Talk:Natalie Portman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Natalie Portman was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
January 23, 2016 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as High-importance).
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Natalie Portman is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Natalie Portman at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish Women (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Long Island (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Long Island on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


A good reference source[edit]

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)

RfC: Is the language biased?[edit]

There is no consensus about whether "mainstream success" is considered biased (a slight numerical increase in finding bias but no consensus to me) but there is a very strong consensus that "a major role" is not biased.

Second, this was a very poorly designed RFC. I have no idea why two wording arguments were merged into a single RFC comment as not everyone voted on everything. Third, I don't see what the actual result requested here is: even if people had found either term "biased", was the proposal to slap a POV notice on the page? Was the proposal for removal or for rewording (which isn't even discussed here)? If the editor conducted two separate RFCs simply to state "I'd like to propose the wording X be removed", then support/oppose would be simple.

I see one vote for removal of "significant acclaim" which I don't even see here. I'll leave to further discussion.

As such, I suggest that the editors here, if they wish to, further discuss alternative wordings or removals or whatever for "mainstream success" but move on in regards to "a major role." If there remains a dispute with separate wordings (with the status quo being an option as a default), then another RFC can be considered. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2016 (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.

Is the following language (highlighted in bold) biased:

  1. "Her first role was in the 1994 action thriller Léon: The Professional, opposite Jean Reno, but mainstream success came when she was cast as Padmé Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy"...
  2. During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, and Mars Attacks!, as well as a major role in Beautiful Girls.

