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)

I see that Portman stating what she stated about being open to a romantic relationship with a woman has been removed due to what Swidly has stated. Well, an editor recently added a quote from Aubrey O'Day into her article basically saying the same thing, and I was/am wondering what to do about that, or if to do something about that. Yes, I know that this article is about Natalie Portman, but when I saw the addition that was added to O'Day's article about sexuality, I immediately thought of this article and how it kept having to battle people putting Portman in the bisexual category. I can imagine that people will start trying to put O'Day into the bisexual category as well. I stopped by this talk page for thoughts on this matter because it is far more active than the O'Day talk page, and this article went through the same thing. I would very much appreciate thoughts from some of you about this on the Aubrey O'Day talk page. O'Day has already been added to the LGBT category by the editor who added the part discussing her sexuality. Taking into account what Swidly has stated above, it seems that just as what Portman stated about sexuality was removed, what O'Day has stated should be removed as as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on that talk page for a response to this. Acalamari 01:59, 22 August 2008 (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)

I do not appreciate people deleting my comments, I think that is unfair and that deleting other peoples comment should not be allowed!!!

User-08burgelaura 16:55, 26 March 2009

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)

Same here.

User-08burgelaura 16:15, 26 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk)

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)

Hmmm ... are capital letters "shouting" and "bullying"? Interestingly, I agree with you that there are much more important things, which is why I never saw the need to change the article in the first place until you forced the issue by splitting hairs over the meaning the words "studied" and "take". You took the words right out of my mouth: "Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous." I do not agree, however, with your seemingly sarcastic disdain toward following Wikipedia's rules about verifiablity, original research, and POV ("There you go again with the wikispeak. That you are so familiar with "wikipedia rules", I commend you."). And don't waste my time and yours by denying any of this. It's clear to anyone who reads the comments above. Ward3001 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable GA status ?

The lead does not adequately summarize the article, and many of the references are poorly formatted. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Juxtaposition?

"Portman has been a vegetarian since childhood and is an advocate for animal rights. She does not eat animal products or wear fur, feathers or leather. "All of my shoes are from Target and Stella McCartney," she says.[34]"

The paragraph implies that the second sentence is caused by the first sentence. Does she not eat meat in protest of animal rights? Or did her vegetarianism come before that? Also, the reason why she doesn't wear fur, feathers or leather might be a different one than why she doesn't eat meat. Anyway, I was just a bit confused. Maybe someone with more info can clear this up. Thanks --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I have more info, but she is considered a vegan, which includes a focus on animal rights beyond simple vegetarianism, which can be done for many reasons besides animal rights. I'm not sure whether she started out as a vegetarian without a focus on animal rights, and then that evolved into veganism. She may be the only person who knows that. Ward3001 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are interviews out there on this very subject, but I don't have time to recall them right now. -- Librarianofages (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Filmography: Film/TV

It saids Film/TV. Should we put in her TV roles, if any? (She played a character on The Simpsons once.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.234.195 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Erdos-Bacon Number

I had omitted this, and then someone immediately put it back up. But someone ELSE seemed to agree with me, and removed it.

Obviously, I'm on the side of keeping this out, as just because someone may have done a "scholarly" treatise on the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" doesn't mean it's truly important and valuable.

I do realize there's an article on Wikipedia about it. What can I say? I still think it's ridiculous.

I must admit this isn't an issue that I'm going to keep on reverting in this article because hey, there are more important things to do on Wikipedia.

