Talk:Natalie Portman

• Archive: Previous discussions archived here
• Archive: Jerusalem and Israel Discussions

Archive

I put the talk page in an archive. It was getting to long and there were no active discussions on it. Link above! - Duribald 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Theater or Theatre ?

I just noticed some the spelling of Theatre, so in American do you spell or as Theater? Govvy 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

American=theater, British=theatre. Wikipedia standard is to use American spelling with America related articles. - Duribald 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Lose the age comparison between Padme and Anakin in the triva sectinon. This has no bearing on Portman whatsoever.

bisexual

if portman would have a relationship with another woman, how does this not classify her as bisexual? 67.172.61.222 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your Talk page, when she said that she "is not opposed to a lesbian relationship," she was speaking hypothetically. The very next statement is "I've never dated a woman." To have a knee-jerk reaction and conclude that she is bisexual is stretching the point without adequate justification. To meet Wikipedia's standards, categorizing her as bisexual requires a reliable source in which she says she is bisexual or has been involved in a lesbian relationship. Wikipedia is a legitimate encyclopedia, not a tabloid or outlet for the rumor mills. Ward3001 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph in question for improved accuracy and added a citation to clarify the issue. I hope this puts the issue to rest for now. Ward3001 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

i would love to know what your definition of bisexual is. 67.172.61.222 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From Wiktionary: Someone attracted to persons of either gender. "Wondering" "growing up" whether she was gay does not automatically put a person into the bisexual category. Formerly bi-curious at most; even that's a stretch. And it doesn't make those of us who can clearly see this homophobes. It's a matter of accuracy and not assuming something without clear evidence. Ward3001 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines Wikipedia set out for biographies of living persons says you should only mention the religious/sexual views in the article if "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". So even if she is, I'm thinking the whole topic is really a moot point. swidly 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

Could we change the picture we have of her on the page? Its at a weird angle and there are lots of others to choose from... Dropdead Joe 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of others that are not copyrighted and that conform to Wikipedia's image use policy? If you can find a good one, then go for it. Just be careful. Some editors seem to feel that they can copy an image from any source and post it in an article. There are rules about that. Ward3001 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Portman laughing.jpg

This is a horrible picture shall we remove it? Govvy 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree Ward3001 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is the one of her with the skinhead/real short hair, why has that not been removed? Speedboy Salesman 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "laughing" picture is horrible because of the shadow over half of her face. The one with the short hair doesn't have that problem, som my vote is keep on that one. Whether you think she's good looking or not in the pic is more POV. -Duribald 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So what with the shadow? It's not pitch black and obscuring her face Speedboy Salesman 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it makes her look like Two-Face. I'm voting agree to removal on this one. - Duribald 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've re-added the image; it's a free image, and since it's a free image, there is no reason for it not to be in the article. However, I added it back in a way that the image doesn't take up as much space as it did. Acalamari 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I vote to remove it. There are several other decent pics of her in the article. The one in question adds nothing to the article, and the fact that some think it's a bad pic is sufficient for removal unless there's strong sentiment to keep it. Ward3001 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you're saying that because some people don't like it, we shouldn't have the image in? I have to disagree; it's a free image (not a fair-use image) and we should use it if we can. Acalamari 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote myself to correct you: "sufficient for removal unless there's strong sentiment to keep it" (emphasis added). Per Wikipedia policy, whether it's removed or stays depends on the consensus of those who comment on this talk page. At this point there is no consensus. With a bit of patience on your part, we might reach a consensus, which I will respect regardless of whether it is remove or keep. Ward3001 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate though, I've decided to remove the image for now. I think the image should be used in the article; however, I'd rather discuss it first. Acalamari 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To me she is a very good looking actress and I like her very much, the reason I don't like this picture is because it doesn't show her in the best light. It makes her look more plain, I don't like that. I don't think the picture is flattering and I rather it be removed from the article. Govvy 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bad picture on purely technical grounds. If you gathered 100 professional photographers, I'm sure that exactly 100 of them would say this is a horribly bad picture. Can you imagine any paper encyclopedia using a picture like this one to illustrate a person? - Duribald 08:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is she dead?

can't find any news about it anywhere, so maybe we can remove the "july 24 2007" part?