Currently, only three editors are involved in the discussion, and having more insights would be helpful. Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For earlier discussion see section immediately above. Sundayclose (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose – I honestly have no problem with the way it's worded. I'm more concerned about the way you've gone about this whole thing, Jack Sebastian. You haven't dealt with these guys' evaluations very well. And your retaliations – the messages you left for them – were completely unnecessary. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
While I appreciate your opinion on the matter, that;s not really on point here. Try to confine your remarks to the topic at hand. Cheers. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose (meaning the word "major" should remain as it has for years). My reasons are articulated in the section immediately above this RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the above user 4TheWynne. I also don't see how the wording in bold is biased at all. "Mainstream success" and "major" are typical adjectives that I'm sure are duly noted in reliable sources. Unless someone can argue and prove these facts to be otherwise, I don't think they should be changed or even really discussed. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support more neutral wording - I see it as an evaluative statement that an editor is making, not a source. Indeed, the one source in support of the "major role" evaluation is in fact false; that term was never used or implied in the full 44 minutes episode of Inside the Actor's Studio. Quite likely, someone saw the improperly-used citation and assumed that the accompanying statement was elicited from a reliable source. I am guessing that is why it has been unchallenged for over a year. Additionally, the actor has made 27 films in her short career; where specifically did "mainstream success" arrive? See, that anyone is actually trying to figure that out instead of finding where a reliable source noted such is part of the problem. One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality; it means we don't get to render our own opinions of what constitutes a 'major' role or when an actor achieves 'mainstream success.' We use sources for that. If no such source exists, we cannot say it. It's that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of the word major and state a better usage is best known for ... which I feel is the common patois about actors, actresses and how the public recognises them. Whiteguru (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I think that's actually worse, Whiteguru, as it involves even more of a personal evaluation by the contributor. Now, if there were a reference attached to that assessment, there'd be little to say about it by way of argument. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Although the word "major" should remain (for all the reasons I've given above), I agree that "best known for" is not appropriate. She has had a lot of major roles, but she is not best known for Léon: The Professional. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As was noted before, the terminology is not the problem. It's complete lack of authentic and reliable sourcing is the true problem. Who says it was a major role? Who said she achieved mainstream success? If its us making that evaluation, it's OR. If a claim can be sourced, why not do that? That's all that is being asked for here.
In short, the classification without appropriate context is, imo, unacceptable in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak 'no'. In my opinion, the challenged language is neither biased nor original research; I do not believe the original research policy reaches quite so far.  Rebbing  16:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I'm sure you were motivated by the noblest of intentions, I too think you've been condescending and needlessly difficult: it was on you to argue for a new consensus, not on your fellow editors—the two who objected to your changes—to defend to your satisfaction the status quo ante. Sharing your concerns at the original research noticeboard may have been useful. Also, please don't tell participants what to discuss in their comments.  Rebbing  16:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Respectfully, my behavior, or intolerance for others' behavior, isn't the topic at hand. Granted, I have little in the way of patience for reverters who refuse to discuss their reverts, apart from some little ditty in the edit summary. That aside, the discussion you were alluding to occurred at a noticeboard occurred here. I will probably also ask around at NPOV and on the talk page of WP:PEACOCK for further clarification, despite the general reaction that more neutral language should be found. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: I think you and I are looking at different RfCs. I'm not seeing "general reaction that more neutral language should be found." Let's not confuse the words "some reaction" with "general reaction". Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: I'm sorry; I also presented the question at the NPOV noticeboard and (incorrectly, as I was seeking an appropriate destination for the question) AN/I. All of them said pretty much the same thing. More neutral wording needs to be found. Bias, not matter how slight, is still bias. I am still not understanding your resistance to finding a reference or modifying the language to something more neutral. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think most people here are confused, as I've seen oppose comments which actually support the contrary argument; this could be due to the fact no clear-cut yes/no question was asked at the beginning. Keep in mind RfCs are not a venue for discussing user behaviour. Now, I've only found 3 or so mentions about her "mainstream" success ([1], [2], and [3]), and they seem to be based on or copied from her Wikipedia article, so it would appear this interpretation isn't a verifiable fact. This needs to be copy edited. As for "major" role, while commonly used it is not advisable, and could be changed to something along the lines of "protagonic role". Hope this helps. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It sure does help, FoCuSandLeArN, thanks. If there is an RfC wording issue, that's my fault; I wrote it. What I was seeking was input on whether the terms referred to in the RfC contained bias that required removal/revision/referencing. A few contributors considered the bias of the characterizations to be minimal or nonexistent.
I felt that the wording was in fact biased, and that enough of that wording presented a overall bias within the article. All I was asking for was someone to cite the characterizations, so that it wasn't a Wiki-en writer making the evaluation, but instead a primary, reliable source. No one has come forth with such, which lends credence to the idea that this isn't as popularly-held a characterization as is being represented within the article.
I'll again point out that the wording: "a major role" was cited to an interview of Portman gave at Inside the Actor's Studio. The video of this contains nothing of the sort. The words 'major role' never came up, not even once. Upon removing the false reference, the sole impediment to removal/revision/referencing is editorial preference. That shouldn't be an impediment at all.
I've asked at both AN/I and [NPOV/N; the consensus arising from the editors who responded suggest that the usage should be (at best) avoided or (at worst) removed. The single argument against removal/revision/referencing the wording appears to be (as presented by Sundayclose) 'its been in place for months - why change it? I'd point out that all articles are revised over time, and often incremental wording is part of that process. This isn't a bad article (it was a GA article at some point) but there is a reason why it isn't still one. We aren't just here to maintain the status quo of a non-FA article. We are supposed to be improving them until they are FA-quality. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Again, you and I seem to be looking a different versions of Wikipedia. There is no "general reaction that more neutral language should be found" or "consensus arising from the editors who responded that the usage should be (at best) avoided or (at worst) removed" here or at the NPOV noticeboard or ANI. Sorry, but you don't get to create a consensus that does not exist simply by misstating the facts. And please stop mischaracterizing my position that "its been in place for months - why change it". I have repeatedly stated (and you have repeatedly ignored) that the reason "major" is appropriate is that it was a decision by the filmmakers, not Wikipedia editors, that Portman was first-billed in the credits. So again, sorry, you don't get to create others' opinions to discredit them. For now I'll consider that as a good-faith oversight, but that good faith has now reached its limit. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Setting aside your snippy remarks (let's just stick to content, okay?), I guess you are now arguing that because Portman was top billed in a film, that constitutes a major role. You are taking one piece of information - the appearance of her name in the opening credits - and equating that with a major role. I will point out that in Wikipedia, this is what we call Synthesis. You are taking two pieces of information and melding them together with the glue of your deduction. How is that not Original Research?
Add to that that I find your concept of "top billing" to be unsupported by a single source. In the film, she is listed 9th in the opening credits. Out of 10. That doesn't shout "top billing" or "major role" to me. Apparently, it doesn't shout that to a legitimate, reliable source, either. So, we are back to just you saying this.
Lastly, you are correct; you and others have argued on at least four different occasions in the above discussion that no one else bothered to change it, so why should we' - I lumped your opposition with that of Checkingax - my apologies. I am hoping that your AGF extends to the point where you recognize that I really have been listening to your arguments. I just don't find merit in them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jack Sebastian: You write that I am now (underlined by you) stating my position about first billing, suggesting that earlier I wasn't?? Once again, please stop implying something that is not true. That was my perspective at the very outset of this discussion, in case you haven't bothered to read them above. And that's not a snippy comment. This is the second time you have made the suggestion that I have offered other ideas besides first billing. So if you'll stop doing that, I'll try to very carefully pick my words so that you don't misinterpret them as "snippy". And let me clarify something that you seem to be having tremendous difficulty understanding. I have argued that the article has a longstanding consensus of including the word "major" based on the fact that it has not been challenged for years; thus a new consensus is needed to remove the word. I have not used "it's always been that way" as an argument that the word "major" doesn't require a source other than the films credits, and I challenge you to provide the diffs where I have. And for about the third time, please stop condescendingly telling me "how Wikipedia works"; I am quite aware that "in Wikipedia, this is what we call Synthesis"; I just happen to disagree that this is a case of synthesis. First-billing is unsupported??? Again, the film itself is the source. Portman is listed in the opening credits, not among the dozens and dozens of actors in the closing credits. It goes by other names, including "main billing". An actor doesn't have to appear first or second to have first billing. All of the actors listed in the opening credits have first billing. IMDb (and please don't say it's unreliable for cast lists; it's unreliable for everything except cast lists because the cast lists come from the film itself) lists Portman as first billed. But we really don't need IMDb; all we have to do is look at the opening credits in the film. You can disagree with me on whether first billing is sufficient to use the word "major" (although your disagreement does not magically create consensus), but you have no basis for disagreeing that Portman has first billing. So, in closing, I have used first billing as the basis for my argument for the current consensus discussion from the very beginning; I didn't just throw it in later in the discussion. And there is no consensus to remove the word "major" at this time, either here or on a discussion board. And finally, it's hard to "stick to content" (which you have failed to do on occasion above) when I am constantly having to correct your misrepresenting facts. I will try my very best to assume good faith if you will do the same in restraining yourself from condescending remarks and misrepresenting facts. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sigh. Oh, for f*ck's sake, man. Let me be clear, for the last time:

