Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Is the language biased?

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 (contribs • talk) 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

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

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?

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)

• No. Jack Sebastian needs to drop the stick. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 10 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)

• Comment – respectfully, Jack Sebastian, are you hearing what most of us are saying? There's no use going around in circles. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:31, 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 (contribs • talk) 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 (contribs • talk) 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 (contribs • talk) 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). Tigraan^{Click 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

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)

• Or Sasson was just blocked as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditsOrArticles. -- GB fan 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Revisiting "a major role" wording

Back in July, several discussions were had regarding some of what I considered to be peacockery phrasing regarding two separate phrasings of Ms. Portmans's career progression. One of them was solved fairly quickly, whereas the other required two separate RfC's to delineate a perceived impasse. As tempers led people to become unreasonably intractable, a cooling off period seemed to be a good idea.

Its been two months since the conclusion of the last RefC, wherein the closing admin noted:

"...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

That one phrase was contained in the following sentence (in bold):

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films...as well as a major role in the Beautiful Girls, for which she garnered significant acclaim."

After waiting, I returned tot he article and - knowing that no source present int he article refers to the role as "a major one" - I realized that Portman was simply part of an ensemble cast of approximately twelve actors. Thus, I offered (as per the instructions of the closing admin) the following:

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films...as well as part of the ensemble cast of Beautiful Girls, for which she garnered significant acclaim."

This seems to work much better, and avoids the problems of citation that were the immovable point of contention from before. It's been reverted, so, as per WP:BRD, let's discuss why this doesn't work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a better idea:

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, Mars Attacks! and Beautiful Girls, garnering significant acclaim with the latter."

Hopefully this version makes sense and takes the size of the role out of the equation. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with this version. Rebbing 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Support 4TheWynne's version. It avoids the problematic appearance of peacockery and original research, while maintaining the factualness of the statement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose your proposed "rewording" as it saps the phrase of its meaning and was not required by the RFCs. And, yes, I know it clearly bothers you, but that does not give you the prerogative to change it against consensus (and the consensus here favored the prior version—had it not, your RFCs and follow-up discussions with the closers would not have been required). Rebbing 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd suggest that you might want to look at the RfC again. There is no cited reference considering her role in the film to be a "major" one, either explicitly or implicitly. She was a member of an ensemble; that's all. Calling it a 'major' role suggests that her role was more important than anyone else's; from the references present, that's simply not the case. Out job as editors is not to synthetically imply that her role was anything more than what it was. to do so is Original Research. And you do understand that we are revisiting this because consensus can and often does change. I am suggesting an uncontroversial change in the hopes that cooler heads will prevail this time.

That said, I like 4TheWynne's rewording, too. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. You have a point: the second RFC found no consensus for insisting that the exact language ("major") be supported, but still required that there be some sourcing for the language, which there is not: the Guthmann piece doesn't address the scope of her role, major or otherwise. I apologize for my hasty response. Rebbing 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose JB JS's suggestion and 4TheWynne's rewording for all the reasons stated the first two times this was discussed. If the strategy here is to bring this up again and again every few months, that can go both ways in the unlikely event that a new consensus develops. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You might consider that Wikipedia is not a battlefield. We are all here to make the article better and more accurate. This is to discuss how the statement in question might be improved. I had liked mine, but I like User:4TheWynne's alternative better. Instead of attacking other users, perhaps argue why you think your preferred version is in fact better. Anything else is dramahz. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I like it better the way it is. If the strategy here is to bring this up again and again every few months, that can go both ways in the unlikely event that a new consensus develops. Sundayclose (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Sundayclose, in case more people do end up opposing the current wording and agreeing with Jack Sebastian's argument in the future, wouldn't it just be safer to go with a more neutral wording that everyone can agree on (as I believe I have found)? This way we can put an end to the arguments. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring, 4TheWynne. For me it's a matter of prioritizing my preferences. First and foremost, I oppose any change to the term "major role" because it was, in fact, a major role. If for some reason that must be changed by consensus, I prefer your version over JB JS's, but I also agree with Rebbing that your use of several films waters down the wording, because her major role in Beautiful Girls was superior to the other films you list. I appreciate your efforts to achieve a "neutral" version. But to me the major role in BG deserves more than neutral wording. As I said, I could accept a modification of your version if and only if there is a clear consensus to remove "major role", but I would have to revisit that idea if the current consensus changes, and we're a long way from that happening. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, when you refer to "JB", are you in fact referring to me? I ask because unless you are sight-impaired, the initials of my username would be 'J.S.

Secondly, I was wondering if you could support your claim that it was a major role - perhaps with a reference or two. We can't use your assessment as an editor, because you can't be cited, any more than we can evaluate your personal claim that that Beautiful Girls was "superior to the other films". We use sources so that we can remain impartial. Please provide sources noting that this was a "major" role for Ms. Portman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the correction. I did in fact mean to type "JS". I have corrected my earlier posts. Sundayclose (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no attack in Sundayclose's comment. Moreover, this is your fourth thread arguing that the "major role" phrasing should be removed. Surely, you can't be surprised that bringing something up over and over and over again until you get your way would irritate some editors? Rebbing 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see an attack in his mistake, Rebbing, and I'm a little baffled as to why you would think so. Additionally, I am going to point out that that if I had wanted to "get my way", I would have insisted on my edit being used, which I clearly have not by preferring 4TheWynne's version. Let's not make this yet another battlefield, since that's what muddied up a solution last time - let's stay on track.