It obvious vandalism. I just deleted it. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Portman's birth date

The Wikipedia article states that Portman attended the Charles E Smith Jewish Day School in 1984. That is consistent with the information on Portman's face book page. However, the article also states that Portman was born in June 1981. That would mean she was only 3 years old when she attended CESJDS. That is not possible. CESJDS only offers grades K-12, and it does not admit 3 year olds into its kindergarten.

69.139.152.232 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Ira

You're assuming too much. The article says, "The family lived in Washington, D.C. in 1984 (she attended the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School)." It does not say she attended in 1984, or how long they lived in Washington DC. Some children start kindergarten at age 4, which would have been 1985. Even age 5 would be possible. Unless you have access to the cited source, a TV interview, there's no way to know the details, and the article should stay as it is. Ward3001 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering...

I am asking nicely and polite: can someone please get a more current picture of Natalie Portman? I would like that very much and I would be very thankful.

From you faithful Wikipedian, Ahoskinson 95 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

where the easter egg

in this page it says the skit is in an easter egg inless i am reading it wrong and it is not it is in the black thing at the top of the list on the second disk i might be wrong on this but i am going to fix it. unless some one else realizes that i am wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quialman (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Languages spoken

That she can name four animals in another language does not make her a speaker of those languages. Is there an accurate reference to her Japanese language skills somewhere? DDD DDD (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread the article and/or the source. In the source she said (while at Harvard) that she was studying Japanese. The article says "has studied or can speak" the languages listed. I don't see any inconsistencies. Ward3001 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to the point of deception and shows bias. She cannot speak Japanese and obviously didn't study it to a high level. In this clip (http://www.vidarena.com/natalie-portman-vs-salma-hayek-video_16345_5_vidmC_9kkkQ-BQ.html#video1) she confuses the numbers 22 and 20 when she attempts to say them in Japanese. For the rest of the clip she relies entirely on the translator. 22:20, 30 November 2007

Let me try to state this more simply. The article uses the phrase "has studied ... Japanese." In the source she said "I take ... Japanese". "I take" means she took one or more courses at Harvard on Japanese. Taking a course on Japanese means she studied Japanese. Are you disputing the meaning of the words "take" or "studied"? There is absolutely nothing misleading about the statement in the article. It doesn't matter whether she studied it at a "high level". She studied it. Neither she nor anyone else has claimed that she can speak Japanese or studied it at a high level. So unless you can come up with evidence that she lied about taking Japanese, the statement should remain as it is. And if you're the one who edited it out of the article, don't do it again. That is considered vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry. It IS misleading as is written. List the languages she CAN speak. Then list ones she has studied. Not only is it misleading, it is inaccurate. Watching the video above, it's obviously she doesn't speak Japanese.DDD DDD 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not misleading. Studied means studied. And you don't know whether she can speak languages besides Hebrew and English. Cease edit warring and POV pushing. Ward3001 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring? POV pushing? Whatever. Have a nice day.DDD DDD 04:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who changed this section the last time but it now says she has conversational skills in Japanese. Which is untrue. That really has to be changed. It's a lie. 20:36, 2 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.16.173 (talk)