  1. Portman is listed 9th, along with the rest of the main cast in alphabetical order.
  2. Opening credits doesn't equal "major role". You need references for that evaluative descriptor. Without it, its synthesis.
  3. I don't know why you insist that she isn't in the closing credits, because she's right there, listed 9th there as well. Alphabetization is not a sign of major anything.
  4. You have yet to provide even a single reliably-sourced statement that this was a "major" role for Portman. Was she good in it? Sure, but that's my assessment, and it isn't any more useful to the article than your evaluation that it was a major role.
  5. Focus on content, period, please. I am asking for you to weigh the experienced opinions of editors here and elsewhere that state that the language should be removed, revised or referenced.
  6. I get that you are upset at me; I've offended you - message received. Sorry that my brusque style of editing hurt your feelings, but now it's time to cowboy up and fix the problem. Period.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You focus on content, and stop telling me that when you refuse to do so yourself. We don't need sighs and expletives and telling editors to "cowboy up" to discuss content. Your "brusque style" didn't "hurt my feelings" (yet another false assumption). Rather, I am simply pointing out your habit of misrepresenting facts. Let me clarify "closing credits": All of the actors, including lead roles, are in the closing credits. My point is that she is in the opening credits. And you and I will have to disagree that first billing does or does not mean major role. That's my opinion, which on Wikipedia is equivalent in weight to your opinion. I'm not going back and forth here repeating the same points again and again. That does nothing to further this discussion. But the bottom line is this: we need a consensus to remove the word "major". I'll respect a clear consensus to remove the word, but at this point there is no consensus here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Let's see if a new consensus develops. Consensus is not determined by who can repeat the same arguments the most. So thank you for expressing your opinions; this is my final comment to you unless you come up with different ideas or others weigh in. Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "Mainstream success" is original research. It's making peacock-ish, interpretive statements without a source. Especially when unsourced, Wikipedia's voice should not identify when "mainstream success" occurred; this is clearly original research and should only be analyzed by reliable sources. A "major role" isn't so bad, and I probably wouldn't raise a ruckus over it. Just look at what the reliable sources sources say and follow their lead, preferably "starring role" or "co-starring role"; "major role" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. I don't even know what a "major role" is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It appears that a more neutral tone is required as the statements are not sourced. If there are references supporting the above wording than it would be appropriate. Fraulein451 (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of the term "major" as it is not sourced and fails verification. I would also support the removal of the phrase - "she garnered significant acclaim" - not sourced and fails WP:V.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "A major role" is fine, "achieved mainstream success" is not. The former is not undue language – it's an objective assessment that's being done across all film and TV bio articles, and can be assessed by objective measures such as credit placement, and by other factors such as critical reviews. "Mainstream success" is much more a subjective term, and as NinjaRobotPirate says could constitute OR – for this one, either find a couple of sources to back up this exact phraseology, or reword it. Something like "significant acclaim" is probably also problematic. Also, I would urge Jack Sebastian to dial it down a level, or three – it's not helping... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of "achieved mainstream success", per NinjaRP above, evaluative WP:OR. Neutral about 'major role', it's probably also WP:OR but harmless and meaningless at the same time. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions[edit]

