This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
No consensus for the proposed change. This discussion is rather complex, with many different issues being brought up. The broad ones, as I see them, are 1) whether the current wording distracts from what she is primarily known for, and 2) whether the current wording is too complex, and could be simplified. The framing of the RFC suggests that (2) was the concern at that time, but !voters have engaged with both. If there is any single opinion which has consensus, it is that the precision of the current wording is preferable to the simplicity of the proposed version. However, editors concerned by problem (1) may explore further options such as moving that factoid out of the first sentence altogether, which would require a separate consensus-building exercise. As such, there is no consensus for the proposed change to the current first sentence, which defaults to the version as it existed before this RFC. Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A discussion in 2015 had a couple of editors agreeing that the opening sentence of the article should be, "Natalie Portman [...] is an actress, film producer and director with dual Israeli and American citizenship." My preferred version would simply state "Natalie Portman [...] is an Israeli-American actress, film producer and director." I'm no expert in this matter and would like to have a vote about which version is most appropriate. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Dual Israeli and American citizenship - There is a difference between Israeli-American and dual citizenship. There are DOZENS of people who have bios on Wikipedia who are "Israeli-Americans", meaning they have Israeli ancestry and are American citizens, or that they are Israeli's with naturalized American citizenship, or that they are Israelis who live or lived in the USA (see List of Israeli Americans). Many of those did not have dual citizenship at birth, as Portman does. Simply stating "Israeli-American" doesn't make that distinction and, therefore, is less accurate. In addition to the previous discussion linked above, there is another one at Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Natalie Portman's opening sentence. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. So as I understand it, she has dual Israeli and American citizenship and not all Israeli-Americans have that distinction. Having said that, she still is Israeli-American and the additional distinction on citizenship can be clarified in the infobox, where it's stated that she has the citizenship of both countries. Does that work? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose:MOS:LEADBIO states “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead.” The proposed wording would confuse readers into thinking that we are describing her ethnicity.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The current wording is precise and leaves no room for ambiguity.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're opposing, Israeli-American or dual citizenship? Either way, how does citizenship get confused with ethnicity? "Israeli" and "American" are not ethnicities. There are several ethnicities living within each country. See Demographics of Israel. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I am the same editor as 173.209.178.244 using a different IP.)
@TriiipleThreat: Huh? Are you being facetious, or do you seriously doubt that "Israeli" and "American" are not ethnicities. I agree with you that the current wording is unambiguous, but I'd like to know what you mean by "the wording would confuse readers into thinking that we are describing her ethnicity."
I'm saying the proposed wording maybe obvious that we are discussing citizenship and not ethnicity to you and me, but it may not be so obvious to the average reader.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: I disagree. We are not directing this at third-graders. That's why "Citizenship" is a parameter in the infobox. The average adult knows the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. If we have to dumb down Wikipedia because a few people might not know what a word means, there's no point in having an encyclopedia. The decision in this RfC should be based on the merits of the distinction presented in the original question, not the vocabulary of a handful of readers. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We are encouraged to "use clear, precise and accurate" language. Per WP:OBVIOUS: "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: But we are not required to write so that eight-year-olds can understand it. There's nothing unclear, imprecise, or inaccurate about the word "citizenship". It's no less understandable than "alma mater" or "residence". Why not just have the name and photo in the infobox? Tell us, why do we have the parameter "Citizenship" in the infobox if it is such an arcane word? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We are not discussing the word "citizenship". What maybe unclear to a great many of readers of all ages and backgrounds is the use of the hyphenated words "Israeli-American". Considering the use of such hyphenated descriptors in the vernacular, its not hard to see how anyone may conflate the usage, even though there is no exact Israeli ethnicity. I would on the other hand be okay with "Israeli and American", but that is not what is being proposed here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: It is equally implausible that "Israeli" or "American" or "Israeli-American" or "Israeli American" would be confused with ethnicity. If your argument is about those two words, then with your reasoning we should not include any word describing nationality in any article for fear that someone would interpret it as meaning ethnicity. What is it about the words "Israeli" or "American" that makes them more likely to be misunderstood than, say, Canadian, or Russian Americans, or Australian Americans, or German, or South African, etc. etc.? "Russian and American" or "Russian-American" clearly describes nationality with no reference to ethnicity. If you think it's the hyphen, that is attributing meaning to punctuation that doesn't have that meaning. "Israeli-American" is no more likely to suggest ethnicity than "Israeli and American" or "Israeli American". We can argue the hyphen issue in a different context, but a hyphen has nothing to do with confusion for ethnicity. You haven't really addressed the real issue of why you think that words for nationality are likely to be confused with ethnicity. They are not. You say that "there is no exact Israeli ethnicity"; that's not quite precise. There is no Israeli ethnicity at all. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thats exactly my point. Russian American, Australian American, etc., refers to ancestry-citizenship. People can easily be mislead into thinking that Isreali-American may also refer to ancestry-citizenship, and not citizenship-citizenship. Even though as you say "there is no Israeli ethnicity at all," the term "ethnic Isreali" returns 13,900 results. I am not saying that the term "ethnic Isreali" is being used correctly in any of those instances, but it is being used frequently enough that we should take extra caution. If you still fail to see my point, then I don't we will ever come to a mutual understanding. Let's just see where consensus takes us.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: So why is it OK to use Russian-American since it doesn't refer to ethnicity, but it's not OK to use Israeli-American? You're being very unclear here. As for Google hits, that's meaningless. "Ethnic Russian" produces 223,000 hits, but none of us has any idea if there is any trend in those hits, nor do we with "ethnic Israeli". I can bolster almost any argument about anything with Google hits. The important point, which you have not addressed, is why "Israeli" or "American" is any more likely than any other word for nationality to produce confusion for ethnicity. My main point here is not to argue, it's to clarify what this discussion is about. If I interpret your comments correctly, you have put forth two arguments. Your first argument is that "Israeli-American" can be confused by more than a small handful of readers as referring to "ethnicity." That is a false statement, and you really haven't done much at all to support it. Your later point is that "dual citizenship" is more precise. Even if I didn't see that as a reason to keep the article as it is, I would not argue that it is a valid point. Confusion of nationality and ethnicity is not a valid point. This discussion should be decided without regard to that issue. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As much as I wish to avoid your strawman, I never said it was okay to use Russian-American. On the contrary, I said we should avoid using citizenship-citizenship descriptors, because they could be conflated as an ancestry-citizenship descriptor like Russian-American. Per Wikipedia, “Russian Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Russia, the Russian Empire, or the former Soviet Union.” We don’t refer to Woody Allen as a Russian-American and we shouldn’t refer to Natalie Portman as an Israeli-American because it’s likely that readers may take it to mean an American that traces her ancestry to Israel, and not specifically as a person with dual Israeli and American citizenship. Again, I think I have been quite clear here, if you disagree so be it but I see no point in continuing this circular discussion.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Now you've diverted your argument (again). One issue is "Does Israeli-American mean someone who traces their ancestry to Israel, or does it mean citizen of Israel?". Your other argument has been "Israeli-American could be confused with ethnicity" (in your words: "The proposed wording would confuse readers into thinking that we are describing her ethnicity". [italics added]) Those two have nothing to do with each other. We can have a separate discussion over whether Israeli-American could confuse Israeli citizenship with Israeli ancestry. But you have never explained how Israeli-American can be confused with ethnicity. Whether Israeli-American is or is not restricted to those with Israeli citizenship has nothing to do with the person's ethnicity. That is the point that you have not explained, and I think the reason is that you don't have an explanation because it cannot be construed as ethnicity. I'll ask the question again: How does Israeli-American have any more to do with ethnicity than Russian-American? The answer is, it doesn't. This RfC pertains to citizenship and how it should be described. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments Really? This has been talked about before, please review the archived chat thanks. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, despite the OP's clam that the 2015 discussion was merely "a couple of editors agreeing" I see an involved discussion with multiple editors that reached a consensus. And I agree with that consensus. Meters (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Weak "Israeli American actress" - This conversation harkens back to a similar debate about Charlize Theron's nationality. I think I really look to two things in answering this question 1) self-identification, and 2) the country in which the subject acquired their notability. Portman is clearly more notable for activities in the States than in Israel, but she also clearly seems to self-identify as being Israeli. I think on the whole we ought to defer to her. Also, I don't think we need to say "holds dual citizenship". Let's just call her "Israeli American" or "American Israeli". NickCT (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
with dual Israeli and American citizenship because it is unambiguous. There are at least three possible meanings to any hyphenated nationality descriptor. Ancestry/nationality is probably most common, dual nationality (or borne in one and now citizen of second) second most common and having one parent of each being a not infrequent use. Why be ambiguous or assume that the reader knows MOS and therefore knows which is meant? Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Current wording – I was part of the original discussion, and the wording was chosen because it's unambiguous, as other editors have said. Additionally, NickCT, neither self-identification nor country where notability was gained are valid arguments for inclusion of nationality, citizenship, etc. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 16:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: - Your validity arguments are invalid! ;-) But seriously, the only real policy standard for inclusion of a factoid is WP:V. So what other standards would you apply? NickCT (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT and 4TheWynne: In this case, the policy of WP:CONSENSUS applies. That's why we are having this discussion. The previous consensus was "Dual Israeli and American citizenship". So far there is not a consensus to change that. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
NickCT, I would have said exactly that – use reliable sources and consensus to come to an agreement, not anything which may be seen as objective; so yes, my counter-arguments are not only valid but based on policy. 173.209.178.244 (I'm assuming you have an account?), I know what WP:CONSENSUS is. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: I pinged you so you would be aware of my comment. (I'm 173.209.178.244 on a different IP) 75.182.115.183 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: & IP - Not really sure where in my comments you see me arguing against the idea of WP:CONSENSUS. I'm simply explaining my rationale. Plus, sprinkling the word "valid" in your comments doesn't make them seem more cogent.
There are couple problems with simply relying on WP:V. Plus, it's clumsy and awkward to describe someone as "holding citizenship X" rather than "is of X nationality". NickCT (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: I didn't say you argued against consensus. You said "the only real policy standard for inclusion . . . is WP:V." My reply was that the policy of consensus applies because there has been and continues to be a current consensus for the wording. That alone is enough for inclusion. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well apologies if I put words in your mouth. Of course consensus is important. NickCT (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment The current lead "Natalie Portman [...] is an actress, film producer and director with dual Israeli and American citizenship" makes it sound like having a dual citizenship is as important as Natalie being an actress. Is having the dual citizenship of itself notable in regards to Portman? Otherwise, I'm weakly leaning towards the proposed lead. Someone963852 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The lead sentence of a bio always has something about nationality/citizenship. "Dual Israeli and American citizenship" does not detract from her notability as an actress any more than "Israeli-American". 75.182.115.183 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Someone963852. Of course it detracts more. "with dual Israeli and American citizenship" is six whole words. "Israeli-American" is arguably only one. The more space you dedicate to something the more emphasis you're giving it. NickCT (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
If "dual Israeli and American citizenship" is the most accurate descriptor (and I think it is), then we should not sacrifice accuracy over a difference of three words. With that line of reasoning, we should leave out citizenship entirely in the lead sentence to avoid overshadowing her notability as an actress. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal life
The Personal Life section seems to be in reverse chronological order, which is very confusing. Please consider changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:4300:5B7:CC0B:D580:25A4:C062 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
DMY Format For Subject, Not MDY
Fellow Israeli actress Gal Gadot has the DMY layout on her page since some Middle Eastern countries have the rarely used YDM format.
