component of the lead, not filmography. Her nationalities are American and Israeli.
Like I said, Portman isn't the only person with a dual citizenship.: No one has said that she is. What's your point in that statement, if there is a point?
We explain that citizenship blah-blah not in the first sentence, but in a separate section: Again, wrong. Here are a few examples that I selected at random (out of thousands) of actors/actresses whose citizenship is mentioned, not just in the lead, but in the first sentence: Marilyn Monroe, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Watson, Derek Jacobi, Matt Damon, Salma Hayek, etc. etc. I'm not sure why I need to say this, but that is so common that any exceptions are extremely rare exceptions.
Now, Bender235, I think you've made your points quite well, and we all appreciate that. But you have not made any new points in the last few edits. So, why don't we just wrap this up. Which would you prefer: "Israeli and American" or "dual Israeli and American citizenship"? Otherwise, I don't plan to continue rehashing the same arguments over and over. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to remind you again to stop this possessive behavior. It's not your business to decide when a debate is finished.

And to your arguments: which of the actors you listed has dual citizenship? I don't see any. --bender235 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to keep this debate civil. Also lets not concern ourselves with other stuff. Solely labeling Portman as an Isreali-American presents systemic bias because she is equally an American-Isreali. Our only other option would to remove all references to nationality in the lead and explain her dual citizenship in the body of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless others have opinions, this discussion is finished. The article stays as it is unless there is a change in consensus. Thanks to everyone for your comments. Cresix (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been three users (not including myself) who wanted to the revert that stupid "Israeli and American" definition, so don't tell me there's consensus for your version of this article (where and when was this determined, anyway?). Who are you trying to fool? --bender235 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Imho, the article should read "Israeli-American" (or "American-Israeli"). "Israeli and American" doesn't flow. The lede should not indicate a person's ethnicity/descent anyway (as Israeli American does), so the meaning of Israeli-American in this case (Portman being a national of Israel and the US) should be perfectly clear. Mention of her dual citizenship specifically should be made in the "Personal life" section. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede should not indicate a person's ethnicity/descent anyway": Thanks for you comments, but I have a correction. Israeli and American are nationalities, not ethnicities, and WP:MOSBIO includes nationality as a component of the lead. Her ethnicity is Jewish, and I would agree that does not belong in the lead. Also, "Israeli-American" or "American-Israeli" is inaccurate as it can include people without dual citizenship. Cresix (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Also, "Israeli-American" or "American-Israeli" is inaccurate as it can include people without dual citizenship." Yes, but not if it's mentioned in the lede, which never includes a person's descent. So "Israeli-American" in the lede never means "American of Israeli descent", but automatically means someone who is both an Israeli and American national. Since this rule is followed consistently (e.g. Robert DeNiro is not referred to in the lede as an Italian-American), I very much doubt readers will get confused, especially if Portman's dual citizenship is mentioned in the article itself. Just mho. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But Robert Deniro is referred to as "American" because that's his nationality. He is an American citizen, but not an Italian citizen. His nationality is not Italian-American; that's his heritage, which does not belong in the lead. Again, Israeli or American refers to nationality, and nationality is virtually always included in the lead of bio articles. Randomly go to bio articles, especially actors, and you invariably see American, French, Mexican etc. Portman's nationalities (not her ethnicity or descent) are Israeli and American. To leave out her nationalities from the lead would make her article the very rare exception. And I disagree that readers would not be confused by "Iraeli-American" because there are quite a few bio articles on Israeli-Americans who do not have Iraeli citizenship. Cresix (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said nor believe that the lede should not include Portman's nationalities, so I'll ignore most of your comment as it is not relevant. As for those articles on Israeli-Americans who don't have dual citizenship, their ledes don't (or shouldn't) state that they are Israeli-American but simply American, which is what I was trying (and clearly failed) to point out with the DeNiro example. So, again, I very much doubt people will get confused. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We write articles for the general public and the general public is not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To them Israeli-American, means Israeli American. We must be careful not to mislead our readers, even if that sometimes means stepping away from the norm.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Cresix (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Them" here meaning "Americans", not "the general public". This practise of hyphenating people's descent and nationality is not commonly done elsewhere. I, being Dutch, don't look at "Israeli-American actress" and think "American actress of Israeli descent". But, whatever, I can agree on "actress of dual American and Israeli citizenship", as I find it less clunky than "Israeli and American". Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

← If I may - I think this is a time to use the few extra words and explain what we mean - I agree with Cresix et al that "Israeli-American" is not appropriate here as it suggests something else, but I also think "an Israeli and American actress" is not as clear as it could be. I much prefer "is an actress with dual American and Israeli citizenship". That properly reflects what is said in the body of the article, and more importantly it explains what we mean. To build on what TT said above - accuracy and clarity both trump concerns about article length which is a red herring anyway when we're talking about only 3 extra words. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way is acceptable to me. So if I'm correct, Tvoz prefers "dual American and Israeli citizenship"; TriiipleThreat and Cresix can accept that version. Cresix (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then, I'm going to make the change, and if there's an objection I'm sure we'll hear.Tvoz/talk 02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This version, too, leaves open questions, like when and why she acquired her dual citizenship. And this, of course, should be explained in a subsection of the article. Like in the case of Hakeem Olajuwon, who is Nigerian American with dual citizenship, and the article explains in the appropriate section, when he became a U.S. citizen. --bender235 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. We don't normally explain how someone acquires citizenship unless it is acquired after birth (i.e., born with one citizenship and acquring another citizenship later), so that might be considered an unnecessary detail. For example, Robert Redford's article doesn't state specifically that he acquired American citizenship because he was born in the USA to American parents. At the same time, the dual citizenship issue does add a more unique aspect to Portman's citizenship. If others agree to add a brief comment later in the article, I'm OK with that. I just don't consider it necessary because it is explained where she was born and the citizenship of each of her parents. Cresix (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, presumably she didn't "acquire" dual citizenship, as she was born to it. If there are reliable sources discussing her decision to retain dual citizenship - assuming there was such a specific decision - I don't necessarily object to it going into "Early life" where we discuss her birth and parents, etc., if there is something notable about it beyond what we've already said. Certainly not in the lead though. I don't think it's particularly necessary, unless as I say there's something notable about it. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Further on this: according to Dickerson (p.21) her parents made the decision when she was 3 to move back to the US in order to retain her US citizenship - she'd have to live in the US a certain number of years before turning 18. So I think what we have presently in the article is correct and enough of an explanation of her citizenship. If there are other sources that go beyond this, my opinion might change, but based on this I think we're fine now. Tvoz/talk 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know someone had to live in the USA a specific time to keep birthright citizenship. I thought, once a citizen always a citizen unless it is renounced or taken away for egregious behavior. I would prefer to cite something about her decision to retain American citizenship, although I could accept a brief comment about the decision her parents made. Cresix (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Dickerson may not have it exactly right, as that clause may be about how long the parent lived in the US, not the child. I am not an expert on this, to say the least. Not clear that she made a decision, it may just have been the way it was. Tvoz/talk 01:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be the case that Dickerson may not have it right. According to United States nationality law#Birth abroad to one United States citizen, there are residency requirements that the American parent must have met (which undoubtedly were met by Portman's mother), but no residency requirement for the child. Cresix (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the lead to read 'Israelis / American'. I think the slash is critical here as it breaks the two nationalities. A dash would appear to join them and some people might mistake it for Israeli-American despite the wikilinks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. It will encourage editors (especially those naive to the issue here) to change it to "Isreali-American", despite the hidden comment; people tend to ignore hidden comments if it suits them. This has already happened once since you made the change; it will happen frequently. I also think that "Israel / American" is only a couple of characters shorter than "Israeli and American", so if we're going to change it, that's the most logical thing to do. Cresix (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, aything about Huckabee attacking her?