But I started this Discussion point, because it seems there are two oppposing viewpoints, and I'm obviously not the only one with my viewpoint on Wikipedia. Asc85 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on Erdős–Bacon number that is well-sourced. That makes it notable. And the Erdős–Bacon number is based on a person's scientific research, something else that makes it notable. I can understand that there might be differences of opinion on this matter, but it needs to be discussed here until a consensus emerges rather than repeatedly removing sourced information that has been in the article for years. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I say we remove it. The phenomenon as such may be somewhat notable, but the individual person's number isn't. The Erdos-Bacon number is a mathematician's joke to start with. It does not say anything intelligible about the person it refers to. We might as well create a similar mathematical formula about how many cats and/or dogs a person has lived with or we could create a formula that produces numbers relating to the number of bridges in the county a person resides in and the height of his/her grandparents. It's nonsense, and it is INTENDED to be (entertaining) nonsense. -Duribald (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it says no more than number of cats or dogs a person has (which, by the way, could be notable in some circustances, such as owning a rare breed of dog). Bacon number is a way (although somewhat crude) to describe an actor's involvement in notable films. More importantly, the Erdos number is descriptor of publication of professional scientific research. Beyond all of that, however, many people find both Bacon and Erdos numbers to be interesting and the rarer combination of the two even more interesting. I'll grant you, none of this is as notable as winning an Academy Award, but everything in a biographical article does not have to reach that level of notability as long as it interests Wikipedia readers, is verfiable, is properly sourced, and is written in relative proportion to other issues (i.e., it does not deserve an entire section, or even a paragraph, but I don't think one sentence is excessive). It's one sentence in the entire article. I don't see any policy violations, as the issue of notability in this case is a matter of opinion.

I ask for the patience of anyone wishing to remove the sentence until enough people have had an opportunity to weigh in. If needed, I'll post an RfC in a week or so to get additional input. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's only one line of text in the article itself, it's also interesting, and why get all hot and bothered just because it's there? I think it's interesting just as others think that it's dumb, which is why the fact remained in the article for a long time before someone just recently felt the need to remove something they personally felt was insignificant. Personal sentiments should not stand in the way of comprehensiveness. Icarus of old (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed numerous times, for example by me on February 27 2007, after wich YOU inserted it again on April 6. At that point, by the way you called it "trivia". I removed it a couple of more times - but you insisted. The number was originally inserted in the now defunct trivia section by Caelbaer on August 2 2006. It's not true that the info was just recently challenged, which you know. It's fan cruft trivia and should be removed. Also it does not belong under "Public Image". -Duribald (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right-- me calling it "trivia" at one point and reinstating it surely is grounds for my personal fallibility. Even Whitman said, "I am large- I contain multitudes." Worldview aside, Wikipedia only discourages trivia sections, not interesting one-liners that serve to flesh out individuals further. Little facts like that make this article a truly Good Article. Without these tidbits, it would be as staid and boring as some other biographies. I'm not even a Portman fan or a Bacon fan or an Erdos fan, for that matter. But I like good reading, and little things like this only serve as an indicator of personality. Icarus of old (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I was actually confusing you with Ward3001 - regarding the dates and and reinstating the info as mentioned above. Anyway - I just don't see it as fleshing out the article. It's not really intelligible information in itself. But, - as I always like to point out - it's not worth climbing the Reichstag over this. If there is a reasonable number of people who want the info in the article, and the arguments are good, I'm game. -Duribald (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but now I'm confused. I don't recall ever calling it trivia (although I certainly don't have a perfect memory), but looking at the edit history I definitely didn't edit the article on April 6. This isn't a terribly important matter, but if I called it trivia, I'd like a link or date when that occurred. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"18:43, 6 April 2007 Ward3001 (Talk | contribs) (Trivia regarding Erdős–Bacon number) (undo)" -Duribald (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh!!! We're talking about 2007! I thought you meant April 6, 2008! OK, yes I did revert, but I did not call it trivia. This is my edit summary for that edit: "No rationale given from removing this info; and it doesn't need a citation because it is wikilinked to another article with citations". Am I misunderstanding? I thought you said I called it trivia? At that time it was in a "Pop culture" section, but that doesn't mean I referred to it as trivia. I personally think it rises to a level higher than trivia, but I don't want to split hairs. My main point here is that saying I called it trivia is inaccurate and implies (perhaps unintentionally) that I didn't consider the sentence any more important than trivia when I made that edit. Ward3001 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to the 19:43 edit - Im referring to the 18:43 edit (four edits below). The edit summary is included in my quote above. -Duribald (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned! I stand corrected. In any event, I think this is one of the few examples in Wikipedia of good trivia if that's what we call it. It's well sourced, it's interesting to many readers, and eventually it was moved out of a trivia section (although I realize that is now a point of debate). Wikipedia does not forbid trivia. I think the trivia guidelines are designed to avoid overbloated trivia sections that have little interest to a broad readership. My opinion is that this item meets the criteria for acceptable trivia, and, in fact, in it's current context I would disagree with my earlier label of trivia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor comment. Duribald, I don't have a problem with moving the sentence out of the "Public image" section, but not out of the article completely. I personally think it is part of her public image, but I'm not concerned about that point. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I was certainly surprised to see so much (civil) back-and-forth on my comment! And I feel I should add a few more of my thoughts here.