But as for Natalie herself, she should have it too written like this: 9 June 1981, from the very start of the article's existence. Someone should take this request.
Either should be okay on Portman, she is both Israeli and American. See Date format by country, surprisingly know, DMY is much more recognised world wide than MDY know. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change “She continued acting while at university” to “She continued acting while at Harvard” in the first paragraph so as to conform with MOS:TIES. Thanks. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Question:MOS:TIES states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". What does that have to do with saying "at Harvard" instead of "at university"? NiciVampireHeart 19:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is written in American English. Saying "at university" does not negate that. Regardless, I've reworded the sentence entirely to remove the phrase. NiciVampireHeart 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Edit request: The transliteration of her hebrew name should be nata-li, not neta-lee
Edit request: Remove the transliteration of her hebrew name
The transliteration of her Hebrew name is not properly cited. The article in question has no vowels attached. Therefore the vowels that the transliteration has used are entirely uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.229.209 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Distinguish 'Keira Knightley'
People have been confused between Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley, particularly after their lookalike roles in Star Wars. I’d like to reach consensus on whether or not to add this hatnote in the article:
It would help misinformed readers better distinguish the two actresses and quickly lead them to their desired article. It would also be a little bit humorous. The difference could also be made more apparent in the hatnote by mentioning their similar look. Idell (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see how it would be necessary or anything other than "a little bit humorous", to be honest, especially if the idea revolves around the actresses' appearances together in just the one Star Wars film – they probably don't look anywhere near as similar now as they would have during the making of The Phantom Menace more than twenty years ago, when they were both pretty young, and they've achieved fame and become recognisable for certain roles/films since then, thereby making it harder to confuse them. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs) 14:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to the talk page instead of adding it undiscussed. Read the description at Template:distinguish. There is no similarity whatsoever in the titles of the articles. We don't add that hatnote just because some people think they have a vague similarity in appearance or because uninformed editors make unsourced edits. If we did that there could be thousands of unnecessary hatnotes that would clutter articles needlessly. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
They do still look similar but thanks for addressing this. Idell (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add information about Natalie Portman's role as Laura Barlow in Planetarium where she was naked in the beach scene (it's literally in the movie itself).
No. That's probably why this article is protected. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Nudity in a film is not necessarily notable for inclusion in a biography. Please provide reliable sources that verify why this matter is noteworthy. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Lacks neutrality
Rarely have I read a piece on WP that is so propogandist towards someone. It constantly reads, in more subtle tones: "Natalie portman is the best actress and person ever" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.160.79 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Erdös Number / Erdös-Bacon Number
An episode of SciShow on "small world networks" mentions that her Erdös-Bacon number, that is, herErdös Number (number of published paper collaboration links to get to mathematician Erdös) added to her Bacon Number (number of shared acting credit links to get to Kevin Bacon), is seven. If anyone has the time and knowledge, there aren't a lot of people with an Erdös-Bacon number, so mentioning that fact might be a nice addition, perhaps connected to whichever of her publications gives her the Erdös link. Critterkeeper (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Critterkeeper: This was previously in the article but removed by consensus. It has been discussed several times. The consensus is in Archive 4 of this talk page. That was a mistake in my opinion. Consensus can change. If others support your suggestion, it can be restored. She is included in Erdős–Bacon number. Sundayclose (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Image inclusion
@User:Film Enthusiast per MOS:PERTINENCE, "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". Additionally, "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader." With the recent revisions, the image depicting her Black Swan win is pushed a paragraph below the text describing Black Swan and the year 2011. Additionally, the 2009 image, as it currently stands, bears little encyplodeic link/direct reference in the text. I think this serves as a disadvantage to the biography, since images should be primarily encyplodeic in nature and relevance.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A good reference source
The first cite under "Education" is a scholarly-press book, Jewish Americans (Salem Press), that has a thoroughly researched entry for Portman. I would recommend it, particularly for upgrading some of the lower-quality cites in the article. --Tenebrae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Relevance of language studies
I think it's always important to prevent articles on celebrities from reading like a fan profile so I'd question the relevance of the section that mentions she has studied French, Japanese, German and Arabic. Studying a language is not notable - if she speaks these languages well then I can see the point but anyone can do a French class. The way it is written at present seems to me to be trying to create a positive impression by citing something that has very little relevance (i.e. it makes it sound like a fan profile) and I think there is therefore a case for removing this unless there is a source showing her real ability to use these languages.
I concur. It is quite silly to mention every single class or course she ever took. CanonMaestro (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
"Neta-Lee Hershlag"
As @TokyoSpain was kind enough to research and bring up on my talk page, according to Portman's own comments here (at approx. 6:25) her birth name was Natalie Hershlag, instead of the commonly referenced Neta-Lee Hershlag. I understand there are previous secondary sources contradicting this, so I wanted to clarify before it was changed on the page based on Portman's own assessment and remarks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
We need someone with expertise in Hebrew. I just checked Neta-Li Hershlag and Natalie Hershlag on Google Translate. I realize that a Google translation isn't necessarily accurate, but it indicates that both names are identical in Hebrew. If someone with skills in Hebrew doesn't respond, I may raise the issue at WP:WikiProject Hebrew languages. If, in fact, the translations are identical, that raises the question of whether Natalie is just an anglicized version of Neta-Li. If that's the case, considering that she was born in Israel and has Israeli citizenship, the issue may be more complicated. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Portman's exact words in the audio were "it's always been Natalie, I dont know where [Neta-Lee] came from,” but I agree with you based on linguistics. Are there any editors with expertise in Hebrew who can offer advice on the matter?--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hebrew Expert here: Neta-Lee (Hebrew: נטע-לי, lit. "a plant for me") is a common modern Hebrew name for Israeli girls, whereas Natalie isn't. Her father is named Avner which is the Hebrew version of biblical figure Abner. Keep in mind that she was born to an Israeli father in Jersualem, and was raised there for a few years.
