Talk:Natalie Portman/Jerusalem and Israel

Jerusalem in Israel?

I don't think this is correct. The status of Jerusalem is disputed. The 1947 UN Partition Plan would have had Jerusalem placed under international administration. Most countries don't have their embassies in Jerusalem, and don't recognise it as the capital city of Israel, which is of course Tel Aviv. The Israeli occupation of Jerusalen is not legal. I am going to remove this.Alun 09:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please if you are going to make reversions, give your reasons. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel is a breach of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. It is contentious to claim that Jerusalem is in Israel. it is just geographically accurate to claim it is in the Levant. you can change it to the middle east if you would prefer, though some say near east instead, which is why I didn't use it as a term.Alun 05:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Jerusalem article doesn't even claim that Jerusalem is in Israel.Alun 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of hyper-corrective NPOV... Her birth certificate probably says Israel. She's an Israeli citizen by birth. Israel does control Jerusalem, whether or not countries believe the control is legitimate. It's the capital of Israel, whether or not countries believe it's legitimate. Even if you don't think that the control is legitimate, it does not mean that they don't still control it nonetheless. If you really want to remove Israel, PLEASE don't replace it with 'The Levant'; keep it just as Jerusalem, maybe. That really just makes it look ridiculous. Furthermore, are there any precedents for replacing 'Jerusalem, Israel' with something else? --patton1138 13:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a little silly to remove "Israel", especially since pretty much every single other article on Portman says she was born in Jerusalem, Israel, starting from the IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000204/) and onwards in any other place you look. And I agree on her birth certificate, etc. it would clearly say this, and this is the way it's been written ever since the creation of the Natalie Portman Wiki article. Right now the fact is (and especially at the time when Portman was born), Israel controls Jerusalem and Jerusalem is within Israeli borders, therefore, she was born in Israel. In fact, it would be adopting the POV of whoever thinks Jerusalem isn't in Israel to replace her birthplace, since the situation is right now that Israel doesn't just THINK (i.e. opinion/POV) it should control and has rights to Jerusalem, but it actually does (fact). It's like listing everyone who was born there before 1948 under "British Mandate", some may not have liked that situation but it was still a fact that the British owned the place and "British Mandate" was the official name for it.

End of story. -24.141.149.226

24.141.149.226, occupation (or control, if you prefer) is not the same as sovereignty, (the USA is currently occupying Iraq, that doesn't make American sovreign). Repeating the inaccurate assertions of others is not the purpose of Wikipedia and IMDB is hardly a source of international legitimacy. The fact is that Jerusalem isn't internationally recognised as part of Israel, maybe one day part of Jerusalem will be, that would be a good thing IMHO. De facto control is not the same as international legitimacy. You really need to cite better sources than IMDB if you want to convince me you have a valid point. I am open to being convinced.

Here is the UN 1947 partition plan [[1]].

Here is a quote from the UN report THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM, UNITED NATIONS New York, 1997 [2]

Since efforts to achieve an overall settlement made no progress, the Council, in May 1968, held a round of meetings devoted specifically to Jerusalem. After reviewing the report of the Secretary-General's representative Ambassador Thalmann and hearing the expelled Mayor of East Jerusalem, the Security Council noted that Israel had taken additional measures affecting Jerusalem and deplored its failure to comply with the Assembly's resolutions. Reaffirming that "acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", the Council considered that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status", and urgently called upon Israel "to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem."

I think that in this case the UN is a much better source of legitimacy than a website dedicated to film. Her birth certificate is also irrelevant as it would have been issued by the Israeli authorities, which makes it a document issued by a biased party.

The other point to note is that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it should therefore be internally consistent. The Jerusalem article states that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. The NP article does not have the authority to contradict this. If you want to ammend the Jerusalem article, do so. I think you will find it harder to be POV there.

Patton1138, if you don't like the Levant that's fair enough, it's not an ideal compromise. I am merely trying to be accurate and NPOV.

I don't really want to get into a dispute over this, and continuing to revert changes all the time gets petty, so I have a suggestion. Can we agree to differ and just leave her place of birth as Jerusalem? If anyone then wants to find out more about the place, they can visit the Jerusalem article (which doesn't state that Jerusalem is in Israel).