I've pointed out that if we are going to remain with qualifying Ms. Portman's as 'major', we need to support that. As per Wikipedia's Verification policy:

"Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." - WP:V

I'm sorry you find a return to the topic irritating, but that isn't my intent. Modifying the article to make it better, is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Above, you wrote: "Instead of attacking other users, perhaps argue why you think your preferred version is in fact better. Anything else is dramahz" (diff). Hopefully, this reminder clears up your confusion.

I am not suggesting that you are set on using a particular phrasing; rather, you I am pointing out that you appear determined to remove the "major role" language from the article. The discussion in April didn't go how you wanted it to, your two RFCs failed to eliminate the wording, and, this month, you tried yet again to force a change under the guise of a "copy edit," and you expect us to rehash this all over again. This is tiresome and disruptive.

The verifiability policy doesn't require that all material be supported by inline citations; rather, it merely requires that facts be verifiable. Here, the film itself is the source for the "major role" description. The previous discussions established that this is sufficient, and, despite your reasonable view on the matter, there is no consensus that such is original research. Rebbing 14:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you were referring to, Rebbing; you weren't referring to the mistake in initials, but instead the "If the strategy here is to bring this up again and again every few months, that can go both ways in the unlikely event that a new consensus develops" comment. Well, that was pretty snarky but, considering all the drama than came before, I thought it best to simply focus on the matter at hand. So yeah, it was a bit of a personal attack, but I mostly let it go, as previous bad blood.

I am quite determined to revise the language so it isn't an editor's determination that the role was major, but a reliable source saying it - that's how Wikipedia works. If there isn't a source describing the nature of a role, it isn't left to us to fill in the blanks.

Your assessment that the film is, by existing, proof that Ms. Portman's role was 'major' is incorrect. The film only verifies that the film exists. To state that a role of someone in a film is 'major' requires evaluation. Since there is no source noting the role for Portman as being major, we cannot add our own personal evaluation, which is precisely what you are advocating. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I was just having another look through previous discussions to figure out a way around this, and noticed the point that IJBall made about referring to the role, not as a "major role" (which could refer to either the film or Portman's career), but as a breakout role (referring to her career), which is more specific. Taking all of this into consideration, as an amendment of my previous suggestion for a rewording, we could do something like this:

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films Heat, Mars Attacks! and Everyone Says I Love You. Her breakout role came in the 1996 film Beautiful Girls, where she garnered significant acclaim."

In this case, we would use both the source already presented in the text and the one that IJBall presented with the "breakout role" idea. Hopefully this removes any kind of personal evaluation, and we have two sources to back up this fact. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the term 'breakout role' is as problematic as 'major', in that there is no referential reliable source for that qualification. Indeed, At least one source considers The Professional to be Ms. Portman's actual breakout role. I tend to think it was Black Swan, but the problem with stating that is that it's my assessment, just like User:JBal thought it was Beautiful Girls and Sundayclose thinks it was a 'major role'. I certainly don't think that this particular flop of a film afforded anyone a major role; it was a pretty drab little offering. Portman's done been acting jobs in better films.

The point here is this: if a source did not consider Ms. Portman's performance in this film to be a 'major role', we shouldn't be deciding that for ourselves. We cannot use our own impressions to qualify or quantify statements; we simply cite those that do. That's our job as editors.

So, i still like your offering:

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, Mars Attacks! and Beautiful Girls, garnering significant acclaim with the latter."

mainly because it has the virtue of being true. Portman was in fact singled out for her (non-major) roles. It meets our criteria for inclusion in that its cited and not a peacock term. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So, am I to gather that because no one voiced any comment after addressing the alternative wording, we're good to go? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: No, we're not good to go. There is no new consensus to overturn the previous consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So, I guess its time for a new RfC. There's no way that we get to superimpose our own views over that of reviewers; that's precisely what you are doing. Do you want to file it or should I? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If you file an RfC, there needs to be links to the previous three discussions (two of which are RfCs). Do you want to link them or should I? And I assume you know that the wording for RfCs must be absolutely neutral. Oh and by the way, there doesn't seem to be any limit on how often or how frequently RfCs can be filed on the issue of "major role." Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How would you want it phrased? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You're one of the few opposed to the current consensus. I'm fine without an RfC. I suggest if you start an RfC then post the wording here before making it official. Otherwise we may have a mess on top of a mess. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting your input so as to make sure the RfC isn't going to upset you and create a whole bunch of unnecessary prima donna dramah, If you were me, how would you phrase it? Other people shoudl feel free to offer suggestions as well. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't put myself into your head to think how I would word something if I were you because I don't think like you. To me the idea of a third RfC within a few months is absurd. I find no reason whatsoever to change the current consensus which retains the phrase "major role". So I can't formulate an RfC to the contrary. Secondly, I don't want my words to be used in an RfC such that it would even remotely suggest that I support the RfC in whole or in part. If others want to make suggestions, that's fine. But I again strongly suggest posting the wording here to avoid another dispute. If I think it's not neutral I'll let you know. Sundayclose (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:

"Does the evaluative qualifier "major role" require sourcing to a reliable source, or is it allowable for editors to determine the value of an actor's role without quoted sources?"