On a major Israeli newspaper outlet ynet there was an article about her needing to pay her local phone bill under her proper birth name Neta-Lee Hershlag even before she admitted what's her original surname is, meaning that local article was factual.
And so it says on Hebrew Wikipedia as well. LucyAyoubBrother (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The real issue here is whether her surname should be spelled Hershlag or Herschlag because Hebrew only has one letter for that Sh sound, unlike German (Yiddish) where her surname originates from with that Sch spelling of her surname. LucyAyoubBrother (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@LucyAyoubBrother Thank you so much for your research and expertise. I’d say the issue here is whether Neta-Lee is a Hebrew form of Natalie, of which it isn’t. I understand sources say so, perhaps they translated it as such. IMHO it’s difficult to dispute Natalie’s own reporting that her name on her birth certificate was “Natalie” instead of “Neta-Lee”, unless legal documents prove otherwise. I agree that her surname requires more linguistic evaluation. --Bettydaisies (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I had that friend who had both his first name and last name in a foreign language (Russian) when he immigrated to Israel, yet he only Hebrew-fied his first name to assimilate better in that brand new country of his. Might be the same case. LucyAyoubBrother (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@LucyAyoubBrother I concur that it is a common occurrence, but not likely in this case given that Portman stated her name has “always” been Natalie and that she didn’t know the origin of the Neta-Lee birth-name given by other sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A screenshot of her article in her native Israel's Hebrew Wikipedia: Click to enlargeLucyAyoubBrother (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
UTC)
@LucyAyoubBrother I understand why that matters, but Hebrew Wikipedia operates on reliable sourcing and testimony the same way English Wikipedia doe. In my opinion, if Portman states that her legal name has always been Natalie, there is very little other reporting to dispute that.--Bettydaisies (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is enough conflicting information from reliable sources that we need a consensus to decide this issue. I don't mean to minimize what Portman has said, but when reliable sources disagree, Wikipedia uses consensus to resolve the issue. At this point there is not a clear consensus, so we'll wait. I'll post a notification at WP:WikiProject Hebrew languages, although that Wikiproject appears to be inactive. I'll also post at Talk:Hebrew language. If no other opinions are expressed, we can have an RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Consensus does need to be reached - thats why this discussion was opened.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been a few months since this discussion was touched upon, and it still appears to be a debated issue since the naming's been changed once again. Any updates on the Wikiproject/Talk notifications?--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I added the dispute tag to bring this back after its dormancy. I do believe Neta-Lee must be removed entirely as it’s untrue, but I won’t pretend to speak Hebrew beyond a rudimentary level. On research papers it was spelled Hershlag, not Herschlag. Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and switched it back until prospective discussion can change otherwise, given the subject's own preference, but further input from people familiar with the linguistics portion of the debate could be beneficial (especially as far as the Hebrew translations in the lead go). IMO, I think what needs to be given the most weight in the discussion is the reliability of the sources that, for the most part, reported her name as "Neta-Lee" pre-2016, versus Portman's own assertion. Thank you for adding the tag!--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
^Salonim, Nir (February 28, 2011). "ברבורה: כל מה שצריך לדעת על זוכת פרס" [A Swan: All you need to know about Academy Award Winner Natalie Portman]. mako (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on November 9, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2011.
Shalom! I'm a native Hebrew speaker from Israel (GeoLocate me: 79.181.17.193) I can tell you that Natalie (Натали́ - נטלי) is a common first name for Soviet-born girls of obscure ancestry Slav ancestry who flee to Israel only during the early 90's after the USSR's dissolution. Which isn't the case about Portman whatsoever. Whereas proud Israeli Jewish parents to actual Isareli-born Jewish ((Sabra (person))) daugthers would name their children either Neta or Neta-Lee, if they like their meaning in Hebrew. Both are super-common modern Israeli Hebrew names (Neta/Neta-Li), and each has a literal meaning even in biblical Hebrew that goes along with it Neta or Netta = נטע Plant and the suffix 'Li' or 'Lee' לי in Hebrew which means To Me / For Me. Keep in mind that major Israeli media outlets tend to namedrop her original name (first and last) to get us further interested to read new articles regarding Neta-Lee Herschlag. This is from Haaretz (one of Israel's oldest, most trusted and most prestigious newspapers) piece from 2015 about her https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/cinema/1.3260824 (Google translate to English: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/cinema/1.3260824) mentioning in the headtitle that her name is in fact נטע-לי הרשלג (Planting is an amusing forced translation for the Hebrew word נטע Neta, as I mentioned before). HebrewFrancois (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2021 (GMT+3)
As for the Hershlag / Herschlag הרשלג last name - it could go either way, although the second one is more common both in Germany and in Israel. Most Israelis prefer their last names being transliterated into the original German[-Jewish] (Ashkenazi) spelling when they grasp how to properly write in English as young adults. Enjoy this quick fix, and anytime you need me to either translate or to ask some more about Israeli/Hebrew-translating issues just give me a call. Yom Revi'i Shalom ולהתראות. HebrewFrancois (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2021 (GMT+3)
I concur (Hebrew: אני מסכים) with all the Israeli Hebrew speakers above. Case closed and Gmar Hatima Tova. Mspaintist (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Half of these points are conjecture. It doesn't change the fact that Portman herself stated her birth name was Natalie, not Neta-Lee. This discussion should be about what sources are more reliable.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm late for the discussion as usual, but I did try to research this a bit, and pardon the length.