One final point for 24.141.149.226. You do not have the right to dictate what is or is not in the article, (I mean what is this End of story comment?). Wikipedia's policy is for consensus to be reached by debate, I have tried to do this by agreeing to Patton1138's suggestion. I refer you to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes so that you will have a better understanding of how to proceed in the future, should the occasion arrise.Alun 06:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sovereignty mentions this: "For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Though some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People's Republic of China. However, de facto, the People's Republic of China exercises sovereign power over mainland China, while the Republic of China exercises sovereign power over Taiwan. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People's Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with Taiwan by maintaining 'offices of representation', such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there."

No, occupying Iraq does not make America sovereign over it, however obviously there is a huge difference between the Iraqi situation and the situation in Israel. America's intention is not to colonize/occupy/rule over Iraq, it is to assist them in rebuilding their own country - one which would not be under the USA's control. In Israel's case, it has not only occupied it (i.e. military), but inhabited it - they consider it a legal part of their country and their territory, which is certainly not the same as the US/Iraq situation, a little silly to compare the two.

You said occupation wasn't the same as sovereignty, well if you look up above sovereignty is not exactly a clear-cut subject in many areas of the world. The sovereignty article clearly states that some world powers recognize one government of China while others recognize another - Israel's situation is a lot simpler since there is at the time really only one government that can actually claim sovereignty (and does) over Jerusalem, simply because they inhabit/occupy/rule/have sovereignty over it and they are the only authority that does so (and I mean physically speaking), whether the U.N. recognizes that authority or not. It's the same situation as when Russia occupied several countries, etc. and called them the "Soviet Union", many did not recognize their authority or sovereignty over it but the fact is the name was still "Soviet Union". Many may not have liked it or agreed with it but it does not change its existence.

And in Wikipedia's map of Israel (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Is-map.PNG) Jerusalem is clearly still located within its borders (although the West Bank is not), thus making it a part of the country geographically. There is nothing called "The Levant" on this map. -24.141.149.226

And? Are you going to change the Jerusalem article? If you don't have the courage to tackle the Jerusalem article, then leave this one as simply Jerusalem. It's a reasonable compromise. If you succesfully manage to change the Jerusalem article, then you can change this one with my compliments. The Levant has a wikipedia article and a map. It is a geographical area in which Jerusalem is situated. Get your facts straight. Israel will certainly have to give up part of Jerusalen in any final status agreement. Currently the status is disputed. Read the Jerusalem article, there is nothing there to support your claim. The Israeli map on wikipedia probably shows the green line as the border, this is not the same as areas which are not disputed. The green line is a ceasefire line, not an international border. Much of the future border will probably follow the course of the green line, but it depends on the final status agreement. I think Israel's current internationally recognised borders are the same as the 1947 UN partition plan, but it is almost certain that much of what is now on the Israeli side of the green line will remain in Israel. The green line runs through Jerusalem, but status of the whole of Jerusalem is curently disputed Jerusalem will probably become a divided city after final status agreement is reached, much as Berlin used to be.

The UN recognises the People's Republic of China, it does not recognise Israel's right to Jerusalem. The UN is the highest international authority, certainly higher than your oppinion, or even that of the Israeli government's.

From Sovereignty:

• In international law, the important concept of sovereignty refers to the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

So Israel has de facto sovreignty over Jerusalem, but not de jour sovreignty.Alun 07:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope you like the change I made, it fits the wording on your last sentence. "The Levant" is such an ungainly name, reminds me of that old joke about "THE Shocker". Anyway... -24.141.149.226

One final point to clarify, de facto is not the same as legitimate. If you own a car and I take it illegally (steal it), then I have de facto possession, whereas you have de jour possession. Even if I possess the car for 35 years, I still will not possess it legally. The same applies to Israel's occupation of Jerusalem. It will have legal possession only when final status agreement is reached. You are probably right about the Levant, maybe it was a mistake to use it.Alun 05:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant about your edit. Someone had changed it. Maybe it's somewhat irrelevant to the article to say that Israel has illegal sovreignty over Jerusalem. Why not just leave it as simply Jerusalem. I can see no rationale for including your change.Alun 10:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I won't change it back to Israel for now. But still, I have to just point out the car analogy is not exactly appropriate - I mean, the point is that "no one" really owned Jerusalem in the way I would own (and legally buy) a car. It'd be more like one car that has had many owners being discarded by the latest owner, and a bunch of former owners all claiming ownership of it, however only one owner actually physically claimed it, whether rightfully or not.