I think we have reached a de facto consensus, considering comments both here and elsewhere (1, 2) incline towards the preference of avoiding qualifying words like "major role" or "mainstream success came"without supporting references to back them up.
It doesn't matter whether they have top billing or ninth in the opening credits; it is not up to us as editors to determine what constitutes a major role.
It doesn't matter whether an actor was an unknown before being signed to play a role in a film; we don't get to call that "mainstream success".
It bears mentioning that, throughout this process, requests have been made for those supporting "major role " and "mainstream success came" to find a reference in support of those characterizations. In almost a month of discussion, only one link has ever been used in the article, and it turned out to be wrong. Not one single source. If the sources aren't calling the role major, why should we? As per CHALLENGE and UNSOURCED, if they cannot be cited, they need to be removed.
The major disconnect of this discussion is that most of the support for keeping the language is either (and I am of course paraphrasing in the interest of both brevity and levity): 'meh, what does it hurt to use it?' or 'well, duh, it was a major role'. Neither of these are substantive reasons for inclusion in an encyclopedia. First thing we learn as new editors is that our opinion doesn't matter in an article; all that matters is what we can explicitly reference via Reliable Sources. In short, if there isn't a source for it, we cannot say it - it is just that simple. Any suggestion to the contrary is - imho - a watering down of the entire mission of Wikipedia.
Every editor speaking against allowing this language states the same thing: it is fawning flattery and Original Research. The very argument that because Portman is listed in the opening credits is why her role is 'obviously' major is a textbook example of Synthesis. As this argument has whittled itself down to the usage of a single word, I would urge reason to prevail here. Let's put this thing to bed, shall we? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You don't get to declare "de facto" consensus as whatever you want it to be. You don't get to declare "incline towards the preference of avoiding qualifying words like "major role" or "mainstream success came"without supporting references to back them up" simply because that's the way you want it to be. Once again, you are misrepresenting the facts. Yes, we can put this to bed: there is no consensus to remove the word "major". I will gladly agree to an uninvolved party (not of your choosing or my choosing) to take a look at this discussion and decide if there's a consensus, if you will agree not to badger that decider (or anyone else) if you disagree with the conclusion. And two more points: STOP your stealth tactic of removing the word "major" every few days (hidden among other edits) without consensus. And drop the stick. Otherwise we'll be discussing this at ANI. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
SundaycloseTLDR, sorry. Here are the apparent numbers:
  • For removing the biased language or citing it: 6 in this RfC, 5 at AN/I, 1 at WP:NPOV = 12
  • For keeping the language as is: 4 in this RfC, 2 at AN/I, and 0 at WP:NPOV = 6
The editors favoring removal, more neutral wording or referncing aforementioned biased material outnumber the ones wishing it to remain as is two to one. If you wish someone else to do the same counting, feel free. Who would you suggest? I can think of potentially dozens of uninvolved editors who know how to count. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: If you don't have the decency to take a couple of minutes to read my post, we are finished discussing this. Consensus is not a vote, and even if it was a vote you are too fast and loose in counting them. You don't get to declare consensus, and you sure as hell don't get to count the !votes. For this particular consensus discussion that's worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. There is no consensus to remove the word "major". If you remove it (again; and I mean just one more time) I'll be seeing you at ANI. This is my last comment unless a consensus develops. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you stop with the threats? If you want to count the comments, too, you can. No one is stopping you. I get that you don't like the consensus (just like I guess that you apparently don't know what 'TLDR' means, since you read the post that you responded to), but it is what it is.
Now, either find someone "unbiased" to count them for you or bend to the will or the majority. In either case, your comments are bordering on personal attacks. If you don't stop, you'll see me at AN/I a lot sooner than you may have imagined. You go and fetch that unbiased person to count, now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
TLDR. And please, do take me to ANI for personal attacks. But you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first. Sundayclose (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to find someone to determine the consensus as based in policy and guidelines, or not? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