I honestly didn't even know her that well before he criticized her. J390 (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little fuzzy on details, but I think you're referring to her pregnancy outside of marriage, right? I think if she responds, it might be worthy of a comment, but otherwise that seems to be a Huckabee issue. Cresix (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Millepied

The article says she met her current partner in *late* 2009. However, the cited source[1], dated June 2010, says:

"He met her last spring on the set of Black Swan [...] In January the New York Post insinuated that Portman was a home wrecker"

So they met in spring 2009, not late 2009. I tried to change it, but my edit was reverted with the odd rationale that spring comes late in the year in the Southern hemisphere, which is not relevant as the source (Details magazine) is American and so is the subject of this article. I then changed it to *early* 2009 to avoid confusion, which was reverted also. Am I reading the source wrong? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not an odd rationale. It is common practice on Wikipedia not to identify portions of a year by season. English Wikipedia is written for the entire English-speaking world, not just those of us who happen to be in the northern hemisphere. There are plenty of English speakers in the southern hemisphere, and to them "spring 2009" is not the same as "late 2009". But otherwise you make a good point as to what the source refers to by "last Spring". Assuming it refers to the United States, spring refers to the time from late March through late June. I'll change it to "early" 2009, unless there is an alternative explanation. Thanks for noticing that. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. Thank you for changing it.Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tables

Regarding this edit. The filmography table was showing Portman's films with the title in the first column as row header for some time, and was recently changed to show the year in the first column. Bearing in mind that column one is a row header, the key information in this area is the film title. ie The table is a list of films, rather than a list of years during which Portman appeared in films. Also the recently added awards table (which tidied up a mass of information, and was an improvement) is also a table of awards rather than a table of years in which Portman won or was nominated for awards. Once again, semantically the first column/row header should be the award name. I know this is not how it's done in numerous articles, but reading through Help:Table this seems to be the more correct way of doing it. Until a few weeks ago, this was one of the few articles containing a filmography table that was in line with the format per Help:Table, so to change it back seemed to be a regressive step to me. This has also been discussed at WT:ACTOR and more discussion there would be a good thing. Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the sortability allows for any of the tables to be sorted by date, if required, so that aspect is not lost (or by film title in the awards table, for example). Rossrs (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers

See Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#Natalie Portman as Jane Foster in The Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an excuse for revert, not the same source. Either way search for sources here and here Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 22:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They all trace back to same source, we can wait.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually in a few of the sites listed in your google search she says she will not be in the movie.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch, the source you used for sourcing the article, even says that she won't be in The Avengers. Quoting: "Portman's character won't be in THE AVENGERS, but will be in potential THOR sequels.". Nymf _hideliho! 22:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheist?

In the Personal Life section, there's a line that says, "On the concept of the afterlife, Portman has said, "I don't believe in that. I believe this is it, and I believe it's the best way to live." Would that mean that Natalie Portman is an atheist? GamerPro64 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that it is not the same as atheism. It is possible to believe in a creator of the universe (God, if that's the word one wishes to use) without a belief that humans have an afterlife. There are, in fact, people who have such a belief, but I don't know if that is what Portman believes. She should not be described as an atheist in the article unless it is reliably sourced that she self-identifies specifically with atheism, or an unequivocal indication from her that she does not believe in a creator, supreme being, God, or whatever term she might use. See WP:BLPCAT. Cresix (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is the denial/rejection of God. Not believing in God or an afterlife is something completely different. I am an agnostic, and I don't believe in God either. Nymf _hideliho! 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying you don't believe in God is different to rejecting belief in God. Both are atheism. Though this is different to belief in an afterlife. Mdwh (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that quite insulting. Only a fool would indulge in words to describe that which cannot be measured. I am no fool! Nymf _hideliho! 08:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

Hi, everyone. I was just wondering why her movie "The other woman" is not included in her filmography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvermist01 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just added it, thanks. --BweeB (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was already listed under the title, Love and Other Impossible Pursuits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

mother

Just read that she became mother jpost.com Can someone edit the article, I dont speak enough English. 92.65.2.138 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Already added under the Personal life section. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date

The date for her son says June 6, but it's actually June 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsketch (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to sources looks like birth was on the 6th, announced on 14th. Name probably has been determined by parents, just not announced yet. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Military service

An anon posted in March 2011 (check archives) that was wondering if Portman had to serve in the military. Well, here you go:

In fact, the only shadow that hangs over this rigidly managed career is the strange rumour that she has dodged the Israeli draft. By law citizens of Israel (where she was born), both men and women, must serve 21 months in the army at 18. The line from the Portman camp was that she must be exempt because she left Israel before she was 16 and is not resident there. And it would be unfair to suggest she has shed her Jewish heritage; she speaks fluent Hebrew and recently played Anne Frank on Broadway -- something very close to Portman's heart, especially when you consider that two of her grandparents were killed in the Holocaust. 75.5.10.254 (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

claim in the opening is clearly wrong

The claim that Portman "learned to speak with a British accent for her starring role in V for Vendetta" is clearly wrong seeing as how the role she is most known for, Star Wars,which came well before V for vendetta she also spoke with an english accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Nevermind I guess. Wikipedia seems to covet verifiability over truth. Luckily this topic is completely unimportant 68.188.25.170 (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Real name

Aren't the two sentences "better known by her stage name Natalie Portman" and "a son named Aleph Portman-Millepied" a contradiction ? Does the U.S. law allow use of a stage name for the child of an actress or did she legally obtain it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.87.211 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

She may have had her name legally changed to her stage name (based on the sources we use for the child's birth I don't get that impression but it's not stated). The US is pretty forgiving on names of children in most states. She and the father would have been allowed to pick any name they wanted for the birth certificate. They could have made up a surname on the spot and put that on the certificate and it would have been fine in most states (if not all). Millahnna (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(I actually saw this comment when it was first posted, but did not have a chance to comment until now.) Apparently, it is possible to put either surname on the birth certificate (see Nicole Richie). However, I was the one who had the privilege to add those lines, and I was equally surprised that her birth/legal name was different from her stage name and that she had used the stage name for her son instead. You may also want to consider that she and Ben are not married, as Richie and Madden were when their two children were born, so that may be why there is extra such flexibility for them with the names. ★Dasani★ 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any relation to Lisa Edelstein to Natalie's mother, Shelley Steven's (Edelstein)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.223.31.219 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because they have the same last name doesn't mean they're related. Shelley has a sister but from what I remember, her name was not Lisa but Bernice. Also, she is married and has a new last name. ★Dasani★ 04:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Awards

I find this section messy. That is because it is not chronological. It is instead sorted by the award type. In articles about other artists, performers and actors, this section is ALWAYS chronological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.214.139 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. However, I think this problem can be solved if you just sort the table by "Year". You can do that by clicking the little button with the arrows at the top of the column. - PM800 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish roots

The article is laying too much emphasis on that, she is not the first celebriity to be Jewish, it needs to be edited to remove unecessary information related to that.116.71.6.43 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

She is one of the very few American people to become famous as a Jew to actually be born in Israel. Most are born and raised in the US. ★Dasani★ 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

awards table

why cant the awards be listed opposite her films? i think it shows the viewer which films get her recognition and also looks so much neater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.221.67 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speak Hebrew?

I know and read in the past arcrives that she speaks Hebrew, it says she study's several major languges but should there be aline on what she speaks?

English, Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tex downey (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

Numerous sources have talked about the rings on her and Benjamin's wedding fingers. Seems they might have had a secret marriage. --Senjuto 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agent

The early life section of the article states Natalie's mother is her agent. However, the infobox specifies she works with another company. Which one is correct? I know her mother managed her daughter's career at one point. She may not any longer. ★Dasani★ 19:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Music video

Should update that Natalie starred in Paul McCartney's music video, My Valentine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.45.237 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Schooling

Natalie Portman did go to Solomon Schechter; however, she did not go to Solomon Schechter Glen Cove because that school does not exist. The school she went to was in Jericho and was called Solomon Schechter Day School of Nassau County which is now called Schechter Long Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.195.64 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos

The last three photos on this pages, closeups of her from 2009 to 2011, repeat the infobox image, which is a closeup of her in 2010. A case can be made for the image captioned "Portman at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival, presenting Black Swan" since it shows her right side whereas the infobox image shows her left. But the other two images add no new encyclopedia content and thus serve only decorative purpose. Wikipedia disallows images to be used decoratively even if they are free-use. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What is her Jewish denomination?