First of all, this particular discussion seems riddled with (since-blocked) sockpuppet accounts in consensus with themselves. However, as a native (modern) Hebrew speaker I can confirm most of what they've stated. Natalie or Netali (or Netalee or Nettalee or Nettali, with or without the hyphen) is not a matter of pronunciation or transliteration, but rather two distinct name variants. I could elaborate, but most has been said and this is indeed irrelevant as Portman herself does not know where Neta-li, as it pertains to herself, came from. The question at hand is of course what her original name was. That said, note a is still confusing as it currently transliterates "Natalie" as נטע־לי (Neta-li).
James L. Dickerson's first(!) biography of Portman, published in 2002 or 2003 and cited in the article as a source, refers to her as Natalie Hershlag. While the book might seem rather frivolous, a superficial look in Google books makes it look rather well-researched. My Google search in Hebrew yielded the earliest occurence of "Neta-li Hershlag" in the aforementioned report about an Israeli law firm looking to collect unpaid phone bill debts (allegedly Portman left an unpaid phone bill in her Jerusalem apartment). This was posted in 2006, and while it did appear in the culture section of Israel's most popular news portal, it was styled as a simple bit of gossip. "Neta-li" made its debut in the Hebrew Wikipedia article in 2008, and the editor was anonymous. It first appeared in the English article on 24 October 2014, and it was added by user @yossimgim. Yossi is a common Israeli name, so I suspect he is a Hebrew speaker who was familiar with the Hebrew article. He was also the user behind @HebrewFrancois.
The other Hebrew sources mentioned above I tend not to trust so much, as (a) they might be based on the Hebrew Wikipedia article themselves, as they were written years after Portman's name was updated there; (b) the people who wrote them seem focused more on entertainment reporting and might not adhere to strict fact-checking; and (c) we Israelis have a tendency to bastardize the simplest of names and even common words--I used to work for a newspaper as a proofreader, and also studied linguistics without ever graduating--but admittedly this isn't the strongest argument I can present. Now, Bettydaisies has given credit to the Hebrew Wikipedia as far as sourcing standards are discussed. While I do see the issue of the source of Portman's listed first name was discussed there a decade ago, I can attest that the Hebrew Wikipedia is much more lax (this might be because English naturally has more sources about most everything) and false information might make it into articles more easily.
Where I differ from the above Hebrew-speaking users is the commonness of Natalie vs. Neta-li in Israel. Israeli parents were naming their daughters Natalie (usually pronounced NataLEE, with the stress on the final syllable, similar to French) years before the mass exodus of Jews from the USSR, which started in late 1989, as the iron curtain was lifted. Neta-li, as far as I know, is more novel, and I think it started around the time Portman was born. Besides, the names Israeli Jews tend to give their offspring seem very susceptible to fashion and there's considerable turover in short periods of time. At any rate, for what it's worth, I found a table issued by the Israeli government, and it states that in 1985 (four years after Portman was born), 515 (1.09%) of Jewish Israeli baby girls were named Natalie, 110 (0.23%) were named Natalya and 12 (0.03%) were named Neta Li (Neta had 227, 0.48%).כרסומת (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding her first name and the source of Portman, note the end of 9th paragraph of the interview with Ned Zeman in Marie Claire[1] currently reference #26: "(Portman, named after the French song "Nathalie" by Gilbert Bécaud, took her surname from her paternal grandmother.)". Mcljlm (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Request to change the article’s main picture
It does not look great. I am sure it can be replaced by better ones that come up when searching for ‘Natalie Portman’.
Not done: Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material. (CC)Tbhotch™ 03:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Should she be called a director and/or producer?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to not include the occupations in the lead. FMSky (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Should she be called a director and/or producer?
barely mentioned at all in the article and misleading FMSky (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No. She's not notable for these roles, which have been mostly on lesser-known films. Same reason we don't call her an activist. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The fact that she's credited as producer doesn't take away how she can still be regarded as a producer, regardless of the level of success or attention that the films garnered. She's produced more than once, therefore I believe it is a recurring occupation for her (one she gets paid for as opposed to activism which she doesn't receive income for, it isn't her JOB) even though it isn't AS notable as her acting work. Film Enthusiast (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
the lead should only include notable occupations FMSky (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
That is, what they are primarily known for. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Her directing experience is one minor film, one short film, and 1/11 segments of an anthology film. As for producer, look up the filmography of pretty much any major actor or actress, and chances are they were credited as a producer a few times. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. She directed two films we have articles for, the second one was substantial. Yes, many major actors go on to producing, but not all. Similarly most, but not all, singers are also songwriters, many, but not all, actresses are also models or singers, many, but not all, beauty pageant contestants are also models... etc. It's worth the two words. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not even about "going on to producing", many actors take a producer credit on a film in lieu of a portion of their salary, but they do no real producing work. The only film listed in the article that she "produced" but didn't star in was a film where she was supposed to star but later dropped out. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 21:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No, not in the lead paragraph or infobox, as her directing and producing jobs are a mere footnote to her acting career. See MOS:OPENPARABIO, which says One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for (emphasis mine) and try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. No opposition to mentioning it elsewhere in the lead section (like the current blurb in the last paragraph) or in the career section.