A request for closure was made at WP:ANRFC. Please do not add additional discussion or change the article regarding this issue until a closure is made. Sundayclose (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

So, has a final determination been arived at? I've waited patiently, and there is no way uncited info gets to remain in a BLP without challenge. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And there is no way you get to decide what the consensus is in the current discussion. In the absence of a legitimate close, there is no new consensus. Don't confuse your "patience" with authority to declare consensus just because time has passed. I've waited patiently in consensus discussions, but my patience did not impact the outcome in the slightest. I wasn't patient to get the consensus to go one way or the other; I was patient because that is the civilized thing to do. It is implicitly understood that everyone on Wikipedia should be patient; it's a quality that doesn't confer anything other than a reputation for doing what is expected. You challenged the existing consensus and did not receive a consensus to make a change. You can seek closure from an admin that you and I agree on, or you can wait to see if someone from WP:ANRFC gets around to closing. But you cannot violate the long-standing consensus by removing the word "major" in describing the role unless a new consensus is determined here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (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.

Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources?[edit]

The rough consensus is that "major role" is an evaluative qualifier that requires verification, but there is no consensus to require exact wording in sources as it is often described in different terms in cited sources across BLPs of actors. Nevertheless, as this one word generated so much debate, it may be wise to rephrase the sentence altogether and present the available information in a different way. Deryck C. 14:25, 1 August 2016 (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.

Is the following an evaluative comment?

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

(This inquiry follows an earlier, malformed RfC wherein I asked about this and another OR usage within the article; the other part was resoundingly resolved, leaving this one.) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: For interested editors, previous discussion related to this issue can be found in the RfC above closed two days ago (Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased?) and the preceding section, Talk:Natalie Portman#Major roles. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Cite or Remove - qualifying a role as major is - by definition - an evaluative act. Evaluative statements require citation to reliable sources. Considering the differences between major and minor roles isn't up to us as editors. Either cite the role as being major, or remove it. It was a role, nothing more. She wasn't even a major character, though her portrayal was noted by critics. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave as is – I have no objection to the way that it's currently worded. In my opinion, the February 1996 source that you added in yourself backs it up enough, even if it is focused more on the acclaim that Portman received for her portrayal. I mean, if we were to follow your example, we would be removing "major" and "minor" from the article of every actor and actress on Wikipedia if they aren't cited, just because those words aren't cited by a reliable source. If you think that that is the best action to take, perhaps that is something you should consider. But watch what you say – "she wasn't even a major character" is also an evaluative act. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, we aren't dealing with other articles; we are dealing with this one. Therefore WP:OSE doesn't seem to a be a valid defense in this particular discussion.
And the source? Look at it: Portman's performance was complimented by the critic, not listed as a "major role". In fact, no one seems able to find a reliable source wherein she is listed as such. Someone even tried a fast one by adding a reference from Inside The Actor's Studio, which was an utter and complete fabrication.
That's because, as far as I can tell, no one that we can cite has said such. No one citable has even hinted at such. They have all uniformly commented on her performance, not the size of her role. Indeed, some have even pointed out the smallness of the role.. Definitely not a major role.
If you want to note a critic's observation of her performance, then do that - its more encyclopedic. Having editors decide as to who has a major role is fanboyish and unworkable, as it will absolutely lead to greater abuses.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. You should let this go. Rebbing 00:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't. As editors, our fanboy opinions aren't citable. We use sources for precisely this reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for my abrupt answer. What I meant was that I believe the previous RFC implicitly answered this question and that I view this successive RFC as disruptive. On the merits, I would still answer "no" as, in my view, the original research policy doesn't extend to the challenged language. Also, I'm not a Portman fangirl. Best. Rebbing 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Rebbing. The previous RfC was malformed in that it asked for the opinions of two separate problems; RfC's usually only address one. The problem with this is that you think you are being asked to choose between two lesser evils, when in fact you should be focusing on one evil at a time. One was in fact addressed (and removed). The one evaluative comment was opined upon when compared to the really bad one.
It deserved its own question and, based on the opinion of the RfC closer, I decided it should be re-asked. Do editors get to decide what qualifies what makes a role major, or do we rely on references for that? To me, it is a question about editorial opinion versus actual sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think most participants understood that the previous RFC was two independent questions rather than a choice between the lesser of two evils. Regardless, any confusion was—no offense intended—entirely your fault, and I don't think you should be allowed to relitigate this issue after a full debate because you now wish you'd phrased your question differently. An RFC represents a significant investment of time and energy by the community, and there's been no showing that the challenged phrase—even if proscribed—is of any consequence to readers or the encyclopedia that might justify a do-over. Rebbing 03:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to get back to you a bit late (the dramahz below was a bit of a distraction), Rebbing.
You are totally right. The previous RfC's fault were in fact all my own. I'd fallen out of practice with how to construct them simply, and this RfC is an attempt to address that. Most people addressed the more stinky of the OR violators, and the consensus was to nix it. This one states the OR issues presented by editors all by themselves classifying (w/out references) what constitutes a "major" role.
I guess I cannot understand why you'd get bent out of shape because I am trying to make sure that the encyclopedia doesn't contain editorial opinions - its what separates us from the fan forums. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