1. I think the problem with many of the articles in Wikipedia is "text creep," where articles get longer and longer and longer. Now Icarus uses the term "comprehensiveness," but I disagree with that. Does longer=better? I don't think so. In fact, I'd say that just because something is in an article (even if heavily sourced and documented), doesn't mean it deserves to be in there. It doesn't mean it necessarily adds to the article. Personally, I think I provide greater value to an article on Wikipedia by cutting it down and making it more manageable. And I know that few people at Wikipedia edit like this.

2. I happened to have wanted to check out some information on Natalie Portman, saw the Erdos-Bacon number, and thought it silly. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic...to provide us with information on people, places and things. How is the Erdos-Bacon number adding to my knowledge or appreciation of Natalie Portman?

3. The argument that it is heavily sourced should not always mean that it deserves to be in there. Here's an example: A number of months ago, Wesley Clark was thinking about running for President on the Democratic side. He never did so, eventually "officially" declined to enter, and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Leading up to the Clinton endorsement, there was much sourcing of his possible run. I'm talking paragraphs and paragraphs of it. When it had ended, I trimmed the whole thing down to one paragraph, and someone took offense and reverted. Why? Because it was well-sourced! So what! It's no longer relevant! Later on, other editors saw it my way, and it was cut down to one paragraph. So sourcing in and of itself doesn't mean something should stay on Wikipedia.

4. I don't think the Erdos-Bacon item is vandalism, so I'm not going to the mat for it. I would just suggest to Wikipedia editors that length of an entry in and of itself does not make an entry better. Asc85 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few (respectful) responses to Asc85's comments:

"How is the Erdos-Bacon number adding to my knowledge or appreciation of Natalie Portman?": For you, it may not add anything. For others, including me and (I'm assuming) Icarus of old, it adds something, and particularly in proportion to the amount of space it takes (one sentence). It makes her more than just a blockbuster actress. Just as the information about Winona Ryder's shoplifting adds something to my understanding of her (in a very different way, obviously), this tidbit about Portman adds something to a dimension of her personality that I would not appreciate if I was not aware of her Erdos-Bacon number. I think we editors have to consider not just what something in an article adds for us, but also for a general readership.

"length of an entry in and of itself does not make an entry better.": I agree completely. All other things being equal, quality always trumps quantity. But let's not have a knee-jerk reaction to the opposite extreme and assume that brevity is our primary concern. I think making an article interesting is a consideration, although not at the expense of the other things that give quality to an article. And I genuinely feel that many, if not most, general readers would find the Erdos-Bacon information interesting and worth reading.

Finally, in considering issues such as this one, I often ask myself what might be included in another quality encyclopedia. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to find such interesting bits of information in other encyclopedias. Perhaps not this particular fact, but similar items of general interest that are not necessarily at the forefront of notability.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this whole "Erdos-Bacon Number" discussion got quite heated. Let's go to first principles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If I understand the goal of an encyclopedia, its goal is to provide an overview of the most important, widely-agreed upon facts concerning the people, places, and theories which are described in its articles. This "measurement of the "collaborative distance" in authoring mathematical papers between that individual and Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős—and one's Bacon number—which represents the number of links, through roles in films, by which the individual is separated from actor Kevin Bacon" appears to be of little relevance to the reader's understanding of Ms. Portman.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much "heat" in the discussion, just considerable debate. And your opinion that Erdos-Bacon is "of little relevance" is fine, as long as you remember that it is one opinion. As has been discussed above, interesting facts that are not "the most important" are not forbidden on Wikipedia, and in fact may contribute to the appeal of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against massive trivia sections, but I think this is an interesting little fact that helps flesh out the biography. Although it would be nice if it actually stated her Erdös-Bacon number. AstroMark (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Israel

I changed 'Jerusalem, Israel' to 'Jerusalem' before quickly reverting myself after seeing that the Jerusalem issue was a major point of contention. This is an admittedly personal stylistic opinion, but I find "Jerusalem, Israel" to be a rather silly expression, on par with "Madrid, Spain", "Rome, Italy", or "Berlin, Germany". Disambiguation is quite unnecessary and frankly sounds like a rather patronizing geography lesson, as though I need to be reminded which Jerusalem is being spoken of and where in the world it is.