MOS:OPENPARABIO applies to the opening paragraph, but nothing opposing it from appearing in infobox. It could at least be mentioned in the infobox. Film Enthusiast (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in the infobox but not in the lead section. It's something that's part of her career, but not something she's notable for.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. If not in the lead, then at least in the infobox. Film Enthusiast (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
No, she is not primarily notable for that. Maybe a brief mention of such ventures in the body, but not in the lead or infobox. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not in the lead, undecided on infobox. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not in the lead, producer is definitely fine for the infobox based on the mentions in the article. Director in the infobox I'm pretty ambivalent about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
No, Her notability is not for that.Sea Ane (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
No Due to her lack of notability for these roles, as pointed out by different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment She is not commonly described in reliable sources as a director or producer. It would be more justified for the first sentence to include "activist",[1][2][3][4][5], but even that seems dubious. FWIW, Template:Infobox person says the infobox should note occupations as given in the lead.
That aside, the RfC statement must be neutrally worded per WP:RFCBRIEF, so it is improper to include one's position, FMSky. KyleJoantalk 03:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not in the lead, Not known for either. producer is definitely fine for the infobox based on the mentions in the article. Director in the infobox appears to be justified also. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem as alma mater in infobox
She attended there for a while in preparation for a role. The docs for the infobox for that parameter state, "It is usually not relevant to include [the] parameter for non-graduates". I think it should be removed for that reason, and because it minimizes the importance of educational achievement. If an actor took a community college course to prepare for a role, I don't think it would be included in the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Good article status?
Hi, I admit I've done practically no editing on this article so far, but I noticed it lost it's WP:GOOD Article status over 5 years ago, and has generally improved since then. Would anyone have any objections if I nominated it for review again in the coming weeks? -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
No objections so far, so I'm going to attempt it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change "Avner Hershlag, an Israeli-born gynecologist" to "Avner Hershlag, an Israeli-born OB-GYN fertility and reproductive endocrinology doctor" or along those lines because he's not just a gynecologist.
source: he was my mom's boss for at least 15 years and I've talked to him about what his career and the northwell health website if you want an official source :) 68.192.211.96 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Change from:
The new team, since unveiled as Angel City FC, is set to start play in 2022.
To:
The new team, since unveiled as Angel City FC, started play in 2022. 50.200.177.34 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Have you got a source to back this up? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this is sorted now. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged. Earwig finds no issues. Re the sources: The Evening Standard is not a great source, but for the name of Portman's child it's good enough. The HuffPost article by Portman is used to cite information about herself, so that's OK. The youtube source for Free The Children is OK per WP:ABOUTSELF, and the other youtube is from AP's official channel. The 2014 post about her husband's conversion is news reporting; no problem.
What makes the following reliable sources?
somethingjewish.co.uk
Removed and replaced with The Guardian as a source. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
eduinreview.com -- the source appears to be a blog
Removed. That was just regarding elementary school, and there was already another source for that sentance. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Oops, now actually removed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
broadwayworld.com (FN 186)
Less reliable than I originally thought looking at this and this. Now replaced with an ew.com ref. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
ynetnews.com
This sounded reliable to me, but I've added an additional source to reinforce it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
fashiongonerogue.com
Replaced with two other refs. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 68 cites a Fox News report; Fox News is not a great source in its own right, but here it's quoting the New York Post, which is worse. I would cut this.
Replaced with The Guardian ref. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 71 cites the New York Post; can this source be improved?
I've just removed it. That sentance already has another ref which is a primary source, but given it's just to say she worked on that academic paper I think it's only to just link to that paper as it lists her name. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RS/PSSalon is regarded as a biased source but for FN 58 we're just quoting a review and attributing inline, so that's fine. However, FN 75 is a more general statement and I don't think Salon is a great source for that, and it would have to be attributed inline anyway.
Replaced FN 75 with the original source, and attributed inline. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 133 cites Forbes.com; per WP:RS/PS this is unreliable if the contributor is not staff. The same goes for FN 183.
For the first one, looking at https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/ my interpretation was they were staff at the time. For the other one, they don't appear to be staff, but that was just to reference Portman winning an award. That sentance already has another to support it, so I think it's okay. I'm happy to remove the Forbes.com ref if need be though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be better to remove it. For the first one, I'm not sure if those pages prove that Pomerantz was staff at the time, but since it's an article about Forbes' own list, I think it can be treated as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
One removed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 202 says it's to HuffPost but actually links to watchtime.com.
FN 226 is to HuffPost and explicitly says it's relying on Us Weekly and rumour ("Although the details are scant, the wedding is said to have been"). I'd cut this.
I've replaced it with the Us Weekly source itself, whilst not according to WP:RSP, combined with the People source I think is sufficient to support the phrase "wed in a Jewish ceremony held in Big Sur, California, on August 4, 2012." -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, but since the People source supports all of that phrase I think you might as well cut the Us Weekly source. But struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 229 is to Us Weekly which is not a great source. It looks like it's actually citing an interview she did which is available on YouTube; can we cite that instead?
Can we get an offset into the video to help with verification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I admit I didn't watch that particular clip before, now I have I can see it only supports living in France (it's not the whole interview) at the very beginning, so I've re-arranged that sentance a bit and added a bit of more recent news. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 234 is cited to the Yahoo Contributor Network, which I'm not familiar with. Do we know if this is subject to editorial oversight, or is it contributor posted?
Looks like the first 3 things people post had some kind of review ([6]), but not sure I'd call that editorial oversight. It was shut down in 2014. I'm going to interpret it as being contributor posted. Looking into it that source was a bit confused anyway, so I've replaced it and updated the wording of the sentance in the article. There's other news articles on the topic, but I thought one was enough.
Mike Christie thank you for this. I've made a start, but it'll take me a couple of days to go through them. I'll ping you again when I'm ready to progress. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Mike Christie I think I've responded to all your points, over to you again. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Mostly struck above, with a couple of comments. I'll read through and add more comments, today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Mike Christie Thank you. I've responded to the above comments in the meantime. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Continuing:
"receiving multiple accolades such as an Academy Award, a British Academy Film Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Award": suggest "including" rather than "such as" -- these aren't random examples, they're the most prominent accolades.