I think this sums up the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Phrases like "evaluative qualifier" and "without quoted sources" is suggestive of the point of view that the role is not a major role and that other means of identifying "major role" are irrelevant. The argument in all four discussions here has been that her first billing means it is a leading role (and I'm not going to re-argue that point again and again; I get your point that you demand a source, but I simply disagree with your point). I could easily formulate wording that suggests another point of view: "Does Natalie Portman's first billing in Beautiful Girls indicate that it can be described as a leading role?" Both my version and your version are non-neutral. I believe my version is less non-neutral, but that may be because I consider it a leading role. You asked me how it should be worded, so I just gave you my version. And by the way, we need to include links to the three previous discussions. Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you have understood my problem with the wording. I don't think it is up to us to determine if the role was major or not - we don't get to evaluate the weight of a role. That's the point of the RfC - to determine whether or not we as editors get to qualify a role as major or not.

Additionally, you are factually incorrect about Ms. Portman having "first billing". The cast was listed in alphabetical order, meaning Portman was something along the lines of 7 out of the dozen ensemble cast members listed. So, using incorrect info to an RfC isn't going to work.

Additionally, I can note the existence and summaries of the two prior RfC's, though i won't do so in the RfC itself. Too many factors to consider is what caused the initial RfC to be poorly constructed.

Lastly, I asked you for suggestions to see if you could stretch yourself more so as to move closer to a resolution. If you are simply going to treat every discussion we have as combat, you're only making the problem that much more difficult to solve. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Portman is one of 15 actors with top billing (out of about 50 actors). If you are simply going to treat every discussion we have as combat, you're only making the problem that much more difficult to solve. Sundayclose (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Was there a reason you repeated my post back to me? I am talking with you and treating you with respect and politelness. I am seeking your input. Stop fighting. Start working with me, please.

I am not sure where you are arriving at the aforementioned "fact" about Portman's billing position. In any case, that doesn't matter, as we are not talking about what I presume is her current status. Back when Beautiful Girls was made, she was part of an ensemble cast, and the youngest of them. They listed the cast in the opening and closing credits in alphabetical order. So, she was in the top 12 of a 12-person ensemble piece. That doesn't qualify as a major role.

Now stop and reread that last sentence, please. We are not discussing Portman's current status; we are discussing only the role in a movie from 20 years ago. If you think that Beautiful Girls was a major role for her, then there must be references that call it that. After all, its been 20 years for reviewers to weigh in, since she wasn't a one-hit wonder. All we are focusing on is her role in that one movie. Since she has gone on to bigger and better things, I can totally understand your inclination to want to give her major billing status. But back then, she was just an actor alongside other actors in a ensemble movie that was largely panned by critics. Lets call it what it was, because anything else is dishonest. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And I have repeatedly tried to talk to you and treat you with respect. But it is you who declared you "don't like" me (I can give you a diff if you insist); it is you who followed my edits to pages you had never edited simply to challenge me and stir up trouble. It is you who falsely stated that I made personal attacks in this very discussion, an accusation that was called out by another editor. It is you who asked for a discussion of wording this RfC then plowed ahead after I made only one suggestion simply because you didn't like what I had to say. It is you in a previous RfC on this issue who falsely stated that I opposed your suggested changes because my feelings were hurt because of your "brusque style". It is you who accused me in yet a different RfC on this issue of "passive-aggressiveness." It is you who in previous discussion on this issue who described others' opinions (not just mine) as "stupid" (and that's just one I happen to remember; there are other such demeaning descriptions). The lack of respect goes both ways Jack. Anyone who takes a look at your interactions with me and others can easily see that. If you want to accuse me of disrespect, that's fine; but don't try to pretend that your edits on this issue in the four discussions don't have numerous instances of lack of respect. And I don't intended to argue for fourth time issues such as "top billing" because you refuse to accept anything I say, regardless of whether it has merit or not; you refuse because you "don't like" me. I may have some comments below in the RfC, but I will no longer respond to you in this section because it's an utter waste of time. In the eloquent words of another editor, I will "back the fuck off, lickety-split." So let's see how this third RfC in six months goes. And there's a good chance there'll be a fourth, either started by you or me. And by the way, you don't own the RfC below. When you write it with bias, editors are entitled to challenge it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which is the better statement?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion below shows no clear consensus for any one of the originally listed "Alternatives" nor explicitly for the original phrasing (which has changed slightly by this time). Many editors !vote for multiple or none of the presented alternatives. The only clear consensus is that policies and guidelines require any description of this movie, or Portman's role within it, to present verifiable citations. The only citation given states: "The most impressive performer is Natalie Portman...but Portman is such a graceful actress, and so astonishingly talented, that she makes the character work." There is no evaluation of the prominence of her role but there is clear evaluation of the quality. This makes the consensus for verifiable descriptions weigh against using the term "major role". (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Given the existing text:

"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films A, B and C, as well as a major role in Beautiful Girls, for which she garnered significant acclaim."

can the editors use the qualifier "major role" to define the role, or is it original research to add the phrase without supporting citation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative phrasings

• Leave as is, the editors should be allowed to evaluate the quality of the role without exact sourcing as to phrasing.
• Alternative #1, "During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films A, B and C and Beautiful Girls, garnering significant acclaim with the latter.".
• Alternative #2, "During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films A, B and C. Her breakout role came in the 1996 film Beautiful Girls, where she garnered significant acclaim."
• Alternative #3,"'"During the mid-1990s, Portman had roles in the films A, B and C. Her performance in the small ensemble film Beautiful Girls garnered significant acclaim."

Note

The question of phrasing had been the subject of two earlier RfCs, linked here and here. The first RfC's closing Admin took note of the poor phrasing of the RfC and that use of the term "major role" was not biased. It was suggested that another, better crafted RfC be submitted to address the matter.
The closing admin on the second RfC noted that, as one word had generated so much debate, it would have been wise to "rephrase the sentence altogether, and present the available information in another way."¹

Note

There have been three previous discussions on this issue in the last six months, all started by the same editor. Two were RfCs linked above, and an earlier discussions at Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3#Major roles. Also see the discussion immediately above this current RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Revisiting "a major role" wording. The first RfC was closed with the statement "there is a very strong consensus that 'a major role' is not biased." The second RfC was closed with the comment "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." In all four discussions an important point argued for keeping the current consensus of "major role" is that other means of determining major role, such as Portman's top billing in the film, can be used.

Er, you do see the notes section immediately above this that says the same thing, right? Your're supposed to present a neutral Notes section, without rendering your opinion. This is not very neutral. Allow people to weigh in, and stop being afraid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that inadequate and biased note. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And it bears repeating that Portman did not have "top billing" in the film, it was an ensemble piece, and opening and closing credits arranged the 12-person cast in alphabetical order. The movie bombed, btw. I just thought it might be helpful for visitors to have actual facts to aid their decision-making. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Portman is one of 15 actors with top billing (out of about 50 actors). You're denying it doesn't make it untrue. Now, how about we both drop this and let others leave their comments below. Lickety-split. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Top billing, by its very definition, means that Portman would be in either the first or second position in credits. This is the film's open and end credits (as they appear):

Matt Dillon, Noah Emmerich, Annabeth Gish, Lauren Holly, Timothy Hutton, Rosie O'Bonnell, Max Perlich, Martha Plimpton, Natalie Portman, Michael Rapaport, Mira Sorvino, Uma Thurman, Pruitt Taylor Vince

Note the alphabetical order of the cast. 'Way back in '96, Hutton, Sorvino and Thurman were the big names in this film. Two of them Hutton and Sorvino, were Academy Award winners (Sorvino had just won her Oscar the year before). Had any of these people wanted top billing, its quite likely they would have gotten it. At this juncture of her career, Portman had only three films under her belt, which was what got her into the cast, but wouldn't have afforded her top billing.

So I am a little confused as to why you think that she was in the top 15 for billing in 1996. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining how all top billed actors can also be listed in alphabetical order. I'm sure I don't have to explain that "top billing" and alphabetical order are not mutually exclusive. As I said above I'm not explaining this any more because it has been explained ad nauseum and I'm not taking your baiting for an endless argument. Pretend you're confused from now until doomsday. You and I are finished on "top billing". Sundayclose (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather you not insult me at all, Sundayclose. ;)

And, by very definition, top billing, suggests that certain performers are the money-makers (ie, their name brings the moviegoer to the theater),and so their name appears first in the credits. Certain directors prefer to list cast in alphabetical order, to sidestep the egos that go along with billing issues^[4]. So, the terms are, in fact, mutually exclusive. As you have brought no references noting Ms. Portman's billing status in 1995-96, I must presume that there isn't one.