Considering that she went to a Conservative Jewish day school, and married in long sleeves and a high neck [2], it's fair to assume she's a Conservative Jew.Toddsschneider (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not fair to assume anything as far as her article is concerned. We only add things as reported in reliable sources and if sources don't report it we don't either. GB fan 23:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Portman has stated that her parents sent her to a Conservative Jewish day school so she wouldn't forget how to speak Hebrew, not because they were particularly religious. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancestors

It has been brought to my attention that the section regarding Portman's ancestors needs some work. Maybe not scrapped, but they don't make sense the way they are. "Her maternal great-grandparents" or "paternal great-grandparents". Which set are we talking about? Her mother would have two different grandparents. Perhaps we could rewrite it to be, "Portman's mother's paternal grandparents" or something like that. Spelling Style (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify which sentence(s) the problem occurs in? The only reference to "great-" I find is "her Romanian-born great-grandmother was a spy for British Intelligence during World War II", which appears in context to refer to her father's mother's mother, since her father's father's parents died at Auschwitz, and all her mother's ancestors appear to have been in the U.S. already, and were from Austria and Russia, not Romania. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That was an example. My gripe was "her Romanian-born great-grandmother". There is nothing in the article which specifically cites we are discussing her father's mother's mother. The way it is currently written could be interpreted as either of her father's grandparents. I'm not sure, it just seemed better if it were more specific IMO. Spelling Style (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that more specific would be better; the problem, IMO, is that the sources themselves aren't all that clear. Of the three sources immediately following that sentence, the most complete seems to be the first (currently [14]), which says:

Avner's [Portman's father] parents moved to Israel in the late Thirties. His Polish grandfather had headed the Jewish youth movement in Poland. His grandmother was Romanian. "She spied for the British, traveling through Europe," Portman says. "She was blond, so she could totally pass as a non-Jew. Men, they would always try and pick her up because she was a gorgeous young woman? I'll show you."

Portman pulls out a wallet and from inside that an old photograph of two women: "This is a picture of her taken in Romania with her best friend. A couple of years younger than me..."

Her grandfather came to Israel, expecting to send for his family later. There was not later: history swept it away. His parents were taken to Auschwitz. This is the heritage within which Portman grew up.

I read that to mean the spy was her grandfather's mother, but that's pretty interpretive – and honestly, the more times I read it, the less sure I am – and I don't think we could justify putting that reading in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem. No matter how vague that wording is, if the sources do not state a certain line, we are not allowed to include this in the article. Spelling Style (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Natalie's son in lead?

The current lead section of the article cites that Natalie married Benjamin and they have one child. When I tried to edit this with their child's gender and name (a son named Aleph), three editors decided to revert. The first editor tried to explain that "this information is not needed in the lead." There is no such Wikipedia guideline that says such. Like I wrote to one, you might as well just remove the tidbits from other GAs and FAs, then. They all also specify the subject's children in the lead along with gender and names. What was the use of hiding Natalie's child's gender or name? I do not believe this is an invasion of privacy since we already specified she had a child. Spelling Style (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for presenting that information in the lead. Sorry but I think the present wording is appropriate: "She is married to Benjamin Millepied, and the couple has one child." Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I wrote to another editor (who agreed because only Ben would be notable), I am still surprised but if that is the general consensus we must follow. Maybe the other GAs and FAs should be trimmed then? Spelling Style (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead should read as though it is conveying only abbreviated information. It is in the body of the article that in-depth information should be provided. This is just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I snipped quite a few today. Was surprised that the consensus was so strong on these things, but I do recall reading some articles before which never mentioned the personal life at all. Spelling Style (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus reached here would not necessarily apply to other articles, therefore I question your edit summaries left at other articles pointing here. Bus stop (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might want to see this: User_talk:Spelling_Style#RE:_Biographical_articles.2Fchildren.27s_gender_and_name_in_lead. Spelling Style (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see no need to even mention her husband and child in the lead. They are not relevant to her career or her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It was long the consensus not to include those things at all in the lede of biographies. Then this person started adding it, and it has since popped up in different articles. Nymf _hideliho! 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable comments, but I also noticed that same editor adding those lines everywhere. Unfortunately, there seems no specific Wikipedia guideline dictating that we should not, although as I mentioned before, I also doubted its significance considering none of the article leads mentioned the subject's personal life before. Anyway. Should all of those lines just be snipped? Spelling Style (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to omit mention of the spouse and offspring from Natalie Portman's biography. Editors at different articles should have freedom from narrow restriction. This article can omit mention of spouse and offspring from the lead while another article can mention spouse and offspring in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Surname of son

In both this article and the article pertaining to Benjamin Millepied, the son's name is stated as Aleph Portman-Millepied. Three of the four cited sources make no such claim and the fourth is unreliable and spells the son's name Alef. Hardly trustworthy.

Here's the thing. Portman is her professional name. Judging by her most recent academic publications she never legally changed her name from Hershlag. Why would she then use a purely professional name when doing something as personal as naming her first born? She named him a Hebrew first name. It makes no sense that she would then jettison her surname of Jewish ethnicity. Aside from making no sense, it's just not proven anywhere in the cited sources that Portman-Millepied is indeed her child's surname. Bar digging up the birth cert, it's just not-too-well-thought-out speculation. Shn525 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's cited on biography.com that he indeed uses a hyphenated surname. See here [3] and LA Times and PEOPLE. She's well-known under Portman rather than Hershlag. I'm not surprised she gave him that surnmae. 108.93.72.117 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New Image

If good, stick it somewhere. Thanks. neo (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
File:NataliePortman.jpg

According to the website from which the image was taken, all material on the website is protected by copyright. All editors need to wait for administrative review confirming that it is properly licensed for use on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

License review is passed. neo (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Natonality

Changed the order of citizen because logically she got the nationality of the state of Israel at the time of birth

---dam- (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is the exact same instant at which she became an American citizen. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the law of American nationality, she has to apply via sanguis or inherited nationality which is not exactly because no have a date but behind it is a fact that she or her parents had to make a particular procedure to obtain American citizenship for her... ---dam- (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not true. They merely have to supply proof of her birth to them, no different than requiring a proof of birth to establish (not obtain, in either case) Israeli citizenship.Fat&Happy (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, but she was born in Israel to a father with Israeli citizenship, their nationality of origin is from Israel, she was born in israel, the correct way to place this important part of your article is Israel and then the American nationality because in this case gives the allusion to American citizenship is more important than the Israeli, missing a main rule wikipedia WP:OR ---dam- (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And her mother was an American citizen. Why is the father's citizenship considered more important here when the mother is the one who counts under Jewish law? Keeping the two in the original alphabetical order implies nothing about importance; changing it to an order you consider a reflection of importance is both OR and POV. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetical? Albert Einstein As you can see, not everywhere is set to form alphabetical, and I repeat, I discuss this not in order of importance, if not the physical birthplace of her (Israel). There a policy that says this must be accommodated in alphabetical form? ---dam- (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty over Jerusalem

The article has been claiming, in breach of the neutrality rules, that Jerusalem is in Israel, a heavily contested position (see the Positions on Jerusalem article and also note that even the United States, Israel's main supporter, leaves the question of sovereignty over Jerusalem open [4]). If editors want to mention Israel in relation to Jerusalem, they should find a formulation which is not disputed, such as 'Israeli-controlled' or 'in Israel according to Israeli law'.     ←   ZScarpia   11:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the subject of Jerusalem's sovereignty is an WP:ARBPIA issue. Subjects connected to WP:ARBPIA issues are subject to a 1RR restriction. IP editor 109.67.122.3 has carried out 2 reverts within the space of about an hour.     ←   ZScarpia   22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number