Now I do realize Jerusalem is a special case as a disputed city, and I don't particularly want to get into any of that. Suffice it to say that I don't think there is any additional informational value to the addition of "Israel"; that is, I don't get the impression that by using "Jerusalem, Israel" the author is contrasting this with another part of the historic city of Jerusalem which is not in Israel.

I think "Jerusalem" sounds better, much as "Paris" sounds better than "Paris, France", and I think that the nation-state qualifier could be removed on these stylistic grounds alone. --Saforrest (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Disambiguation is quite unnecessary and frankly sounds like a rather patronizing geography lesson, as though I need to be reminded which Jerusalem is being spoken of and where in the world it is.": But remember, Wikipedia isn't written specifically for you, or for people with your understanding of the world. There is more than one Jerusalem. My general rule of thumb is to never assume the reader has more knowledge than a typical ninth grader. I don't mean that to be condescending, but pre-college level students are frequent users (although not a majority) of encyclopedias. I don't think our writing style has to be as simple as that of the average ninth grader, but I don't think we should assume that a reader has more knowledge of facts than a ninth grader. And I don't think we can assume that the average ninth grader necessarily knows where Jerusalem is, especially if he/she is familiar with Jerusalem, Ohio or Jerusalem, New York. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know how old a 9th grader is! Talltim (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Although I can look it up of course

Jerusalem

She wasn't born in the United States, therefore she needs to be listed under "American expatriates in Israel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.145.142 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Check out the meaning of expatriate. She doesn't live in Israel. She lives in the United States. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What's her real name?

I mean, this is an encyclopedia. For every other article of a celebrity in Wikipedia, we list the person's real name, not just their stage name. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. :-) -Duribald (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it, plus a little cited bit from her Harvard days. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Her real name is Natalie Portman!!!64.107.220.168 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, it isn't. Portman is her stage name. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Herschlag InuYoshi (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When she gained fame?

The article repeadedly says that she got famouse because of SW, but certainly among most people I know, she was famous for Leon/The Professional, long before. Obviously it is a bit of a subjective thing, but if, for example, I asked my wife "Natalie Portman?", she would say Leon not SW Talltim (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that part of the article kind of stumped me too. It definately needs to be changed. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree very much. You're using 20-20 hindsight, viewing the critical acclaim Portman received for Leon after she became more well-known for later films. Very few people knew much about Portman for several years after Leon was released. It was only after she gained more fame in Beautiful Girls and especially in the Star Wars films that the general public began looking more closely at her. It was then that most people discovered her work in Leon. She was talented in Leon, but she did not really become a superstar until Star Wars. Ward3001 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at the roles she received prior to Star Wars. That's a lot of major movies, which indicates that she had already made quite a big impact on the scene. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about fame, not talent. There is a difference. She certainly was talented from the beginning and was viewed favorably by critics and by producers who gave her a couple of good roles (I would not classify Mars Attacks! as a major movie that did much for her fame). And her fame did rise more sharply after Beautiful Girls, but that was two years after Léon. It was with Star Wars that her fame skyrocketed. Ward3001 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm using my experience, which agreed, may not be that of the majority of the public, but in my circle she was 'big' before she did SW. Leon was a well known and loved film at the time it came out. Perhaps its a US Vs Euro thing?(I have to say I've not even heard of Beautiful Girls) Talltim (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There certainly could be US and Euro differences. If I remember correctly, Léon was better received in Europe than in the US shortly after its release. Some of the sexually suggestive content was edited out of the US release. I'm in the US, and I remember watching Beautiful Girls with a group of people not long after it was released. I had never heard of her at that time, and no one made a comment such as, "That's Natalie Portman", which I would expect if she had much fame at the time. Ward3001 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it was better received in Europe than the US. Mainly due to the violence and sexual references. If you read this, you'll see that she got to attend movie premieres, talk shows etc after Léon, which obviously indicates some fame. She didn't have to audition anymore either, but producers rather came to her. And to address the Star Wars fame, she also mentions that her audience changed after her role as Padme. Rather than being known among adults, 10-12 year olds took notice. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 22:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having to audition is a function of her talent, which producers recognized, but not necessarily fame. Appearing on talk shows is arranged by film-promoters to publicize a film. As for the 10-12 year old crowd, that is precisely my point (although I would extend it farther into the teen years): She gained a much wide fan base after Star Wars, and thus became much more famous. By the way, I also question the reliablity of the source; it states that the film next after Léon was Beautiful Girls, a glaring inaccuracy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the American situation, but in my country (Sweden) Léon was a massive hit and she was famous after that part. When Mars Attacks and Episode 1 came she needed no special introduction. -Duribald (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Portman's intelligence