And no, you don't have to re-explain yourself. If you had references, they would do the explaining for you, but none of those have been presented in support of your view. I have brought over a dozen. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• As is. I have no doubt about the purity of Jack Sebastian's motives, but it is disruptive and a tremendous waste of the community's time to raise the same pedantic issue time and again in discussions, RFCs, and through contentious editing in hope that the answer will be different. This question was squarely addressed by the most recent RFC, "Does a 'major' role need to be cited as such by reliable sources?", which found no consensus for removing the "major role" language, and it should not be debated yet again simply because one editor is dissatisfied with the outcome of his previous proposals. I would have more sympathy for his concern if this were the most significant sourcing issue here, but it isn't. Rebbing 13:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your vote is not actually about content, but about the fact that its been raised before. In essence, your vote is a protest vote. Thanks - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the last two RFCs, my view is that the original research policy isn't to be interpreted in the absurdly strict way that you propose. The fact that I chose to predicate my vote on procedure instead of answering the question a third time does not make my vote irrelevant. Rebbing 17:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Thanks for your comments. The clarification was entirely unnecessary, but thanks for providing it. I would appreciate it if editors could be allowed to express their opinions without them being mischaracterized and challenged. To that end, I'm creating a threaded discussion below that can be used instead of constant back and forth here in the !votes section. Sundayclose (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: How is my read of OR "absurdly strict"? If you make a bold claim, you have to support it with references if challenged - plainly spelled out. Because we in fact have sources that directly contradict this claim, how is it either absurd or strict?Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I again would like to remind editors to place extended discussion in the "Threaded Discussion" subsection below. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but isn't it easier to follow a threaded discussion when replies are threaded immediately below the comments to which they reply rather than being placed in a separate section? Rebbing 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's absurd, in my opinion, in that it stretches OR beyond what it was intended to cover. I believe your position is analogous to using BURDEN to demand that someone provide a citation proving that the sky is blue. However, your position as expressed in your vote is not without merit; I simply happen to disagree with you. Also, make no mistake: I am not disputing the policy; I understand that local consensus can't overrule guidelines or policies. The only question is how the original research and verifiability policies apply to these circumstances: a question we are permitted to decide. Rebbing 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Rebbing. So, if I am to understand you correctly, you feel that I am too narrowly interpreting the V and OR policies in requiring a descriptive statement to be referenced. Is that a fair assessment of your position? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Mostly, yes, it is. My position is that, by analogy to WP:FILMPLOT, Beautiful Girls is the source for the statement; however, I am startled to realize my memory of FILMPLOT is way off. Also, reconsidering, I realize my stance regarding OR would be unsupportable either way: if editors can reasonably disagree about an interpretation, that shows that the interpretation is not so obvious that my proposed "minimal and obvious conclusion" exception to OR should apply (assuming such an exception exists at all). With apologies to all, I withdraw both my vote and my opposition to this discussion. Rebbing 00:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• As is for all of the reasons I've given in the two previous RfCs. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Alternative #3 and, to a lesser extent, Alternative #1. While I understand that there are some who annoyed that this topic has come around again, the fact remains that there is no reference that supports that this was a major role for Ms.Portman. Stated another way, in over twenty years, not one single reviewer has noted that this was a major role for her. What they have noted, however, was that this was a (terribly flawed) ensemble piece (1, 2, 3). As editors, we don't get to invent stuff without sources to back them up. Alternatives #1 and #3 allow us to state the simple truth that we have collected via sources.

I believe that the reticence of other editors to follow this idea is based upon Ms. Portman's later success. She is a big star now, but not so much back then. Due to this reasoning, calling her role a "major" one appears to be Original Research. We don't get to list our personal opinions in articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I came to this article in April for the RFC. I have no personal interest in Ms. Portman's career: before I read this article, the entirety of my knowledge about her was that she was the lead in Black Swan, a film I barely remember; I was not aware that she was a star. Rebbing 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

She's a stunningly adept actor with instincts that much older actors never develop. Her performance in a film is usually a treat, since there is such effortless depth to anyone she plays. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - So is there not a source describing her role in Beautiful Girls as "major"? If there is, I support keeping as is - if there isn't, leave it out. Meatsgains (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, no, there isn't, hence why Jack Sebastian has so vehemently presented this argument. The debate is more over consensus and/or rewording, hence why it has dragged out this long. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me up to speed. Let me read through the discussions before casting my vote/argument. Meatsgains (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want, I could sum up the remove "major role" argument in less than a paragraph; some of that material is dense and full of a bit of snark, both on my part and others. Walls of text with added snark aren't that much fun to wade through... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so you don't need to be told what to do. You are quite entitled to read the entire discussion. If you want a balanced perspective, I personally would encourage you to do so, including the three previous discussions (two of those RfCs) that have occurred in the last six months, as well as the discussion immediately above this RfC. I welcome your opinions, even if they differ from mine. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - same as the last RfC, either cite it or remove it. If it's such a widespread belief that it was a "major role", then there shouldn't be a problem finding a source to verify it. And in good faith, I can't support any of the alternatives either, at the present time the source being used to support that sentence, SF Gate, doesn't even mention she had "roles in the films Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, and Mars Attacks!", nor does the source support that she "garnered significant acclaim" for her role. My personal opinion is that "major role" should be changed to a memorable role, and then find some movie reviews to support the "significant acclaim" POV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In previous discussions, I probably didn't mind how the sentence was reworded, but I did quietly agree that "major role" needed to be phased out somehow, even though I wasn't really as strong on it. Now that my suggestions are being used here – though I didn't expect everyone to agree with them – I'll back myself in. For the reasons stated above when I first added the suggestions in, I think that either of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be a reasonable and (hopefully) more neutral way to reword the sentence if the disputed wording of "major role" isn't sourced. I don't think that the original research claim, which brought forth this discussion, is unreasonable – what I don't agree with, however, is implying that "breakout role" is just another way of (or is just as contentious as) saying "major role". All in all, I just don't want things to get too personal here, regarding editing and/or behaviour, so I'll just quickly have my say here and be done with it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If there is a reliable source that mentions the belief that Natalie Portman gained notierty after the movie "Beautiful Girls" was released, then the wording can be left as is. If there's not, then the part about "major roles" should be removed as original research. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 Either way, this seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot. But then I suppose such wordings, like having top billing, are things that ultimately "matter." I have looked over the information above, and don't feel convinced that the term "major role" is warranted for her role in Beautiful Girls. Having said that, it appears to have been a significant point in her career, therefore it warrants some elevation. I like the wording of both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. I just watched her last night in V for Vendetta, and was again impressed with her work. Disclaimer: I am not an established Portman fan, nor movie critic, nor film industry insider. I am just an editor with an opinion. Hope that is helpful! KDS4444 (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alternative #1 seems to be the best of the lot. I personally do not prefer using adjectives like "major" role unless sources have identified it as such. In addition the more important point here is that Natalie Portman received significant acclaim for this role. Keep that! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Summoned by bot. This is a question that often confronts us, and I think that often in these entertainment articles editors try their hands at being "entertainment writers," assessing what has happened in an actor's career. That usually goes by unremarked in an article on an obscure actor long dead, but for someone still living it requires special care for BLP reasons. My feeling is that the present language or any of the alternatives is fine as long as it is a fair summary of what the reliable sources say. We don't have to footnoted it necessarily, but the important thing is that it not be some Wikipedia editor's judgment. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My point precisely. Denoting a role as "major" is the fabrication of a single editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea as to whether that word is substantiated by the sourcing, but it has to be. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please use this section for more detailed discussion so the section above doesn't become cluttered with back and forth discussion. This is a common practice in RfCs. Thanks.)