If the article is going to have her Erdos-Bacon number (a 7), the article should explain what an Erdos-Bacon number is. I think many readers will be unfamiliar with the concept, which will lead them to be puzzled. I have added in a few sentences explaining what an E-B number is.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree a very brief definition (much more brief than what you attempted to add) would be useful to readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to my experienced colleagues, I'm not sure trivia about her relative closeness to Kevin Bacon really belongs in an encyclopedic biography. I get that there's a Wikipedia article for it, but there's a Wikipedia article for a lot of things we don't mention in someone's bio, like their favorite food. Yeah, there's an article for chocolate.... --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Tenebrae, however I was not commenting if the Erdős–Bacon number should be included at all, only if it is included then a brief definition should be included as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we same to be on the same page. Whew!  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an existing consensus that EB number stays in the article (see Talk page archives). If you want to remove it get a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New infobox photograph

I think we need a new discussion and a consensus on which infobox photograph we are going to use. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that the newer image is the wrong one to use. Was taken after less than two years (less than eighteen months). I can definitely agree with the reasoning that the image is unflattering and makes Natalie look a heap older. I think that until a newer, better image can be found, we stick with the October 2013 one. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the newer image should not be used. There is a mindset on Wikipedia that if an image can be used (because it's free) then it should be used. When multiple images are available, we are allowed to select the one that is the best. Aside from how unflattering the newer image is to NP, it also is photographically inferior. Sundayclose (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 on sticking with the status quo. There is no need to change the current image, especially not with an inferior image. Nymf (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Natalie took a bad picture. It happens. It makes her look like 45. We should avoid using images like that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In which country was Natalie Portman born?

This article quite correctly lists that Ms. Portman was born in Jerusalem, but unlike every other page reference to place of birth, it does not note the country in which this city is situated. The hospital in which Ms. Portman was born is quite clearly (and was in 1981, as well) within the borders of the State of Israel. When I first noticed this omission and added the country of birth, the insertion was quickly reverted (by 4TheWynne). But I hope that the information will remain unchanged and the record will be maintained.Barmispain (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read Jerusalem: "Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital." Wikipedia does not take sides in the dispute. Portman has Israeli citizenship and considers herself Israeli-born. But that is as far as we can go in identifying Israel as her place of birth, unless you get an unequivocal consensus otherwise. Israel has been added and removed from the infobox many times, but there has never been a consensus on this take page to include Israel. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Natalie Portman and not about the status of Jerusalem. She is jewish, born in Israeli controlled Jerusalem and the fact is that apart from Wikipedia, every relevant source on the internet cites her birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel. If Wikipedia does not take sides in the dispute than the biased editors should not continuously delete a fact that is a fact according to every other source on the internet.164.61.210.150 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman's ethnic heritage and the part of Jerusalem where she was born do not determine the content of Wikipedia. The article is about Portman (and she is identified as Israeli), but the addition of Israel to the article is about Jerusalem, and that is where Wikipedia does not take sides. And "every other source on the internet" does not claim that Jerusalem is in Israel (or Palestine), nor do reputable print encyclopedias. Once again, there has never been a consensus, and all of the edit warring by you anon IPs will not change what goes in the article; it will simply get the page protected from editing by IPs and new editors. Sundayclose (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course you take sides by deleting Israel as the country where Natalie Portman was born. Just take the time and go back to the very beginning of the article in 2002. Israel was there as her birthplace and then some time later this lovely game started when the anti-Israeli editors decided that she was not born in Israel. And since the year of birth is 1981, it's pretty obvious that she was born in Jerusalem within the Green Line. But I know that even if I would do the research and prove it, it would not satisfy you even though the PLO officially claims East Jerusalem because then you can refer to the 1947 Partition Plan which did not grant neither Jewish, nor Arab sovereignty over any areas of Jerusalem. Thanks to editors like you it's getting hard to differentiate between Wikipedia and Metapedia when reading about anything related to Israel.164.61.210.150 (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your first warning to stop making personal attacks. Comment on the article, not editors. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask to have the page protected anyway. All of this edit warring has gone on for too long, and really is pointless. Next time, you're going to need to do a better job than that if you want to have this sort of information on the page. This is getting nowhere. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fairly sure this topic would fall under WP:ARBPIA as well. Nymf (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

Sandymount83 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) the article says ms portman was born in Israel but she was born in Jerusalem and by international law Jerusalem is not under the sovereignty of any country.

Not done: Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital. Wikipedia does not take sides in the dispute. Portman has Israeli citizenship and considers herself Israeli-born, so that's what the article says. Stickee (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards and nominations section

There should not be an "Awards and nominations" section when there is an entire separate article List of awards and nominations received by Natalie Portman. That was the whole idea of creating that separate article — so that this information would be split off from the main article. I'd like to assume removing "Awards and nominations" from this article, then, would be non-controversial, but we can do an RfC if need be. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to split it from the main article, but (and correct me if I missed something) there needs to be a prominent link to List of awards and nominations received by Natalie Portman somewhere in the article. The group of templates at the bottom "Awards for Natalie Portman" does not include nominations as far as I can see. I would add the link myself but I'm not sure where it should go. Possibly in the filmography section? Suggestions? Sundayclose (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're correct — there was indeed a main-article link and I inadvertently removed it. Restoring it now. --Tenebrae (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Natalie Portman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060512070740/http://www.ezilon.com:80/information/article_4830.shtml to http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_4830.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140905194319/http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/11/12/anywhere/index.html to http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/11/12/anywhere/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011002807/http://www.variety.com:80/article/VR1117973231.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117973231.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140905194102/http://www.peta.org/feat-fatalfashion.asp to http://www.peta.org/feat-fatalfashion.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220182458/http://www.cbs.com:80/latenight/lateshow/wahoo/index/php/20060314.phtml to http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/wahoo/index/php/20060314.phtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007031641/http://foreignexchange.tv/?q=node/543 to http://foreignexchange.tv/?q=node/543
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111119071710/http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/politics&id=6445735 to http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/politics&id=6445735

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Israeli "leftist" politics

Portman describes her politics in Israeli society as "quite leftist", and called Netanyahu a "racist." She also universalizes the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. This has been reported in many WP:RS. Doesn't this belong in the article?

I'm giving some lengthy quotes, lest someone worry that I'm quoting out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/natalie-portman-sounds-israel-netanyahu-793425
Natalie Portman Sounds Off on Israel, Netanyahu, French Anti-Semitism and the "False Idol" of Oscar
By Stephen Galloway
Hollywood Reporter
May 15, 2015

On Benjamin Netanyahu, newly re-elected as prime minister of Israel, the country of her birth: "I'm very much against Netanyahu. Against. I am very, very upset and disappointed that he was re-elected. I find his racist comments horrific.

I ask if Portman feels nervous about being Jewish in Paris. "Yes," she says, "but I'd feel nervous being a black man in this country. I'd feel nervous being a Muslim in many places."

Then there's politics. Portman grants she's "quite leftist" (particularly in relation to Israeli society),

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/natalie-portman-says-jewish-community-should-focus-less-on-the-holocaust-10465577.html
Natalie Portman says Jewish community should focus less on the Holocaust
Heather Saul
The Independent
21 August 2015

“I think a really big question the Jewish community needs to ask itself, is how much at the forefront we put Holocaust education," she said. "Which is, of course, an important question to remember and to respect, but not over other things."

Portman said she arrived at this conclusion after visiting a museum about the Rwandan Genocide and realising this was not something she had been taught about in school despite it taking place while she was a student.