• No it's not. Jerusalem fell to the British General Edmund Allenby on the ninth of December 1917, the Ottoman Empire didn't discard it willingly. The British had a League of Nations Mandate (British Mandate of Palestine), so it was never British territory, but held by the British on behalf of an international body, which was in many ways the fore runner to the UN. When the British left, the UN had the responsibility of drawing up a solution for the Palestine. The area allocated to the state of Israel was not only the best agricultural land, it also gave most of the land (55%) to the state of Israel, when 67% of the population at the time was palestinian (both Christian and Muslim), needless to say this was viewed as grossly unfair by the native palestinian population, and rejected. The UN plan did not allocate Jerusalem to either side in the conflict, it would have remained under international administration (1947 UN Partition Plan). Jerusalem was never discarded, and the state of Israel cannot possibly be the only former owner to claim it or how could it's status possibly be disputed? You seem to have a poor understanding of history. You also keep making unfounded statements without citing any reference.Alun 11:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the U.N. being more legitimate than "my opinion", well, I think it really shouldn't be about "opinions", since at the end both what I say and what the U.N. says are "opinions" and not facts. The U.N. didn't approve of the U.S. going into war in Iraq, yet it is still a fact that they indeed go to war in Iraq and that's what has to be reported as fact. The U.N. doesn't approve of Israeli ownership of Jeruslaem, but it is still a fact that presently they "own" it, or at least enforce their ownership and inhabitance there, and are the only authority that can physically do that.

• You are wrong yet again. The UN has the power to make internationally binding decisions, you do not. The UN is a supra-national organisation, and all member states must agree to sign up to certain standards of behaviour when they join. Israel has consistently and continually broken UN resolutions (which it agrees to uphold as a member). If you really don't think it should be about opinions, then you should be against the illegal occupation of Jerusalem by the Israeli state, because in the end they have no legal right to the place, they just have the opinion that it should be theirs, so they took it. If you believe in the rule of law, in justice and in fairness, then you cannot possibly condone the ethnic cleansing which is still going on in Jerusalem, with peoples homes being bulldozed (without compensation) to make way for new (illegal) houses for Israeli settlers [3].
• The UN did not vote to go to war in Iraq itself. In fact it didn't vote at all because the US removed the proposed resolution for military action before a vote was taken.

On March 10 (2003), French president Jacques Chirac declared that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point. from UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

• I personally think this was a terrible mistake. I would rather see British, American and other troops there under the authority of the UN. The British and Americans decided to remove the facist Hussain themselves. I applaud this corageous decision. I am saddened by their incompetence during the subsequent occupation. But there is a certain amount of hypocrisy to your point of view. You are in support of the invasion of Iraq, but the reason for the invasion was that Saddam Hussain was in breach of two (that's 2 or TWO) UN resolutions (UN Security Council Resolution 678, UN Security Council Resolution 1441). Israel is in breach of hundreds of UN resolutions List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine. Or do you only consider UN resolutions that you agree with to be important?Alun 11:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

But I guess this has nothing to do with Natalie Portman... -24.141.149.226

• No it has nothing to do with NP, but everything to do with getting your facts straight. Please start to give citations, otherwise you are doing nothing but giving a POV without any documentary support.Alun 11:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't hoping to start a discussion but rather to finish it. What I meant by "former owner discarding" was the British Empire's decision to leave that area (i.e. the Balfour Declaration), not the Ottoman Empire.

But I'd like to say you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on little evidence - I never said I was in support of the Iraq war (in fact quite the opposite, and also in fact whether I do or do not support it is irrelevant since my political views are not under discussion here. And since you like sending me to various Wikipedia policy pages, why don't I send you to one Wikipedia:No personal attacks, i.e. "Comment on content, not on the contributor"). Anyway, I simply used the Iraq War as a good example of something that was done by a country without U.N. authority or authorization but obviously still has to be reported as fact, much like the control of Jerusalem by Israel. The U.N. may well have "the power to make internationally binding decisions", but my exact point was that many countries don't care and still do whatever they want, and what they do still has to be reported as factual reality, whether the U.N. approves or not. And personally I sincerely doubt that "the reason for the Invasion" was Saddam's breach of U.N. resolutions - I would hardly think that was what Bush administration was thinking about. -24.141.149.226