Done by Eiga-Kevin2. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The lead doesn't make it clear that she did reduce her acting load while at Harvard; I think that would be worth mentioning.
"Portman's career progressed with her starring roles": "progressed" is a bit editorial. Maybe just "After graduating from Harvard, she" and then move Closer down to this paragraph since that postdates her time in college too; then list V for Vendetta and the rest.
Changed to "advanced" Eiga-Kevin2, and I moved the sentance about Closer -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
'believed that she "isn't enough of an actress': suggest 'believed that she wasn't "enough of an actress' to avoid the jarring shift in tense.
Done by Eiga-Kevin2. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"Filming in arduous locations in Algeria proved challenging for Portman, who struggled with the process of making a film involving special effects." Nothing seems to connect the two halves of this sentence. And why would the special effects make a difference to her acting?
Better, but the part about special effects isn't well explained; I'd suggest just cutting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"Her role in it is considered a prime example of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character type by Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club." Suggest "Her role in it was described as a prime example..."; and I think we should explain the MPDG inline, even if only a couple of words -- perhaps something like "Her role in it was described by Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club. as a prime example of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character type -- a stereotypical female role designed to spiritually help a male protagonist"? You'd need a cite for that definition too, unless the Rabin cite covers it.
Done. The Rabin cite includes "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures", which I think covers it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"Owing to a scene in which her character is tortured, her head was shaved on camera": suggest "In a scene in which her character is tortured, her head was shaved on camera".
"Her role was that of a war widow, for which she interacted with military wives": does this mean she spoke to military wives to prepare for the role? It's not clear if so.
Yes, clarified. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"Portman found it challenging to shoot certain scenes without a bound script": i.e. a loose leaf script would have been fine?
My understanding was they didn't have a script and had only had discussions about the scene before they had to film it. I've changed "bound" (in as "fixed") to "written", which I hope is better. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and her as a young couple": suggest "a romantic comedy in which she starred with Ashton Kutcher as a young couple"
"She also worked with a dialect coach to adapt Kennedy's unique speaking style." I don't think "adapt" can be the word wanted; perhaps "adopt"?
I think both work (as in "adapted to for use by her"), but have changed to "adopt". -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The section on activism seems a little long. I don't think I would hold up GA for this, but looking for snippets you could cut: naming the baby gorilla; mention of World Patrol Kids; the interview with Zakaria or the one with Stephanopoulos (or even both); maybe compress the sentences on which presidential candidates she supported. Possibly also the bit about Polanski, depending on how much coverage it's received.
I agree it's a little bit long. I've trimmed it slightly at least. Probably could be trimmed a bit more in the future. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Spotchecks:
FN 139 cites "A. O. Scott of The New York Times found it to be a "conscientious adaptation of a difficult book" and was appreciative of Portman's potential as a filmmaker." Verified.
FN 121 cites "She next agreed to the stoner film Your Highness for the opportunity of playing an athletic and foul-mouthed character, which she believed was rare for actresses." I don't see support for "stoner film".
Removed the word "stoner". -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
FN 107 cites "After producing and co-starring alongside Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the black comedy Hesher (2010)": verified.
FN 78 cites "Controversy arose when she filmed a kissing scene at the Western Wall, where gender segregation is enforced, and she later issued an apology": verified.
FN 226 cites "In 2017 she bought a Montecito mansion, which she sold in 2021 for $8 million." Verified.
FN 197 cites "It was announced in May 2012 that Portman would be working with watch designer Richard Mille to develop a limited-edition timepiece with proceeds supporting WE Charity." Verified.
That's everything. Kj cheetham, I see that another editor has made some of these edits already; that's fine with me of course but you may want to take a look too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any way to share credit for a GA, though if there's something I can do as reviewer to make it happen I'd be happy to do it. If you would prefer Krimuk 2.0 to get the credit, the only way I know to do that is to do a procedural fail, once all the issues are dealt with and I'm ready to promote; then they can do a nomination which I will immediately promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not necessary. I simply needed my contributions to be acknowledged. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Mike Christie Thank you for considering it, I think we're good to go as-is. I've now responded to your points above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I've replied to one point above; other than that everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorted. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kj cheetham: Unless, somehow, "vegetarian" and "vegan" are two different things, the first two sentences in Activism contradict each other. When and why did she become a vegetarian? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 07:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Veganism is basically a much stricter practice of vegetarianism, so I'm not sure I understand the question, as I feel like it's answered in the sentence that you're highlighting. 4TheWynne(talk•contribs) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Vortex3427, as 4TheWynne said, vegetarian and vegan are two different things, so I don't see a contradiction. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The nationality thing....again
It seems that people from the US constantly like to claim successful people as their own. Israeli born American actress? Wtf? Israeli actress who is also an american citizen maybe? Unless she has parents from some part of the Americas or was born in the Americas, she will always simply be Israeli.