I think it is patronizing for this article to continually say that "Portman is a good student" who cares about academics. Actresses are unfairly seen as less-intelligent in American culture, but I think a much more neutral presentation of facts will suffice. While she is fortunate to have an Erdos-Bacon number, I don't think that is relevant at all; yes, she is the rare breed of actors who have also authored research papers, but again, that serves to patronize her rather than provide a neutral point of view on her life.

As such, I'm removing those references from the relevant sections of the article. I am very happy that she is highly intelligent, but the patronizing tone of these frequent assertions is of a bygone "Lindsay Lohan's letter-writing skills" era. King (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion in a previous section on this talk page about her Erdos-Bacon number, with no consensus to remove it. Please do not violate consensus and do not make changes unless the consensus changes. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Portman's background

I've read on WikiAnswers that her family are Jews from Poland, France, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Austria and Germany. If you search "What countries does Natalie Portman's family come from?" you can read that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.61.104 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A little Comment on the photo shown in the article

As I click into this article, I see a photo of her However, that photo, I think, is not that suitable to be used in the article:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Natalie_Portman.jpg/225px-Natalie_Portman.jpg

As we can see, we can only see the right side of her face,but not her whole face.It is quite difficult for people(who barely know who Natalie is) to distinguish her by just looking at the photo.

I think we should find a more appropriate photo to replace the one shown above.

Just a little comment

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenchan0104 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please do find a non-copyrighted image, or please get permission from the copyright holder. Give us a link after you find one. Otherwise we have no choice but to leave the current image. Ward3001 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the first comment that a picture of her whole face shoul be used, if you don't know her how will you know what she looks like!!! Any one see my point!!! User-08burgelaura 21.23, 20 March 2009

We all see your point!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you don't understand a point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can't use copyrighted images!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you get that point??????????????? Ward3001 (talk) 21:41, 20

March 2009 (UTC)

I do get that point and I took that into consideration. There is no need to be snoty. I personally think that a suitable image should be found!

User-08burgelaura 19:45, 25 March 2009

You said I'm being "snotty"!!!!!! How am I being snotty?????? I just pointed out that we can't add copyrighted images!!!!!! If you think "a suitable image should be found" that isn't copyrighted, please find it and link it for us!!!!!! Ward3001 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,Im sorry, you sounded a little rude when you said "But you don't understand a point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". I was asking for a helpful POINT OF VIEW, I did not ask for somebody to have a go at me! (If it wasn't, thats what it looked like!)

User-08burgelaura 16:47, 26 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk)

Maybe you're referring to all the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!! Maybe that's why you removed 12 out of the 15 of them above in your first edit!!!!!!!!!! Ward3001 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We both have one thing in common and that is we both over use the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I removed lots of them yesterday :) User08burgelaura 17:52, 26 March 2009

Lack of Information

Natalie portman was in The Professional in 1994 and this article fails to mention ANYTHING about it. Dx 20:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxism (talk • contribs)

Geez, calm down and take another look: "In 1994, she auditioned for the role of a child who befriends a middle-aged hitman in Luc Besson's film Léon (aka The Professional)." It's also listed in the filmography table right at the very top. Ward3001 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think User Ward3001 is a bit overly critical and should tone it down a bit! User-08burgelaura 17:10, 26 March 2009

Funny or Die videos

There has been some disagreement about including these brief, humorous videos from Funny or Die in the article:
Natalie Portman and Rashida Jones Speak Out
Natalie Portman and Rashida Jones Speak Out Again
I personally think they are not notable enough for the Portman article, although they certainly can be included in the Funny or Die article. I think we should discuss this before including the videos. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. These videos are a minor internet phenomenon that aren't germane to the overall career of this actor, or most others who take 5 minutes to play around. Will Ferrell's Funny or Die videos may be mentioned, but Will Ferrell is one of the owners/founders of the site. That's entirely different. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would as well, but consider this: most often, when we see either of these two actors on film, they are getting paid for it. As well, they are usually something a bit more extravagant than a webcam video. Their reputations and livelihood are affected by any video of them (just ask Pam Anderson).