The Beautiful Girls (film)#Critical response includes a quote describing Portman as a scene stealer, which is a strong indication that she had a supporting role. I think Alt 2 is a better way to phrase it. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, but subsequent roles have already been referenced as her 'breakout roles'. The references we have for Ms. Portman singled her out for praise, which is why # and #1 are closer to the citable accuracy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That section is misnamed. By all the definitions on Breakthrough role, Portman's breakthrough role was no later than Anywhere but Here, for which she received an award nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree - most of the section titles presuppose an evaluative quality to her success that seems synthesized from the roles. Any ideas on how to address those as well? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There's another issue that speaks directly to the issue of POV. Anyone who was around at the time who saw Léon: The Professional when it came out immediately recognized a major talent in Portman. To a number of critics, and I guess I could go back and look them up but my memory of this is vivid, this first role was also her breakout role. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Following that logic, wouldn't any role that helped you land another role be a breakout role? I thought that breakout roles were those wherein people would shop scripts to you and even build a cast around you. The difference between a breakout and a top-billed star is the whole, 'cast 'em because they bring in investment' thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a reasonable interpretation. Mine has always been that a breakout role is one that garners you special attention by audiences, press and critics. Lots of character actors have breakout roles in a movie for which they're particularly remembered, and that doesn't mean that character actor will bring in investment. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I was summoned to this discussion by a bot, so I'm not familiar enough with actor articles to suggest a fix. Philip Seymour Hoffman is an FA, could the structure there be applied here? I don't think it would require a rewrite, maybe just moving the section breaks and renaming them. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Well, for sure, that would be something to address, but that wasn't really within the scope of this RfC, which was to address the use of the (unreferenced) qualifier "major" in Ms. Portman's role in Beautiful Girls and to decide on the appropriate alternative language for a replacement. Section titling could use some work, but one step at a time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was what you were looking for when you asked for ideas on how to address section titles... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 7 November 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.

Place of Birth

Other pages list the city and country of birth. Therefore, this page should include this information as well. OrionTanhauser (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't like other articles. The state Jerusalem belongs to is disputed, and it's not up to Wikipedia to resolve that dispute. The article is clear the way it is. Portman was born in Jerusalem and is an Israeli citizen, just as many other people were born in Jerusalem and are Palestinian citizens. Adding one particular country is problematic and unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But when she was born it was Israel. If she was born prior to 1948, you'd have a point. Plenty of people who have pages and were born in Jerusalem also lists the country of Israel. OrionTanhauser (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your first point, it doesn't matter. We are making a statement in Wikipedia's voice as to what country Jerusalem belongs to. Portman is essentially irrelevant to that issue. As to your second point, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition to Bbb23's excellent points, this has been discussed numerous times on this talk page, and there has never been a consensus to identify the country of birth. Read the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Erdos–Bacon number

It took an anon IP to notice it, but they were right: Not one of the cited sources in the claim about an Erdos–Bacon number even used the term Erdos-Bacon. They were simply links to scientific papers. All this time, that sentence clearly violated the guideline for no original research. Before it can be reinserted, that has to be addressed or else it's a violative edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Would this source qualify? http://erdosbaconsabbath.com/natalie-portman/ EdvinW (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a self-published website of dubious provenance. We need a reliable source. --Jayron32 14:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a source from The Nerdist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a reliable source. More like a blog than anything else. Stepping back a moment, why is her Erdos-Bacon number even noteworthy? Sounds like amusing trivia to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