• I appologise for that, you are quite right. I was out of order. I can admit when I've over stepped the mark. You are quite right that the British left too quickly, due to Jewish terrorism [4], and therefore there was a power vacuum.Alun 07:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no dispute over Israeli ownership of West Jerusalem, which is, I'm sure, where Natalie Portman was born. The dispute is about East Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)~

• There is dispute over all of Jerusalem, see above discussion, especially THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM, UNITED NATIONS New York, 1997 [5]. But I think this point is well covered in the above discussion. I'll refrain from any more posts to this discussion.Alun 07:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the meandering of the above discussion, Jerusalem is not in Israel. The article should read she "was born in Jerusalem". Most everyone knows where Jerusalem is, and if they don't they shouldn't be looking for the answer inside an article on Natalie Portman. If there are no objections I will make the change. Notice I will not write "Jerusalem, Palestine" or "Jerusalem, Levant", rather simply and succinctly "Jerusalem". I think the folks reading the article can understand contextually that "Jerusalem" refers to the city whose status is currently disputed.Thedukeofno 18:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is in fact divided into sereval sections...is it not? Therefore, Natalie Portman is Israeli so was born in ISRAELI Jerusalem. Thus, the article should read "Jerusalem, Israel"! --Yayacaca 03:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia notes of Jerusalem: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although this designation and Israel's annexation of the eastern portion of the city are matters of international dispute." That said, I would assume Natalie was born in western Jerusalem, which is most definitely under Israeli control and can be considered part of Israel. 68.187.192.107 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and facts should be presented. Where facts are not presented, nothing should be assumed. I don't know for fact that she was born in west Jerusalem. If so, it should say she was born in "western Jerusalem, Israel.". If she wasn't born in western Jerusalem, it should say she was born in "Jerusalem". That is the only way the article can be factually accurate. As her exact place of birth (east or west Jerusalem) has not been noted in this article, nothing can be assumed.

Please fully read the above thread of discussion; I believe you will agree that just plain "Jerusalem" is the best compromise. I believe we should keep it at "Jerusalem" until the east/west issue has been determined.

Thedukeofno 11:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is physically in Israel. Not only that, but part of it belongs to Israel under all international law. Thus, Natalie was born in Israeli Jerusalem. Yayacaca 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yaya, your logic is faulty. If two Swedish citizens have a child in East Orange, New Jersey, the child is Swedish. However, East Orange, New Jersey does not then become part of Sweden.

Only west Jersusalem is recognized by the international community to be part of Israel (please note the spelling of Israel). If she was born in the western part, "Jerusalem, Israel" is correct. If she was born in the eastern section, "Jerusalem" is correct.

I don't want this to turn into a revert war. If you'd like, we can bring it to arbitration.

Thedukeofno 06:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Portman was born in Hadassah hospital. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/5233.htm is an article in the Israelinsider that states that she was born in that hospital. It is located in Western Jerusalem which is under Israeli jurisdiction. As Thedukeofno pointed out, Western Jerusalem is Israeli. Thus, Natalie Portman was born in ISRAEL. I hope that this issue can finally come to rest!

Yayacaca 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

West Jerusalem is not in Israel, though Israel claims it, but in fact it claims the whole of Jerusalem. The UN General Assembly made a non-binding recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone including the religiously significant towns Jerusalem and Bethlehem, see 1947 UN Partition Plan. This plan never came into effect. The starting point for the Oslo Accords as I understand it was the green line and the land occupied after the 1967 Six-Day War, but these accords do not address the status of Jerusalem, in fact Jerusalem was deliberately excluded because it is such a problematic case. It may be the case that in any final status agreement West Jerusalem may become legally part of Israel, but it is not at present recognised as such by many governments, including the government of the USA, nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. Here is a site detailing the various claims to Jerusalem, with this quote Israel is the de facto sovereign. However, Israel does not possess any legal title to the City, and its de facto sovereignty is not more than a mere administrative control by force of arms.[6] This site also claims that the 1947 Partition Plan is the only legal document regarding the status of Jerusalem:

Nonetheless, and despite the fact that according to international legal doctrine the UN had gone ultra vires, the combination of different circumstances and later developments gave the Resolution legal authority:

#the Resolution was adopted by the two thirds vote required for important questions;

#all subsequent resolutions concerning the Palestinians right to self determination, to return, and others were consistent with the basic provisions of the Resolution;

#all subsequent resolutions were consistent with the continued existence of the State of Israel as one of the two States proposed in the Plan, provided that Israel complies with the obligations and restrictions which are conjoined with the :#authorization to establish a State; and finally,

#both Arabs and Israelis accepted when they signed the Lausanne Protocol on May 12, 1949 as the basis for a territorial settlement.

the validity of the Resolution is not dependent upon its subsequent effectuation.