That these two decided to make a couple of silly videos is - by dint of who they are - notable. If me and Ward or Wild made a video espousing the glorious healing powers of puppies or kittens (or in my personal case, beef jerky), no one would care. What makes them notable is that the two folk making it are notable.

Other examples of notable film folk making low-cost or no-cost videos are Ron Howard and Will Farrell (apparently, my edit summary comment was misinterpreted). They are noted in their articles, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Theater play???

Hello

The part "Theater" shows that the play "The Diary of Anne Frank" was said to be performed in 1999. However,the wikipedia article about the play states that "The play was revived on December 4, 1997 ..... Anne by Natalie Portman" It is a little bit confusing, and I don't know which article is right......

Please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman#Theater

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_(play)

Thank you for your attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenchan0104 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hershlag/Portman

The article begins "Natalie Portman (Hebrew: נטלי פורטמן; born Natalie Hershlag June 9, 1981)..." Since Portman is a stage name, shouldn't it rather begin "Natalie Hershlag, better known under her stage name of Natalie Portman, (born June 9, 1981)..." I'm not gonna climb the Reichstag over this, but it seems more logical. -Duribald (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, unless Portman is now her legal name. I don't know if it is or not, but if we don't know either way, I can't see a point in changing it. faithless (^speak) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if she changed her name legally, this information would be publicly available, and a claim that she changed her name legally would have to be sourced. We know she was born Hershlag and that she's used the name as a grown up, for example in an article in The Harvard Crimson in 2002. It's established that this is her "real" name. The question is if this should be reflected in the opening or not. -Duribald (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the birth name should be stated first (see MOS:BIO), and, in fact, many (if not most) bio articles on celebrities begin with the stage name. I say leave it like it is, regardless of whether she legally changed her name. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just checked and the MOS states that: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:". This means the first sentence should start with her legal name. -Duribald (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but keep reading immediately below your quote (and its example): "Alternatively, the legal name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym: Boris Karloff ... born William Henry Pratt". It can be done either way. I say keep it like it is. Ward3001 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between "usually" and "can" (and I'm not sure Boris Karloff is a good example, since he apparently used the name privately - his daughter is named Karloff). Anyway, we seem to have one "for", one "against" and "one not really sure" so far. Let's see if a consensus emerges... :-) -Duribald (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think distinguishing between "usually-can" is splitting hairs, especially when many articles use the stage name first. If use of the stage name first was not allowed, the mention of it in MOS:BIO would not be there. And use of Karloff is, indeed, an example; it's not restricted to him. But I agree we need to wait to see if a consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The question to ask here is "under what name did she become notable?" Yes, she attended college under her birth name and her university work was published under that name, but that is not why she has a Wikipedia article. Last night, an editor changed the names in several places, including saying her birthname was Portman, so that was an error in an entirely different manner. She works as an actor and is known as Natalie Portman and that seems to me to be the overriding consideration. As Ward3001 said, the preponderance of actor articles begin with the name under which the person is notable, followed by the birth name. It may be a bit confounded by the fact that actors don't change their names as they did in the past, but still, she's notable as Natalie Portman. See Bob Dylan, Angelina Jolie, River and Joaquin Phoenix and Kevin Spacey for various ways editors have approached this. I believe the working name should be first, followed by the birth name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion quietly for the past few days now, and I think I agree with Wildhartlivie here. As a public person who has made many aspects of her life available to the public (via the Actor's Studio, etc.) that information - as published in media outlets - in within our scope of coverage. We aren't acting like paparazzi here; we are citing publicly available sources of information from reliable sources. BLP is rather clear on this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)