Focus on the topic, and avoid making this personal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: As you have been told by another editor besides me, stop telling people what they can talk about in RfC discussions, and stop making this personal by making personal attacks on users' talk pages. If you have a personal problem with my comments, this is not place to discuss it. Take it to my talk page, but please, no more false accusations and telling me to fuck off. Sundayclose (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: So, I am not supposed to mention a person problem with you on this page, based upon your having brought a personal problem that I voiced privately on your page to this page? You do understand that RfCs are not for your personal drama, right? Stop increasing the noise-to-sound ratio. Focus on the topic, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: I'm not taking your bait for endless arguing. So this is my last comment here about your behavior; instead I'll add to the existing complaint about you at ANI and let an admin decide what to do. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Jeez, passive-aggressive much? If you don't want to "take the bait", simply stop posting already. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cite or Remove. It's providing an opinion in Wikipedia's voice so needs to carry a citation. If it's such a major point in her career there will be sources to back it up. If there are no sources to back it up, it's untrue or unimportant and shouldn't be covered in a summary article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. There is a clear balance of opinion in the previous RfC that other indicators (such as first billing), are sufficient to justify such a minor evaluative term. I would concur with that balance of opinion. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete: There are no references to Portman having been given "first billing" in Beautiful Girls; in fact, she was the ninth person listed in a cast list of approximately twelve. The concern is that there is no reference material at all to support what you are noting is in fact an evaluative term. The point is that we aren't allowed to make that evaluation, since our opinions are not citable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is borderline pedantry IMO, critics noted the performance, she is billed (not simply listed at the end of the film). 'Major' is a reasonable summary of that IMO, 'major' does not equal 'leading' nor 'the leading'. What form of words do you favour? Pincrete (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
With respect, I didn't classify your opinion as 'slippery slope sloppyness', so maybe you could avoid qualifying my concerns as 'pedantry'. In point of fact, there were 9 cast members for this small film, listed in alphabetical order; she is included in that list (alphabetically) both at the beginning and end of the film. Additionally, I'd point out that qualifying a role as 'major' definitively denotes a leading quality to that role.
What would I prefer? How about:
'Her performance in the small ensemble film Beautiful Girls was noted by several critics.'
That has the benefit of being actually supported by references, and doesn't sound like fan puffery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed on the previous close there is a very strong consensus that "a major role" is not biased. Why are we wasting our time here? I don't say that 'major' could not be improved (not necessarily as suggested), but endlessly recycling variants on the same RfC is not very constructive. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I do hear, 4TheWynne, but I am considering that the malformation of the previous RfC - wherein it unintentionally invited comparison as to which of the two terms were worse, the decision came down that removed the worse one. A proper RfC would have noted a single term to request opinion of bias, and the last one didn't. That's my fault, and I have admitted such. That said, pointing out the fault of the RfC doesn't help the article.
Let's break this down to (imo) the basic problem:
  1. People say this is a problem.
  2. People say this is a major problem.
There is a difference as to the relative weight between those two problems. How do we differentiate between these different weights, as editors? We can only reference those who consider the weight major. My problem is that some editors seem to think that we have the right to determine how to differentiate weight and major weight of a given thing. This is - in no uncertain terms - sythesis. That no one has found a single reliable source that backs up this qualitative analysis concerns me. Seen by itself, not being compared to another, more egregious violator of synthesis, it is still synthesis. The acceptable percentage of synthesis allowed in Wikipedia - unless I am mistaken - is 0%. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And, when it comes right down to it, Wikipedia's Verifiability policy states:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"