I also suggest you read the 1997 UN Report on the Status of Jerusalem

The persistent reversion of the article to include the erroneous statement that any part of Jerusalem is in Israel is nothing more than an uneccessary politicisation of the article. There is absolutelly no need in this article to make this statement, it is perfectly accurate (and uncontentious) to simply maintan that Portman was born in Jerusalem, it improves the article in no way whatsoever to make any other claims regarding the status of Jerusalem (which is as yet unresolved). If you want to claim Israeli de jure sovreignty over West Jerusalem, then I suggest that you take it up on the Jerusalem article, if you get success there, then please feel free to make the same change here. Alun 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's how we settle this debate, and in fact every other debate on Wikipedia. If we have a large number of reliable sources on Natalie Portman that state that she was born in "Jerusalem, Israel", then we can list her as being born in Jerusalem, Israel. If we don't, not. Wikipedia reports what other sources have said - and if they've reported that Portman was born in Israel, so can we and so we should. It's as simple as that. Now let's look at what the sources say Mad Jack 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is not workable in my opinion, an article that may be considered a reliable source of information about Portman, may not be considered a reliable source about the status of Jerusalem.Alun 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Israel?

Here's how we settle this debate, and in fact every other debate on Wikipedia. If we have a large number of reliable sources on Natalie Portman that state that she was born in "Jerusalem, Israel", then we can list her as being born in Jerusalem, Israel. If we don't, not. Wikipedia reports what other sources have said - and if they've reported that Portman was born in Israel, so can we and so we should. It's as simple as that. Now let's look at what the sources say Mad Jack 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And there are, indeed, numerous reliable sources that say Portman was born in Israel, including StarWars.com[7], New York Times[8], IGN films interview[9], Kidzworld[10], NatalieEmpire[11]. The majority, if not all, of the trivia/celebrity sites on the net, while not reliable sources on their own, also list her birthplace as being in Israel.[12] That means we do have sources that list Portman was being born in Jerusalem, Israel, so that's what Wikipedia has to report. I'll restore the birthplace in a while, unless anyone has a reliable source that specifically says Portman wasn't born in Israel. Mad Jack 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is not workable in my opinion, an article that may be considered a reliable source of information about Portman, may not be considered a reliable source about the status of Jerusalem.Alun 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very true, but this is an article about Portman, not an article about Jerusalem. I wouldn't use these sources in the Jerusalem article, and I wouldn't use sources about Jerusalem that don't mention Portman in the Portman article. Mad Jack 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite, but you also wouldn't want to contradict the Jerusalem article in this one (surely internal consistency is important), especially on the basis of unreliable sources. I cannot help but think that this is simply an attempt to politicise this article. There is absolutely no need to state that Jerusalem is in Israel in the article, it in no way contributes to the quality or accuracy of the article, and is not only legally incorrect, but is also highly offensive to many people, especially those who have had their land and property in west Jerusalem stolen by the Israeli state with no compensation whatsoever. A simple statement that she was born in Jerusalem is not only perfectly correct, but is also a totally benign assertion. As the status of Jerusalem is a matter of international law, is highly controversial and is also unresolved, it seems to me that this is far and away the best solution. I really don't understand why anyone could possibly not accept this compromise. Alun 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because almost every other source about Portman states that she was born in Israel. The status of Jerusalem is something that is best kept to the Jerusalem article. If this causes a contradiction - well - if reliable sources contradict each other in this regard then I guess we can, too. By the way, there seems to be a group of even more reliable sources that say Portman is "Israeli-born" [13], including BBC movies. If such an overwhelming amount of sources on Portman state that she was born in Israel, I can't see why Wikipedia wouldn't say that, unless there are good sources specifically on Portman that state she wasn't. Oh, and just because something is offensive to people for whatever reason, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, especially if it's on almost every other source on the same topic (Portman, in this case). Mad Jack 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing accuracy about Portman with accuracy about Jerusalem. There is no need to state that Jerusalem is in Israel for the purposes of this article, you do not even provide a reason for doing this, your excuse for doing this is that the mistake is made elswhere, so it's OK for this page to make the same mistake, this is not a reason for including inacurate information that can just as easily be omited. You should restrict these articles to information about Portman, that information is at least reliable (depending on the source), but a BBC movies website hardly constitutes a reliable source for the status of Jerusalem. I agree with you that the status of Jerusalem is best kept to the Jerusalem article, so let's leave it off this one by simply stating that she was born in Jerusalem and nothing else. It is you who are including the status of Jerusalem in the article by claiming that it is in Israel. You give no good reason for this inclusion except to say that sources reliable on Portman (that would not be considered reliable on the status of Jerusalem) claim this. I point out to you that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, from the reliable sources guideline. The claim that Jerusalem is in Israel is an exceptional claim. Oh, a more relevant BBC page where it explicitly claims that the status of Jerusalem is disputed.