As a Welsh person, if i move to Germany to live and work....I am not a Welsh-German or any other combination... Its a sad practice that goes back as far as Nicola Tesla, Sigmund Freud et al that were never "American" 2A02:C7C:BC2C:F00:5D9F:909D:9AFB:AD44 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. We have a policy on it as well: WP:NATIONALITY, which says regarding nationality in the WP:LEDE" In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident. She has dual citizenship, and is most notable for her activities in the United States, so I doesn't make sense to omit American in the lede. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Occupation
She is also a psychologist. 181.99.196.226 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
She majored in psychology as an undergraduate. That doesn't make her a psychologist. She has never worked as a psychologist, nor does she have the credentials to be a psychologist. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon number
@Sundayclose @General Ization: While we wait for the result of the edit warring report, can either of you point to the source that supports a connection between Portman's 2002 Harvard paper and her Erdős–Bacon number? KyleJoantalk 04:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in this debate, and I intend to stay that way. The issue I reported pertains to the 3RR policy, and whether you were or were not able to "exempt" yourself from it based on the content. That will be determined at EWN. General IzationTalk 19:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The subject content or some variation of it remained in the article for nearly two months prior to your removal of it. Within the span of an hour, you and Sundayclose exchanged a series of 7 mutual reverts, ending with your again removing the content, in doing so exceeding 3RR, rather than returning the article to its condition prior to your beginning the series of edits while the debate with Sundayclose continued. You crossed that bright line; Sundayclose did not. I did not need to take a position on the content to recognize that as an apparent edit war. It is up to you to justify your removal and exceeding 3RR, not up to me to justify restoring the article to its state prior to the last revert. If EWN or BLPN determines your action was appropriate, I will have no further issue with it. General IzationTalk 20:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
If you can only answer as an EWN report filer and not as a user who edited this article, you could have reported the conduct and refrained from engaging with the content. Regardless of whether there is any obligation, I doubt you would advise users to make edits they can't justify. KyleJoantalk 21:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This was an improper WP:BLPUNDEL when the edit summaries raised a good faith BLP objection based on OR/SYN grounds and prior consensus through an RfC was against inclusion. There is actually a conversation at BLPN about editor bias in reinstating status quo BLP violations.[7] When there is a dispute, inclusion in a BLP should be based on consensus not WP:STATUSQUO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw this post at the BLP Noticeboard. Unless there are multiple reliable sources showing the significance of the Erdős–Bacon number in relation to Natalie Portman herself or her career, that sentence [8] just seems like silly trivia, so I've removed it. Apparently there was an RfC about this already which resulted in a "Near-unanimous consensus against the discusion of Erdos-Bacon number at this article". If things have changed in the meantime, feel free to start a new RfC regarding the inclusion of the Erdos-Bacon number. Some1 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Also here from BLPN. Agreed that it seems trivial and unless sources about Portman discuss it, undue weight. That said, I think it's pretty hard to justify edit warring to keep it out on grounds of WP:3RRNO: it's hard to see this is the kind of "contentious material" that was envisaged in writing that policy, and it is at least arguably reliably sourced: determining Portman's E-B number from the sources cited is simple WP:CALC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
If I may clarify the contentiousness of the material, the five journals cited are all primary sources, none of which explicitly specify an E number. This is a violation of WP:PRIMARY, as these sources require our interpretation in determining an E number before even using that to arrive at an E-B number. Not to mention that no source connects any E-B number to the Harvard paper. Whether the material is positive, neutral, or negative, I would argue that it is not reliably sourced. That said, I appreciate the input very much. KyleJoantalk 22:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, this is a request for a more updated image to be used on Ms. Portman’s page to a more updated image of the actress from 2023. The one being used now is from 2019 and doesn’t represent Ms. Portman’s likeness and I thought a change would help. The caption would read as “Portman at the 2023 Trophée Chopard Ceremony.” I’ve attached below the image to be used as well as sources of the image, as I’m not sure how to fully go about requesting the change but I’ve included the sources. If this request can be fulfilled, it would be much appreciated. Thank you!
Hello, this is a request for a more updated image to be used on Ms. Portman’s page to a more updated image of the actress from 2023. The one being used now is from 2019 and doesn’t represent Ms. Portman’s likeness and I thought a change would help. The caption would read as “Portman at the 2023 Trophée Chopard Ceremony.” I’ve attached below the image to be used as well as sources of the image, as I’m not sure how to fully go about requesting the change but I’ve included the sources. If this request can be fulfilled, it would be much appreciated. Thank you!
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
She was eleven when she started her acting career starting in her first movie she was not twelve as stated in the article! Source Bear grylls running wild season 1 episode 1 Natalie Portman in the Escalante desert 194.207.209.87 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, she was 13 when her first film was released, which is very well sourced, and production of the film began in June 1 of 1993. She never acted professionally while she was eleven years old. You don't really provide a reliable source. You give us your impression of what you heard on an apparent TV episode, which is not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Suggestion to add recent speech at the United Nations to 'activism' section:
On 17 September 2023, Portman spoke at an event for the United Nations Spotlight Initiative to eliminate violence against women and girls. She urged member states to reinvest in the Initiative and ending gender-based violence.
This edit request to Natalie Portman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section on Awards, the last line says that Portman has been nominated for two additional Golden Globes, one for Best Supporting Actress for ‘Anywhere But Here’ and one for Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama for ‘Jackie.’ Portman has received a third additional Golden Globe nomination, for Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy for ‘May December.’ 66.44.23.108 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I will leave it up to more prolific editors of this article, like Krimuk2.0, to decide whether any of this, such as the neuroscience paper authorship, is appropriate for inclusion or not. Peaceray (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on the consensuses out of that discussion and this RfC, this material should remain excluded. One extra source (i.e., the SciAm opinion piece, in which Portman is only briefly mentioned) does not render the responses in those discussions less relevant or applicable. KyleJoantalk 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Question: MOS:TIES states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". What does that have to do with saying "at Harvard" instead of "at university"? NiciVampireHeart 19:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia always goes by reliable sources. The current version in the article is reliably sourced. You have provided no sourcing except your personal opinion, a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia cannot source itself) that has nothing to do with Portman, and a source about the Bible that also has nothing to do with Portman. Even if your sources were reliable, they must specifically address Portman's Hebrew name. You can't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Give us an actual reliable source about her name and we may have something to talk about. Sundayclose (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Done Pinchme123 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