"I was shocked that that [genocide] was going on while I was in school. We were learning only about the Holocaust and it was never mentioned and it was happening while I was in school. That is exactly the type of problem with the way it’s taught. I think it needs to be taught, and I can’t speak for everyone because this was my personal education.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/natalie-portman-interview-black-swan-actress-talks-antisemitism-learning-hebrew-and-directorial-debut-a-tale-of-love-and-darkness-10465366.html
Natalie Portman interview: Black Swan actress talks anti-semitism, learning Hebrew and directorial debut A Tale of Love and Darkness
21 August 2015
Kaleem Aftab
The Independent
21 August 2015

Yet she now thinks that she was slightly hoodwinked into not questioning the actions of the Israeli state. As the government has become more right-wing, she has started to be a critical voice. She sees some of her previous opinions as being the result of her education, which she believes put too exclusive an emphasis on the Holocaust.

“I think a really big question the Jewish community needs to ask itself, is how much at the forefront we put Holocaust education. Which is, of course, an important question to remember and to respect, but not over other things... We need to be reminded that hatred exists at all times and reminds us to be empathetic to other people that have experienced hatred also. Not used as a paranoid way of thinking that we are victims.”

She continues: “Sometimes it can be subverted to fear-mongering and like ‘Another Holocaust is going to happen’. We need to, of course, be aware that hatred exists, anti-Semitism exists against all sorts of people, not in the same way. I don’t mean to make false equivalences, we need it to serve as something that makes us empathetic to people rather than paranoid.”

She can pinpoint the moment that she came to this realisation – it was in 2007, on a trip to Rwanda to trek with gorillas. “We went to the museum there, and I was shocked that that [genocide] was going on while I was in school. We were learning only about the Holocaust and it was never mentioned and it was happening while I was in school. That is exactly the type of problem with the way it’s taught. I think it needs to be taught, and I can’t speak for everyone because this was my personal education.”

She is an opponent of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was reelected earlier this year, and has publicly stated that she finds his “racist comments horrifying”. But, she also says, that’s democracy. “It’s the thing about democracy, it happens in the US, in France, everywhere, sometimes people get elected that you wouldn’t elect yourself and you have to live with it. So you raise your voice, you need to speak out, protest when things are going wrong, but that is being part of a democracy. Of course, it’s also depressing when people think different than I do, but that is also the joy of humanity.”

--Nbauman (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily objecting to some mention of this in the article, but I have some concerns. You state it "has been reported in many WP:RS". I see two sources cited above; that's not "many". My other concern is, if it is added to the article, there should be careful consideration of WP:WEIGHT. A section of the article mentions numerous social and political causes. Most are described with a sentence or two. If the above information is added, a sentence or two should suffice so as not to overshadow other parts of that section. And it should be carefully worded to avoid WP:NPOV problems. By a large degree she is notable as an actress, not a political activist, even compared to many other actors who are political activists. You also should wait for more opinions here; this article has a lot of eyes on it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been hundreds of articles, particularly in the Jewish press, on Portman's criticism of Netanyahu, what she calls the unfair treatment of Palestinians, and her opinion that the Holocaust has been over-emphasized compared to all the other Holocausts in the world. I only picked 2 of the most prominent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070934/Israels-Netanyahu-seals-11th-hour-deal-ruling-coalition.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/7/natalie-portman-calls-benjamin-netanyahu-comments-/

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/natalie_portman_condemns_netanyahus_re_election_i_find_his_racist_comments_horrific/

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.655294

http://forward.com/the-assimilator/307686/5-things-we-learned-from-natalie-portmans-hollywood-reporter-interview/

http://forward.com/the-assimilator/319682/natalie-portman-thinks-jews-shouldnt-focus-on-the-holocaust/

Since she's an Israeli citizen, and frequent resident of Israel, she has opinions on many aspects of Israeli politics. It would be hard to squeeze her well-developed opinions on Netanyahu, the Palestinians, and the Holocaust into a sentence or two. In particular, she has a habit of giving both sides of the issue, so truncating her views would be unfair to her and misleading. She called Netanyahu a racist, but she also said that he was democratically elected so you have to live with it. If you just truncate that to, "She called Netanyahu a 'racist'," you would be leaving out an important qualification, which would be misleading. If you write that she thinks Jewish education puts too great an emphasis on the Holocaust, you have to include her explanation and qualifications of that statement. --Nbauman (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently the section on social and political causes is about 760 words and addresses nine issues if I am counting correctly. Some of those causes are described in one sentence. The issue with the lengthiest description (animal rights) is 110 words with six sentences, or about 15% of the section. I can understand that her views on Israeli politics are a major part of her social and political agenda and could be the lengthiest part of the section. Should it be 20% of the section? Perhaps. Should it be 30%? I don't think so. I also think the the entire social/political section shouldn't become much more than about 20% of the entire article, which is about what it is now. Some of the description of the other issues perhaps could be shortened. But I will listen to other opinions. As I noted above, a lot of people have been involved with this article. There's no need to rush. So let's wait and see what opinions emerge here. I'm not trying to play a numbers game; I just don't want this one issue overshadowing the rest of the article. She is a complex person and is not defined by her politics. Sundayclose (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress"

Rather than being WP:BOLD and changing this unilaterally, I am going to tread softly here as I appreciate this is a touchy issue. This wording in the opening line strikes me as problematic for a few reasons:

1. Under Israeli nationality law, Israeli citizenship is transmitted primarily through the principle of jus sanguinis rather than jus soli. In plain English, the people who receive Israeli citizenship at birth are in most cases not those born on territory controlled by Israel, but those who are born with at least one Israeli citizen parent. Since Portman's father was an Israeli citizen, she would have been born with Israeli citizenship ("Israeli-born") regardless of the actual place of birth. Here's the Israeli nationality law in English: link. See section 4 in particular.
2. Portman was born to a United States citizen parent. She was thus born just as much a US citizen as an Israeli citizen—just as much American-born as Israeli-born, if she is considered to be the latter. See birthright citizenship in the United States and United States nationality law.
3. The wording "Israeli-born" indicates that she was born in Israel. Portman was born in Jerusalem. While the birth undoubtedly took place in territory controlled by Israel, under Israeli jurisdiction and was registered with the Israeli authorities (in addition to those of the US), not everyone would say this was strictly speaking in Israel; indeed the infobox and body of this very article do not say it is. See Positions on Jerusalem.
4. Manual of Style advises at WP:OPENPARA that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." So far as I am aware, Portman is notable for her activities as an American actress rather than for anything relating to the location or circumstances of her birth.
5. The wording "Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress", with parentheses in the middle of the open sentence, scans very badly and really, in opinion, should be replaced by something that flows better.

I had considered, as alternatives:

A: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג; June 9, 1981) is an American and Israeli actress, producer, and director, with dual citizenship.

B: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג; June 9, 1981) is an actress, producer and director of dual American and Israeli citizenship.

C: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג; June 9, 1981) is an actress, producer and director with dual citizenship of the United States and Israel.

D: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג; June 9, 1981) is an American actress, producer and director who also holds Israeli citizenship.

These are just a few ideas. I hope you're all well and I look forward to thrashing this out in due course. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I oppose option D because it suggests that her American citizenship somehow takes precedence. I think option B is acceptable, except grammatically I think "with dual" sounds better than "of dual". For what its worth, I think Portman considers herself Israeli born. If we challenge "Israeli born" throughout Wikipedia we may get some opposition. Sundayclose (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Support option B: It's accurate, sounded in policy, and the most grammatically clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, charmingly forgot to mention:

• Natalie Portman was born and raised in Israel for the first 3.5 years of her life.
• Natalie Portman's first actual birth certificate was an Israeli one.
• Natalie Portman was born to an Israeli father.
• Natalie Portman speaks Hebrew, the unique language of Israel.
• Natalie Portman's original name is Neta-Lee, a popular modern Israeli name.
• Natalie Portman, as an adult, returned to Israel to study at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Natalie Portman is the director of her latest film which is her very own adaption of an Israeli book, along with an entire Israeli cast she picked.
• Natalie Portman's same latest film is literally about the birth of the State of Israel.