The statement has multiple sources. It is your opinion that it is "a lie". If you want it changed you need to provide sourced information (with appropriate citations) that indicate that she does not have conversational skills. The term "conversational skills" has some degree of latitude. I am not fluent in a language other than English, but I do have conversational skills and can converse without a lot of difficulties in another language. And if you're basing your opinion on the video cited above, you don't know how long ago that video was made and how much her skills have advanced since then. Don't make any changes without citing sources. Otherwise it is original research and POV pushing, both of which will be considered vandalism if done repeatedly. Ward3001 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the video it states the Japanese release date for V for Vendetta is the 2nd April, it was filmed prior to that. The two times she speaks Japanese, first when prompted, she does not know how to say "hello" in Japanese. Instead she says "good morning". Secondly she confuses the number 20 and 22, or more specifically the 20th and 22nd day (of a month). If you spoke Japanese and watched the video it's very obvious. Stating that she has conversational Japanese is wrong. I've no problem with a reference to her having studied Japanese as a teenager, but anything beyond that is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.16.173 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, once again it is your opinion as to her skill level in Japanese. If that's all the evidence you have, it's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You need a source that addresses her Japanese skills because "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Your opinions are irrelevant unless you can provide a source. Wikipedia has rules. Secondly, the video could have been filmed almost three years ago because "V" was filmed in 2005. And regardless of all of the above, you have no idea what her skills are now. Ward3001 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ward, you need to chill. You seem to be bullying people with your screaming (in bold) wikibabble (edit warring, npov, original research...).

You yourself wrote above: "Neither she nor anyone else has claimed that she can speak Japanese".

Even a junior high school English teacher would remind students to keep appropriate verbs and nouns separate to avoid confusing (or *gasp* misleading) readers.DDD DDD 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And you need to stop giving me advice. Your accusations of bullying without any evidence can be considered a personal attack, another violation of Wikipedia's core principles. I am not bullying. I am not screaming. I simply wish for editors to abide by Wikipedia's rules. Bold is not synonymous with screaming. I bold to emphasize important points, especially when I have made the same points repeatedly. Speaking of which, I don't plan to continue repeating myself, so I stand by my statements above about NPOV, original research, and verifiability, and I will not address those issues again here. I will deal with any reversions of the information in the article without adequate citations, should they occur, the way Wikipedia recommends: standard vandalism warnings, and if that doesn't work, an official vandalism report. Ward3001 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again with the wikispeak. That you are so familiar with "wikipedia rules", I commend you. Speaking of standing by your statements, do you still stand by your claim that "[n]either she nor anyone else has claimed that she can speak Japanese"?DDD DDD 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I make no apologies for following Wikipedia's rules. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. Ward3001 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't "speak Japanese." She knows a few words and can rattle off a few sentences in Japanese the same way tourists pick up a few standard phrases in any country they go to. Someone who knows Japanese wrote this: "I've seen her on a Japanese TV show and she couldn't speak at all. (She studied Japanese in high school). When the TV host asked her to speak, she said (in English) "I remember very little" and then she said "aisu kureemu" (which the TV show laughingly pointed out is English)! Then she said (in Japanese), "I love ice cream" and then later (in Japanese) "You're welcome." On another Japanese show, you could actually see the interpreter sitting there and Natalie's complete reliance on this woman to translate."--Gilabrand 06:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gilabrand, thank you.DDD DDD 10:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That sentence definetely needs to be rephrased, as it is she looks like she's completely polyglot and i've seen her being interviewed by French reporters but never daring to say a word in French. That Japanese video is also quite revealing.

This line i think is more accruately written in the French Wiki: She is fluent in both English and Hebrew, and has some notions of French, German, Japanese and Arabic. It wouldn't be OR as all that those sources say is that she studied this languages, never that she masters them.-Yamanbaiia 11:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Yamanbaiia. Good work. I see, however, that Ward3001 has reverted the article AGAIN. Ward, your willingness (stubbornness?) to keep that ridiculous (false and useless) information about languages is so inane. Millions and millions of people take language courses. It is not relevant. She is not a speaker of some of those languages, Japanese in particularly. For someone who claims to have published in a peer review journal (I think I saw a tag on your user page), you seemed to have lost the plot on this one. I really don't want to be having a discussion on this. There is so much more important work to do. But it is silliness and shrill crap like this which cheapen the wiki experience for everyone. Portman CLEARLY DOES NOT SPEAK JAPANESE save a few words and expressions. Should we also say she has studied history? Math? Social studies? P.E.? Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. I'm outta here. Good luck.DDD DDD (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)