[14] Alun 18:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's very simple. If we have sources that say Portman was born in Israel, then we can say that. If we also have sources that say that Portman wasn't born in Israel, then we have a debate/problem/etc., but I haven't any any sources like that so far. It is irrelevant if you think that all the sources made a "mistake", because that's your opinion. I haven't seen any sources so far that explicitly contested Portman's birth place, so I see no reason not to include it, and I shortly will, citing several sources to support it. Mad Jack 18:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have sources that claim she was born in Jerusalem. You have Unreliable sources that claim Jerusalem is in Israel (these are unreliable because they are not directly relevant to the status of Jerusalem). You give no proper reason as to why you think mention of Israel is at all important to the article (because it is not). If you can give me a good reason why mention of Israel is fundamental to the article, I will concede the point, but there is none. You simply want to play politics with the article for your own reasons. I will include my more reliable sources in the article and include a note on the status of Jerusalem if you include your unreliable sources.[15] Alun 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to include a reliable source that specifically comments on Portman's birthplace, not anything on Jerusalem/Israel/etc. that doesn't have anything to do with/mention Portman herself. The sources I use are absolutely reliable and relevant to this article, because they are about Portman, and so is this article. Again, I wouldn't use these sources on the Jerusalem article, but I would use them here. My reason is that every single other source on Portman mentions her Israeli birth, and so should we. Mad Jack 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot make out if you are being fascetious, pigheaded or if you are just genuinely stupid. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel is not directly relevant to the Natalie Portman article. Stating that it is just plain wrong. Please explain to me how it is directly relevant to the article. Alun 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that Portman was born in Jerusalem and in Israel. This is what almost, or maybe all, other sources on Portman say. Why they all think it is relevant, I don't know. Wikipedia doesn't make its own judgments or decisions - we just report. If this is what has been reported on Portman, then we report that too. Mad Jack 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to remove the birth place, leave my citations, and add a citation of your own that has nothing to do with Portman. Mad Jack 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, again, I can not stress this enough. If you want to remove "Israel" from the birth place, find a source on Portman, not on the status of Jerusalem, that says she wasn't born in Israel or something along those lines. Anything else is original research Mad Jack 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Can't you find any 'real citations for the status of Jerusalem then? You have to peddle your POV on this article. You still have not explained why you claim that it is important to state that Jerusalem is in Israel in the article. I do have an alternative proposal. How about we state that she was born in Jerusalem and is Israeli? Would you accept that as a compromise? Sorry about before, I don't want to get into an edit war. Alun 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What real citations? What do you mean? The only citations acceptable for this article are citations on Natalie Portman, and I've found plenty of those that state that she was born in Israel. I have no interest or desire to debate the status of Jerusalem. It already states that Portman is Israeli. What I want this article to do is reflect every single other source on Portman, which states that she was born in Jerusalem, Israel. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do - in an article about whatever subject, it is supposed to say what reliable sources have said about that very subject. If these sources say Portman was born in Israel, so should we. If you think that's the POV of these sources, well, I guess you have the right to that opinion. But until reliable sources specifically comment that Natalie Portman was not born in Israel, we can't present that point of view here. If you really want that "contested" link in there, fine, but this is as far as this discussion can go without reliable sources that state Portman wasn't born in Israel - for whatever reason. Mad Jack 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this article now claims that Jerusalem is in Israel. This is irrelevant to Natalie Portman and her article, which you must know. You are interested in none of the things you claim, you are only interested in repeating the erroneous assertions of others from unreliable sources. None of your sources is qualified as a reliable source for the status of Jerusalem. You have no real reason for including this information, it is not necessary to include it just because some articles about Portman are written by people who obviously spend far too much time on the trivial pursiute of interviewing celebrities rather than engaging in real journalism. Plenty of Portman articles simply state that she was born in Jerusalen and make no mention of Jerusalem being in Israel, I simply ask that we use that model instead of the ones with erroneous information Alun 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, "erroneous information" is your or whoever's opinion. You need a reliable source that actually says that Portman wasn't born in Israel, i.e. that the articles are in error when they say so. This article now claims exactly what almost every other source on Portman has said, that she was born in Jerusalem, Israel. It claims nothing less or more than that. It's irrelevant what you think of the people who wrote the stuff on Portman. It is only relevant that they wrote it, and that they are a reliable source for a Portman article. Wikipedia now reflects the majority of sources on Portman (and yes, I'm sure there are some sources that say she was born in "Jerusalem", just as some sources would say "Los Angeles" and not mention California or the US. But if you want to contest what the article now says, you need a reliable source that actually says Portman was not born in Israel.) Mad Jack 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article now claims that Jerusalem is in Israel, this is not a properly verified statement. These sources lack any credibility regarding the reliable sources guideline when it comes to making such claims. Exceptional claims demand exceptional sources, this is an exceptional claim, but your sources are just sad. If you want to include this misinformation, then I suggest you include it as a quote from one of your sources, at least that way it ensures that it is only seen as a quote from a magazine, rather than a legal fact. Alun 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way erroneous information is not a POV, it is a legal fact, please read, and try to comprehend some of the sources I have provided. Alun 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to restate it one more time:

• The article now says Portman was born in Jerusalem, Israel. This fact is properly cited and can be found in almost any source on Portman.
• If you can provide a source on Portman that contests her place of birth, and says she was in fact not born in Israel, then we have an issue, and then it becomes an exceptional claim. Until then, the only one contesting this is you, and Wikipedia users aren't reliable sources. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion until sources about Portman are presented that contrast the information that is cited and up right now. Mad Jack 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are asking the impossible and you know it. You also know that you cannot provide proper verifiability, so you are using unreliable sources to try to imply that it is commonly accepted that Jerusalem is in Israel. This statement is incorrect, your sources lack the authority to verify this claim. From WP:RS: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing, in this case is Jerusalem in Israel? I do not think your sources count as experts in the field of international relations, and this Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, same again. Your sources are not good enough to make this claim. Alun 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, this article says "Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem, Israel". This exact statement is backed up by sources which are definitely reliable to Natalie Portman, including the New York Times. These sources have expertise in the field of Natalie Portman, and fulfill the reliable sources criteria when it comes to Natallie Portman, which is all they need to be to be used in this article (although they would be unacceptable in an article about Jerusalem). That's really all there is to it, unless there are equally reliable sources about Natalie Portman that say different. Also, please never again start sentences with "you", because personal accusations, etc. are not acceptable. We are here to discuss what reliable sources say on the subject of Natalie Portman, not what they say on other subjects, or what you or I think about this all. Mad Jack 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not meant as a personal accusation, it was not meant as an accusation of any kind, I am sorry if you percieved it as such and appologise for phrasing my comment in this way, I do not wish to cause offence. I disagree with your reasoning, your reasoning about Portman is correct, but the article still claims that Jerusalem is in Israel, this is irrelevant to the Portman article, and so can be removed without harm to the article IMHO. Be that as it may, I do think you are acting in good faith, and I hope you understand that I am. Although I think there are neutrality issues with the statement I don't think these issues are concerned with the subject of the article. I did consider putting an NPOV tag on the article, but have decided that this could be construed as inflamatory, and I have also come to the conclusion that, while I think it is a breach of the NPOV policy, it is not important vis a vis the main subject of the article. SO I will leave it as it is, I don't think we can gain any headway here and I do not think edit waring is of any benefit to any article. If it's OK with you I will archive the discussions regarding the status of Jerusalem in order to clear some space on the talk page. Alun 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, go ahead and archive the discussion. Thank you for ending this, I don't much enjoy these discussions. Mad Jack 06:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)