Portman has been an Israeli citizen for several years prior to her becoming a citizen of another nation.

Portman identifies as an Israeli Zionist. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/19/natalie-portman-s-zionist-manifesto.html

The only suiting choice:

E: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג‎; June 9, 1981) is an Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress, producer, and director. Yossimgim (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How does any of that related to being "Israeli-born" (apart from your bold mention of her bring "born and raised" in Israel, of course, which seems to ignore that part of the whole issue here is whether Jerusalem qualifies as being in Israel)? As to your citizenship point, you must have missed the part where he said "Portman was born to a United States citizen parent. She was thus born just as much a US citizen as an Israeli citizen". LjL (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually believe that being born in Jerusalem means she hasn't got to visit other legit Israeli cities in her first years as an Israeli newborn citizen? I sure hope you don't, because that would make you look rather silly. Yossimgim (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting because she was born in Israel that her Israeli citizenship is more significant than her American citizenship?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Portman being an Israeli was prior to her being an American. Both chronically and actually. Yossimgim (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How about legally, Yossimgim? Citizenship from one's parents is transmitted at birth, applying for an overseas birth certificate/passport is not the same as applying for naturalisation. And if your stance is that she's more Israeli than American, why do you prefer a wording that strictly speaking says she's an American born abroad ("Israeli-born American") over one that says she's both nationalities? —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't, but congratulations for looking rather silly yourself with that total non sequitur. Being born in a place is different from "having visited cities during the first years". Obviously. LjL (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet, according to her Israeli birth certificate and herself claim- Natalie Portman was born in the state of Israel. Not just in a city named Jerusalem.

• There isn't a Jerusalemi nationalism Wikipedia page. Thus, red.
• There is an Israeli nationalism Wikipedia page. Thus, blue. Yossimgim (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: `Israeli-born American` tells the reader she was de facto born in Israel, and did lived her first years there, and didn't just acquired an Israeli citizenship by remotely applying for it as a Jew or by heritage. Simplistic, yet more detailed.Yossimgim (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you're plainly stating that the thing here is that Wikipedia should be subjugated to your (or "Israeli") nationalism. Well no thanks. LjL (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but I do plainly say that Wikipedia can't decide for Natalie Portman whether she is Israeli from birth or not. That's nothing more than a fact for her, and would probably be mentioned upfront in any biographic piece about Portman without forcing it to be political.Yossimgim (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what's fact though. Your supposed fact is being disputed, and with reasons. And most of the biographic material I see about her on Google Books states she was born in Jerusalem, while avoiding to claim she was born in Israel. LjL (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Her being Israeli-born isn't a political claim whatsoever. It's just part of Portman's own self identity. She is an actress, not a member of Congress. This article is about Natalie Portman's origins according to her biography, not about the worldwide validity of the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Again, I ask you to stop forcing this discussion to be political. Natalie Portman isn't the UN, she is just a performing artist. She was born and raised in Israel for the first 3.5 years of her life according to her, her father, and her mother. Wikipedia can't tell them they are not honest. Yossimgim (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we please tone down the hyperbole and the personal comments about other editors? This is a legitimate debate about whether Wikipedia should identify someone as "Israeli-born" if she was born in Jerusalem and is an Israeli citizen by birth. It is not about whether Wikipedia is telling Portman and her parents that they are not honest. It is not about editors "charmingly forgetting" anything or editors being "silly". This obviously is a controversial topic, so please confine your comments to the content of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To answer all of Yossimgim's points above directly (the things I "charmingly forgot to mention"):

• Natalie Portman was born and raised in Israel for the first 3.5 years of her life.

• Was she, though? She was born in Jerusalem. This very article refrains from saying in the infobox or the prose that this is in Israel. In any case, even putting the issue of Jerusalem to one side for the moment, this means she spent 70%–80% of her formative years growing up in the US. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Natalie Portman's first actual birth certificate was an Israeli one.

• So? Means nothing in this discussion. Anybody born under Israeli jurisdiction (that is, on territory controlled by Israel and/or in an Israeli hospital) gets an Israeli birth certificate, no matter what nationality they are. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Natalie Portman was born to an Israeli father.

• I did mention that, in my point number 1 at the start of this discussion. This, not the location of her birth, is the reason she was born an Israeli citizen at all. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Natalie Portman speaks Hebrew, the unique language of Israel.

• So do I. Means nothing in this debate. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Natalie Portman's original name is Neta-Lee, a popular modern Israeli name.

• What's the implication here? That she'd be less of an Israeli citizen if her original name had been Anastasia, Jane or Nadia? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Natalie Portman, as an adult, returned to Israel to study at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Natalie Portman is the director of her latest film which is her very own adaption of an Israeli book, along with an entire Israeli cast she picked.
• Natalie Portman's same latest film is literally about the birth of the State of Israel.

• None of these are relevant to this discussion at all. You seem to be misconstruing my argument—I'm not saying she isn't Israeli, I'm saying that the specific wording Israeli-born is problematic. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Portman has been an Israeli citizen for several years prior to her becoming a citizen of another nation.

• This claim seems to me very dubious. Under US nationality law citizenship is transmitted at birth where at least one of the parents is a US citizen, and the modern academic consensus is that even if the birth is outside the United States the child is a natural-born American. See the Harvard Law Review here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Portman identifies as an Israeli Zionist.

• What do her political views have to do with anything here? What is a "Zionist" in this context, anyway? If her views were different, would that in itself change her nationality or the circumstances of her birth, origin etc? —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress": Continued discussion

It's been two weeks since I opened this thread and there's been no discussion whatsoever for over a week. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and changed the opening sentence to a variant of suggestion B above, substituting the word "of" for "with" ("with dual American and Israeli citizenship.") Thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion and I hope you're all well. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the best possible wording, but I endorse the decision to be bold and fix the issue. At least now the article is stating something that is certainly true. LjL (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the change. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, once again charmingly forgot to mention:

• Natalie Portman was born and raised in Israel for the first 3.5 years of her life.
• Natalie Portman's first actual birth certificate was an Israeli one.
• Natalie Portman was born to an Israeli father.
• Natalie Portman speaks Hebrew, the unique language of Israel.
• Natalie Portman's original name is Neta-Lee, a popular modern Israeli name.
• Natalie Portman, as an adult, returned to Israel to study at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
• Natalie Portman is the director of her latest film which is her very own adaption of an Israeli book, along with an entire Israeli cast she picked.
• Natalie Portman's same latest film is literally about the birth of the State of Israel.

Portman has been an Israeli citizen for several years prior to her becoming a citizen of another nation.

Portman identifies as an Israeli Zionist. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/19/natalie-portman-s-zionist-manifesto.html

The only suiting choice (and the current intro for the last few months):

E: Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג‎; June 9, 1981) is an Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress, producer, and director.