I think that, after this time, its clear that I am challenging the qualifier of "major". Ergo, it must be cited. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Cite it or Remove it - per WP:VERIFY. None of the following reviews of the film describe her role as being "major" (or any other review I looked at). NY Times, Variety, The WaPo, Rolling Stone, this source describes her role as a small part. small parts in Heat, Beautiful Girls...-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cite or remove, per above. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cite or remove Per Isaidnoway. Darwinian Ape talk 12:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No – "major" role is an objectively quantifiable asset determined by things like credits ranking/order. "Major role" is a descriptor used across many actor BLP's, again, based on credit ranking/order. Note also, the "Variety" review above, after referring to Portman, goes on to say "Rounding out the main crew is Gina (Rosie O’Donnell)..." implying pretty clearly that Portman is among the "main cast" (synonymous with having a "major role" in the film). In pretty much all of these reviews she's listed with the "main cast". Ergo, "major role". --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • All that said, Portman is usually distinguished as the best thing about this film in the reviews, so it might be better to focus on that for her article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Here we go: this in referring to her role in Beautiful Girls"It was also Natalie Portman's breakout role - her first part where she didn't seem like a child actress." (And I'm quite sure this isn't the only press to have described this film as Portman's "breakout" – I'm pretty sure there was other press to that effect when this film was released.) Along with The Professional, it shouldn't be hard to find sourcing describing the Beautiful Girls part as her "breakout role", which is probably more relevant to talking about its place in Portman's career. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Rephrase. It seems to me that part of the disagreement hinges on the meaning of "major role". It might be that the role was fairly minor for the film, but still had importance in the actress's career. (For whoever follows this sort of things, Guglielmo in Così fan tutte is not a really major role in the story, but it certainly was an important one for Thomas Hampson.) It can even be designed as a minor role but become major and "steal the show" - see for instance Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds (although the part was already a big one, he turned it into the lead role).
For this reason, I have no opposition to a "career-launching role" or something like that (less ambiguous) with a cite (IJBall's sfgate source above seems enough to me for that). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:09, 26 July 2016 (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.

Natalie Portman's opening sentence[edit]

Which one:

1) Natalie Portman () is an American-Israeli actress, film producer and film director.
2) Natalie Portman () is an actres, film producer and film director with dual American and Israeli citizenship

Vote what is the proper way for Wikipedia. Cheers. Or Sasson (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I vote for the 1st option. Or Sasson (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 Oppose change as disruptive. Recommend proposer take his own advice. Rebbing 08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Note: This is not my comment. I did not vote for either option, but the proposer took it upon himself to shoe-horn my procedural objection into a vote, to alter my word choice, and to relocate my previous disavowal out of sight. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is a blatant violation of the talk page guidelines. Further violations, including attempts to change or relocate this disclaimer, will only distract from your proposal and may be grounds for editing sanctions. Rebbing 10:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? Clearly you don't belong on Wikipedia – I vote 2, oppose, no, however the hell you want to format it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No reason has been given why the previous consensus should not hold or how the proposed change is an improvement to the article. At this point I see no reason to change the lead. Or Sasson if you could explain how your preferred version improves the article that might help others. -- GB fan 10:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Old consensus is old. 79.180.27.80 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Or Sasson, something else you should be aware of, Consensus is formed on the basis of discussion not voting. In this thread so far you haven't discussed why the lead should be changed. If you don't your attempt to change the lead will fail for sure. Also, Consensus can change but for consensus to change there has to be a substantial reason for it to change. -- GB fan 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Old archive I don't agree with your methods, Or Sasson. See Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3#"Israeli-born American (with dual citizenship) actress". I hope you think better next time than to leave a minor personal attack. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with old archives. Old is old. Or Sasson (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That discussion took place less than a year ago, and I would advise you to read the whole thing properly before commenting. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Old is old.Or Sasson (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is going to go nowhere very quickly. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you a Sockpuppet of Cliftonian by any chance? It sounds like that. Or Sasson (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Baselessly accusing me of sock puppetry, just because I share the same opinion as other editors (not just Cliftonian) is going to land you in further trouble. You need a new argument. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Please elaborate what's the difference between option #1 and #2. Or Sasson (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Read the aforementioned argument from last year, instead of ignoring my messages. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What's the difference between option #1 and #2 in your opinion? Or Sasson (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer your question until you read the aforementioned argument from last year. There is a clearly established consensus there which should provide the answer to your question. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless you can do that, I don't see the consensus changing. The ball's in your court. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
9 replies in a row by you? You do sound like a Sock puppet of the creator of the original discussion. Or Sasson (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
For a new editor, you've got some balls, I'll give you that. But this is still getting nowhere. Have you read the argument yet? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Notice that user 4TheWynne has just been warned to refrain from potential edit warring.Or Sasson (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I will not be commenting further until you read the aforementioned discussion, as advised, and provide a meaningful argument. You haven't exactly given your reasoning as to why you believe your preferred option should be used. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
11 replies in a row by you and you still haven't told us what seems to be difference between the 1st and the 2nd option. Cheers. Or Sasson (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So far as I understand the original objection to putting a hyphenated form such as "Israeli-American" or "American-Israeli" was that this didn't make clear that she is a citizen of both countries, a dual national, as opposed to being an American citizen of Israeli origin or vice versa. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Old is old. Or Sasson (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is your grievance regarding the wording? —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia OCD. Or Sasson (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose change - This was thoroughly discussed recently. No need to rehash it. Sundayclose (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comments about Or Sasson

This is not the comment I wrote, and I strenuously object to the proposer's insistence on altering my formatting, removing my emphasis, adding vote numerals I refused, and actually changing my words (diff). See WP:TPO ("you should stop if there is any objection"). This is manifestly bad faith editing, but, to avoid running afoul of 3RR, I will let "my" stand with this clarification. Also, it makes no sense to put "my" vote as a reply to his vote; they should be at equal indentation. Rebbing 09:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You've already cast your vote. Next. Or Sasson (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
My comment was not a vote: I did not vote for either option; I remarked on the propriety of your proposal. Saying that your proposal should be rejected as disruptive is not the same as explicitly supporting either option. Your insistence on altering my words to remove my emphasis, to change my word choice, and to pretend that I voted for a position I refused take—after my repeated, clear, guidelines-suppored objections to the same—is further evidence that this was brought in bad faith. Rebbing 09:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet your opinion only equals to one vote. Even if you reply 11 times in a row like 4TheWynne, or if you write a really really long opinion. One person, one vote. Have a good one. Or Sasson (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet I never claimed that I was entitled to more than one vote: quite the opposite; I have repeatedly insisted that the comment I wrote, before you altered it to suit your purposes and edit-warred when I attempted to restore my own words, was not a vote at all. Regarding your hidden comment to me: "checking every edit i make? thank you for the excessive attention"—this is further evidence of your bad faith. Rebbing 09:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominem. Or Sasson (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

My comment was not a personal attack; you have a very narrow-sighted approach to your editing, and I hope you realise quickly that your efforts are for naught. This is just an observation, not an attack, so please stop the bad faith editing. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If you say so.Or Sasson (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Or Sasson: You are being very disruptive. This is a personal attack, and you refactored another editor's talk page comments. That's two policy violations in addition to your confrontational tone. Please settle down or you're headed for a block. Sundayclose (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

How ironic. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)