Letting the readers know that Portman being an Israeli was prior to her being an American. Both chronically and actually. 79.180.195.98 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not charmingly forget to mention anything, and I have already rebutted this laundry list further up the page. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what's fact though. Your supposed fact is being disputed, and with reasons. `Israeli-born American` tells the reader she was de facto born in Israel, and did lived her first years there, and didn't just acquired an Israeli citizenship by remotely applying for it as a Jew or by heritage. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, she did acquire Israeli citizenship through heritage—she acquired it at birth because her father was an Israeli citizen, not because of where she was born. Under Israeli nationality law this would have been the case even if she'd been born in Tel Aviv, or indeed had the location of the birth been Timbuktu or anywhere else you could care to mention. This was actually my point number 1 at the very start of this discussion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your statement is false, Califtonian. According to her Israeli birth certificate and herself claim- Natalie Portman was born in the state of Israel. Jews who were born in Israel aren't required to apply for citizenship by heritage, because they have already acquired it with their birth certificate. Thus, infant Natalie Portman didn't had to apply for anything and was automatically granted her citizenship upon her actual birth in Israel. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 07:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Infant Neta-Lee was also automatically a natural-born citizen of the US in addition to Israel, because her mum was a US citizen. Israeli documents may claim all kinds of places to be in the State of Israel, but that doesn't make them so in the eyes of the international community. You introduce her Jewish heritage to this discussion. What's your point here? Are you claiming that Israeli nationality law differentiates between those born to Israeli citizens of Jewish background and those born to Israeli citizens of non-Jewish background? Here's the law; it doesn't. See section 4 in particular. link. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The truth according to any article regarding Portman's biography is her being born in Israel, living the first years of her life as an Israeli, and again, all of that prior to her being an American. Both chronically and actually. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 08:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How is that "prior to her being an American"? The children of US citizens are born Americans, just like the children of Israeli citizens are born Israelis. And you still refuse to engage on the point that not everyone recognises Jerusalem as being in Israel. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, do you actually believe that Portman's parents applied for her foreign citizenship during her birth in Israel? Are you suggesting that her mother was filling American citizenship forms while, simultaneously, pushing her out? I sure hope you don't, because that would make you look rather silly. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 10:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I explained above, Yossimgim, applying for a passport, birth certificate etc from abroad is not the same as naturalisation. There would have been no "filling American citizenship forms". The parents would simply have applied for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America and/or for a passport—either or both of which the US authorities would have issued because the child was born to an US-citizen mother and was therefore born a citizen. These documents are evidence of citizenship, not the citizenship itself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "with dual American and Israeli citizenship." is a perfectly succinct and accurate description. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing. I was fine with how it was before. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian, have you ever seen a mother, whether in an Israeli hospital like Portman, or anywhere else who was applying for a Consular Report or a foreign passport while, simultaneously, giving birth to her offspring? Any reliable sources claiming that's the case about Portman? No? I thought so. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 10:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: The "how it was before" intro of Natalie Portman for several months is Yossimgim's version:

• Natalie Portman (born Neta-Lee Hershlag; Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג‎; June 9, 1981) is an Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress, producer, and director. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

By "how it was before", I was referring to Cliftonian's version, which was supported by several other editors and not yourself. And I'm confused as to why you have since been accusing others of edit warring. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, I also advocate Cliftonian's version. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of you, @4TheWynne an @The Rambling Man, are currently issued with Edit Warring pending bans involving this article and your own Talk Pages.

Your opinions, and your obvious duplicate votes over recurring comments, are hereby dropped. Yossimgim ^Talk/_Stalk 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, their opinions are not "dropped", and most important of all, you certainly aren't the one who can decide that. I strongly suggest you tone down. LjL (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the rest of us can agree that Cliftonian's version – "with dual American and Israeli citizenship" – would be the most appropriate one to use. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored to that version just now. Thanks everyone. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, mate. Sorry that this had to happen. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Israel

(Sorry for my English) How is it possible that Natalie Portman's place of birth has become a political debate in the english wikipedia? A place that suppose to state facts and only facts. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; Portman was born in Jerusalem, Israel. It's that easy. Writing down only "Jerusalem" is towering and uncorrect. You can see in other wikipedias that it's written as "Jerusalem, Israel", how it's supposed to be written. 46.120.237.87 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been done to death already. The "facts and only facts" are:

1. Jerusalem is administered by Israel's government and is Israel's capital in Israeli law.
2. BUT no country in the world (apart from Israel) recognises any of this as legitimate. No country formally recognises Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel, or even as being properly in Israel.

Putting "Jerusalem, Israel" is giving the article a certain point of view and is thus against policy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I was trying to reiterate before, just because you see it on several articles across multiple Wikis as you say, doesn't mean that it's true. The problem still remains. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For future reference: Talk:Natalie Portman/Jerusalem and Israel; Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3#Sovereignty over Jerusalem; Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3#In which country was Natalie Portman born?. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Natalie Portman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721103815/http://www.bravotv.com/inside-the-actors-studio/natalie-portman to http://www.bravotv.com/inside-the-actors-studio/natalie-portman
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100724012635/http://www.politicsdaily.com:80/2010/07/20/school-of-stars-judd-apatow-elaine-chao-michael-isikoff-w-va/ to http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/20/school-of-stars-judd-apatow-elaine-chao-michael-isikoff-w-va/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721163529/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/arts-entertainment/films/features/natalie-portman-how-studying-psychology-helped-her-in-her-latest-role-470130.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/natalie-portman-how-studying-psychology-helped-her-in-her-latest-role-470130.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714000203/http://www.ugo.com:80/movies/natalie-portman-natalie-portman-top-11-simpsons to http://www.ugo.com/movies/natalie-portman-natalie-portman-top-11-simpsons
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130707071041/http://omg.yahoo.com/news/natalie-portman-other-celebs-banned-advertisements-194300304.html to http://omg.yahoo.com/news/natalie-portman-other-celebs-banned-advertisements-194300304.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071028005146/http://www.peta.org:80/feat-fatalfashion.asp to http://www.peta.org/feat-fatalfashion.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101006084712/http://onevoicemovement.org/board/entertainment-council.php to http://www.onevoicemovement.org/board/entertainment-council.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100625125354/http://www.elle.com:80/Pop-Culture/Cover-Shoots/The-Natural/Natalie-Portman-Elle-April-2008 to http://www.elle.com/Pop-Culture/Cover-Shoots/The-Natural/Natalie-Portman-Elle-April-2008
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100606031357/http://www.details.com:80/celebrities-entertainment/men-of-the-moment/201006/benjamin-millepied-nyc-ballet-choreographer-natalie-portman-boyfriend?currentPage=2 to http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/men-of-the-moment/201006/benjamin-millepied-nyc-ballet-choreographer-natalie-portman-boyfriend?currentPage=2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101222121820/http://www.nypost.com:80/p/news/local/manhattan/natalie_tonsil_tango_P3fu6X6na1iFE8WJhsAnXN to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/natalie_tonsil_tango_P3fu6X6na1iFE8WJhsAnXN

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Major roles

I object to the use of the statement,

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, and Mars Attacks!, as well as a major role in Beautiful Girls"

This is evaluative and fluff language. She had a role. She wasn't the lead. Period.In the last revert, Checkingfax points to the cast list of Beautiful Girls, wherein the cast is listed, with a separate subsection for minor characters. I would suggest that if someone is going to use exemplars, then please - use actual exemplars for what our writing is at its best, like here.
The point of my reversion of this language is simple: it is an individual point of view to call a role "major", or "best known for" or "mainstream success arrived" with such and such role. Unless you have specific and explicit references to that effect, you don't get to make that call. We as editors are not citable, and our opinions carry no weight within the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, a citation is not needed for information that is acquired directly from the film itself. Portman was one of about a dozen actors in the film who were first-billed in the film credits; her name didn't show up among many dozens in the end credits. That alone is enough to designate her role as being just as much a major as Uma Thurman's or some of the other female roles because that decision was make by the film's writers, directors, and producers, not a Wikipedia editor. It wasn't a blockbuster role. It wasn't a lead role. But it certainly wasn't a minor role. Her character was integral to the plot if you actually understand what's going on between Marty and Willie and don't just view her as making momentary, insignificant appearances in a number of scenes. Portman received a lot of critical commentary for her performance of a character who moved the plot in an important direction. It was a major role. Sundayclose (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, classifying it as a major role is your personal assessment. All I'm asking for is references that note that. I don't care a rat's fart about the plot of the film. I care about the article about the actor. She had a role, period. There is no discussion in the body of the article that warrants this sort of fluff commentary. Nor is there any other commentary deciding that "mainstream success arrived" with any given role. As far as I am concerned, after The Professional, everyone knew the kid was going places, and that is easily supported by at least three sources, from a very brief net search.

The point is, we need to keep our articles as neutral as possible. No one gets special treatment, either by gushing fans or by hateful naysayers. Staying neutral keeps us all honest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not my personal assessment. It is the film's writers, directors, and/or producers who gave Portman first-billing status. And Wikipedia does give a "rat's fart" about that whether you do or not. Wikipedia has many, many articles that use "major role" or other characterization to describe a role without a citation because it's based on what the filmmakers do, not the Wikipedia editor's decisions. And please don't pull out the tired old excuse of WP:OSE because that doesn't apply here. In any event, now that there are three opinions on this matter (including Checkingfax), it will be decided by consensus. And that's a rat's fart that you can choose to ignore but it's how things are done in this type of situation. Sundayclose (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other articles, Sundayclose; we are concentrating on this one, Sundayclose (so if anyone is using the argument of "Other Stuff Exists" that would be you doing so. Right there in your post). As well, I think you should probably re-read my post again: our opinions about the status of Portman's billing is what we shouldn't give any credence to in the article (aka, 'a rat's fart'). That you suggested that I feel that way about editorial discussion and consensus demonstrates that you didn't actually read or understand my post. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jack Sebastian (with cc to Sundayclose). Despite your post here, you are edit warring and wikilawyering. By editing WP:consensus the past umpteem editors have left the word "major" intact. I have never been able to get WP:Wikiblame to pinpoint insertions for me, but "major" has been in the article since at least the first of this year. That is consensus by editing. You have reverted the status quo ante three times and that is unacceptable behavior. A citation is not required. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I know I am dealing with people who don't understand their positions when they accuse me of "wikilawyering" and "edit-warring"; I'm doing neither, Checkingfax. To begin with, it is just plain stupid to interpret other editors not fine-tuning this article (so it can actually make it to GA status) as approval for problems. Every single one of us have made a few edit to articles knowing full well that more work needs to be done, but that we don't have the time for it. Silence is not consensus - never forget that.

Also, consensus can and does change. I am asking you - point blank - to find a reference that states that such and such was a "major role" or provided "mainstream success". If you get it, my disagreement with the use of a largely personal qualifier will be alleviated If you cannot find one, that says in the strongest possible terms, that reliable source sdon't agree with your assessment of the statement.

Lastly, if you find that you cannot agree with my viewpoint, open a RfC regarding this matter. That will bring in a lot of editors with more experience. That, by the way, is how you build consensus. Not templating the regulars - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I understand my position quite well and please don't tell me I don't. And please don't use the word "stupid" in reference to an editor's opinion (and please don't respond that you were referring to an opinion and not an editor; that is the epitome of wikilawyering). We don't have to agree with your viewpoint if consensus differs from your viewpoint. And so far you do not have a consensus to remove the word. Yes, of course consensus can change; no one said it can't; but so far it hasn't. An RfC is not necessarily required for consensus. This article gets a fair amount of traffic. Let's see what happens. BTW Checkingfax, the edit with the word "major" was June 30, 2007 here when it was moved from the lead to another part of the article. I don't know how long it was there before then. That's almost nine years ago with many thousands of edits since then and it has never been challenged until now. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay,@Sundayclose:, I won't call you stupid so long as you stop calling my very reasonable problems with this as wikilawyering. Its disingenuous to accuse me of bad acts and not expect to be called on it.

Now, that nonsense aside, you have noted that consensus hasn't changed. With my edit, the so-called "consensus" (of silence) has been challenged. Guess what? Consensus is no longer attached. It has to be reaffirmed at this point. Your argument that "thousands of edits" haven't changed the term doesn't hold water either; virtually every article in our FA article list has been fine-tuned over at least a decade, if not more. There will never be a point when the article is "done". Maybe you misunderstand that. This copy-editing (like mine) is part of the process. Other articles that contain these sorts of evaluative comments without supporting citation will eventually get addressed on their own, by myself or others.

And I will go one step further; I apologize for getting upset by this. Perhaps you are unaware of how coloring someone's good-faith edits as "wikilawyering" will adversely affect how they respond. I took offense. As well, Checkingfax thought it prudent to template a regular and threaten me with blocking over this issue; it was all I could do not to completely ignore anything they had to say - it was that...'misguided' a response on their part.

So, let's set aside the missteps thus far. All I am asking for is a reference from a reliable source that states that this was a major role for Portman. Can you provide that? We work off references within Wikipedia, not personal evaluations. Find a reference - that's all I am asking for. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jack Sebastian (with cc to Sundayclose). There are two ways to reach WP:consensus. Silence is not one of them. What are the two? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: There's no need to tell us some of the very fundamental processes about how Wikipedia works. We know that Wikipedia articles are never "done", that consensus can change, that challenging consensus puts it back on the table, etc. etc. etc. But we also know that silence, in fact, can imply consensus (especially when the status quo is not challenged for years), that one editor's challenge does not reverse a consensus, and that until the consensus changes it still applies. That's where we are right now. So regardless of how much you repeat that a citation is necessary even though others disagree with you, that will not change the fact that until there is a consensus that a citation is needed, the citation is not needed. If that consensus does not emerge after a reasonable time, consensus has not changed. Sundayclose (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you have misapprehended the differences between policy and essays. Even if we were following the Silence essay, you've overlooked a crucial part of the nutshell:

"Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement."

@Sundayclose: Guess what we have here? I will also point out what consensus is not: It isn't two guys templating and insulting a third to get their way. If its wrong, all it takes is one editor to disagree; the article is then subject to discussion. All I have asked you for is a source that backs up a statement that you seem to think is vital to the article...that is, if you feel its vital to article. If not, we don't need it, then, do we?Lastly, if you think you're right, put your opinion out there - submit an RfC about the wording. If you choose to do that, I'd urge you to word the request neutrally. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No one has suggested that the issue isn't subject to discussion. Please stop condescendingly telling us what anyone who has edited for a few months already knows. It takes "one editor to disagree" to start the discussion. But it takes far more than one editor to change the consensus. And until a new consensus occurs, the old consensus stays in place. If you disagree with that, please link the policy stating that one editor's objection to a current consensus nullifies that consensus. And please, your use of the phrase "insulting a third" is the pot calling the kettle black. And the last time I checked I have never templated you. Finally, I have absolutely no obligation to submit an RfC. If I ever want an RfC, I know that I can do that, so please stop telling me how Wikipedia works. Right now there is no new consensus, so I have no need to submit an RfC. And I'm not repeating this over and over simply because you refuse to understand it, so this is the last time I respond here unless other editors weigh in or something new emerges: you can demand a source from now until doomsday, but unless a new consensus requires it, a source is not needed. Sundayclose (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong yet again. Yu do not have a consensus for the item to remain, and - my point made again - unless you are willing to roll up your sleeves and find a source, the language of the article is still peacockery and OR. If you are of the mindset that you don't have to do jack shit to elicit disucssion, you are correct. You don't. But you and the other guy (who was the one I'd already noted started out their discussion by templating me) aren't the consensus, either. Consensus lasts until someone disagrees with it. Then a new one is formed. We need more eyes in this, because the language is just plain wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd additionally point out that the statement in contention - the "major role" one where someone creatively added a link to her interview on "Inside the Actor's Studio appears to be a complete fabrication. The word major wasn't even uttered with respect to any of her roles. I suspect that someone added it because the video of the episode isn't generally available online. Unless you know where to look, like a library. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: A consensus does in fact exist if information in the article has gone unchallenged for years. I'll make this request a second time: Please link the policy which states that one editor can overturn an existing consensus. To avoid confusion, I'll also repeat: I'm not asking whether one editor can disagree with a consensus and thus begin a discussion. I specifically want to know where is the policy stating that when one editor challenges an existing consensus, the consensus is no longer valid and that editor can then make edits contrary to the existing consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine?

There is an RfC at Talk:Jerusalem#Is Jerusalem in Israel or Palestine that could have an impact on this and other biographies. Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)