From my understanding, The Nerdist, is not a SPS and the author is an associate editor at Collider as well. Trivia is about context and presentation (see WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA). An isolated factoid as it was presented here was trivial, but if it is coupled together in the boarder context of the actress's educational background and perhaps with a brief explanation of its rarity then maybe not. The same thing could be said for EGOT winners. Saying "Whoopi Goldberg has an EGOT" by itself may look trivial but if placed with other information about her accomplishments then it isn't.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited verified each connection point for the Erdos number. The connection with Bacon was missing, which could easily be added. At one time it was included, resulting a long string of citations, and there were arguments that there were too many citations. I know the purists who hate trivia of any type will say such sources are original research and insist that the exact phrase "Erdos-Bacon number" must be included in a source. I mean no disrespect to editors who sincerely object to inclusion of her EBN, but let's address the elephant in the room. For years the issue of whether her EBN is worthy of inclusion has popped up on the talk page (check the archives). Beyond the letter-of-the-law insistence that the phrase should be in a cited source, the real reason this trivia is challenged from time to time is that some people simply don't like it. The IP who removed it said it's a "pointless 'fact'". There has never been a consensus that it should be removed. So once again, let's have the debate about whether her EBN is encyclopedic. Is this trivia worthy of inclusion? I think it should be because it reflects an aspect of Portman's life that is rarely seen in a celebrity. But that's my opinion, and those who don't like it have their opinions. Let's focus on the real issue. Sundayclose (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: "The sources cited verified each connection point for the Erdos number." So this is WP:SYNTH, which is disallowed. There needs to be an WP:RS cite specifically stating the claimed fact, aside from any consideration of whether it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I think this is beyond what we would call a routine calculation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And I agree with TriiipleThreat that the podcast The Nerdist, founded by Chris Hardwick and run as a professional operation, is a reliable source. In context, however, it's clear they're just sourcing Wikipedia, so that's WP:CIRCULAR. I'm not sure this claim ever originated in a reliable source that extrapolated it, but was just some editor's OR.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree as well. This is WP:SYNTH. I am unable to find any secondary sources for her Erdos-Bacon number. (This is unlike certain people such as Danica McKellar, in which case I have observed sources actually discussing the Erdos-Bacon number). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree it is technically synthesis, although the conclusion reached from the synthesis is very obvious and could be allowed by consensus if there is a citation to a source that explains how the EBN is calculated. As an extreme example of how synthesis could be permitted, if there is a source stating that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is 239,000 miles, and another source stating that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is 93,000,000 miles, but neither source states that the Moon is closer than the Sun, it technically is synthesis to state that the Moon is closer. But I don't think anyone would object to it. My point is, I think a lot of the objection to including her EBN is that it is useless trivia. I think the synthesis issue is secondary. Sundayclose (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, with me, the SYNTH, which as TriiipleThreat notes is beyond mere calculation, is the primary thing. I've objected to it as indiscriminate before, but I haven't deleted it after discussion on that subjective issue. SYNTH, on the the other hand, seems objectively a vio. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable sources are not just necessary to establish that something is real, they are also necessary to establish relevance. The kind of things that are allowable calculations at Wikipedia are things like calculating age from birthdate, or calculating simple conversions between measurement systems. Stuff of that nature. I can do a random calculation of any number of things, but without a reliable source establishing the relevance of that data in the first place, it's pointless. Being true is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is all about that. That is, information should be verifiably true, but that isn't enough. It also needs to be verifiably relevant. --Jayron32 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Precisely. The WP:WEIGHT is the reason why we need secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I respect the objection based on synthesis. But I also think allowing the reader to easily do the math in his/her head is a type of s synthesis that can be allowed by consensus. I've seen other articles (wish I could remember which) in which there were arguments based on synthesis involving some easy math to reach a conclusion, but after discussion the synthesis was allowed. I think much of the discussion here and in the archives relates to whether the fact is worthy of inclusion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Walk us through it. I have to admit, I'm not sure how a number is calculated from simply citing five or six or however many studies. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Erdos-Bacon number gives details and has examples that cite each publication that makes the Erdos connection and each film that makes the Bacon connection, including Portman's. I don't think there's any doubt that she actually has a finite EBN. But I think the first order of business is deciding whether the fact should be in the article even if synthesis is allowed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

With all respect to, clearly, a responsible and collegial editor, I have to say this really doesn't seem like a simple math calculation:

Israeli-American actress Natalie Portman has an Erdős–Bacon number of 7. She collaborated (using her birth name, Natalie Hershlag) with Abigail A. Baird,[19] who has a collaboration path[20][21][22] leading to Joseph Gillis, who has an Erdős number of 1.[23] Portman appeared in A Powerful Noise Live (2009) with Sarah Michelle Gellar, who appeared in The Air I Breathe (2007) with Bacon, giving Portman a Bacon number of 2 and an Erdős number of 5.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if the calculation were fine (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's not relevant to this point), it doesn't make any difference. Natalie Portman's Erdos number should only be included if reliable sources have covered it independent of Wikipedia. That's the purpose of relevance. Being true doesn't mean anything if it isn't relevant to the biography. And like anything else at Wikipedia, we don't establish relevance by mere assertion. We establish it by reference to reliable, independent sources. --Jayron32 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The easiest part is her Bacon number. She was in a film with Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was in a film with Bacon. That gives her a Bacon number of two (i.e., two films to connect Potman and Bacon). The Erdos number is the same process except the connection is made through scholarly publications with co-authors. She co-authored a paper while at Harvard. Through one of her co-authors, we count the number of publications to connect her with Erdos (which is 5). EBN is simply a total of the number of films to connect to Bacon and the number of publications to connect to Erdos. Hypothetically, if she was in a film with Bacon she would have a Bacon number of 1; if she wrote a paper with Erdos, her Erdos number would have been 1, giving her an EBN of 2. But the connection for her is indirect, requiring us to count the number of films and the number of articles. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, and I swear I'm not being snarky, do you really, truly believe that this is "simple calculation" like getting age from a birthdate? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't think you or anyone here is being snarky or insincere. I do think it is simply a matter of counting number of films and counting number of publications, then adding the two. But I guess that's why we have these discussions, to see whether my idea of simple is the same as what others think. I guess my primary aim here is to separate the two issues: synthesis and notability. If the consensus is that either of those is a serious problem, then the item cannot be in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We can concede that your calculation is OK. It still isn't appropriate to include the results of your calculation in the article if it isn't relevant to the biography of this person. Where is your reliable source that establishes the relevance of her Erdos or Bacon number? --Jayron32 02:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but lots of things in lots of articles don't have reliable sources stating that particular details are relevant. Relevance can be a matter of opinion, and often is in deciding what to include in a Wikipedia article. Where is the reliable source stating the relevance of her father being a gynecologist? Or the relevance of where her parents met? Or the relevance of where she went to elementary school? Again, I'm not trying to take the argument to an extreme (for example, asking whether we should include her shoe size). Relevance can be a matter of consensus, which is one reason we are having this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that goes for claims of relevance. Presumably, many academics who have published just about anything plausibly have an Erdos number, yet few biographies of even professional scholars whose primary claim to notability is their scholarly work have biographies that mention Erdos number. Why would it be relevant to an article about a person whose primary claim to notability is as an actor? Sure, there are things which relevance is common and presumed, for example in an article on an actor, it is presumed that major acting roles are relevant, because they're actors. However, the more extraordinary the claim of relevance, the more important the need for solid sources. You're taking an abstract bit of trivia, one which I might add isn't even worth mentioning among the very people whom it is supposed to assess, and trying to put it in an article on an actor. You'd need a rather extraordinary source to back that claim up. --Jayron32 03:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, what is the relevance of father's job, where parents met, and where she went to elementary school in the biography of someone whose notability is an actor? It's a matter of opinion about what is relevant enough to include in a Wikipedia article. We could argue till the cows come home about the relevance of many details in the article. Are you suggesting that EBN should not be a matter of discussion on this talk page? If I remove her father's occupation as irrelevant, do we have to find a source that it is and not allow discussion here until such a source is provided? Sundayclose (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to discuss it. I'm sure this is as much fun for you as it is for me. But you've provided no evidence that it's important to write into the article. You've asserted that it is. Anyone can assert anything, but when challenged, you should produce sources to verify your assertions. A sentence about her father's job is fine, we have sources that say what her father's job was. We don't have sources for the notion that an Erdos-Bacon number is anything except an odd bit of trivia, and no sources that it's important to mention in a biography of Natalie Portman. Can you point us to any reliable biography of Portman that also discusses it? Anything that isn't circularly referenced to Wikipedia itself? Any reliable biography that discusses her Erdos Bacon number before it was written about in Wikipedia? --Jayron32 03:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point us to a reliable source that her father's job is relevant to her biography? Not your opinion that "her father's job is fine", but a reliable source. Probably not. But if someone challenged including her father's job, a consensus here would be quite sufficient to include it. In the case of EBN, I'm fine with not including it if no consensus supports inclusion. But I do believe that consensus would be sufficient to include it. I see that you started an RfC below, which is an excellent idea and actually makes my point about consensus. And with that, I think I've made my point and see no need to repeat myself. Thanks for the discussion and starting the RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of Portman's Erdos-Bacon number in the text of this article

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.

---

This RFC is narrowly focused on the following question "Should this article discuss Portman's Erdos-Bacon number?" Please respond below. --Jayron32 04:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support or oppose

• Oppose No reliable biography, interview, or work about her life or work outside of Wikipedia has been produced which also discusses it. --Jayron32 04:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Never heard of that Erdős–Bacon number and I will try to restrain myself from submitting Erdős–Bacon number article to WP:AfD and let whoever was silly enough to come up with the concept have their fun. But not with our major articles, please! I just hope it doesn't catch on outside the small sphere who think it has some deep meaning. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – not without a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose thank you for posting this to the ref desk so i could learn about the erdos bacon number =D 64.170.21.194 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. As was noted early on in the discussion by TriipleThreat, I think it's important to see to the context, as an inclusion highlights Portman's various talants. Portman is primarily know as an actress, which makes the finite Erdős number interesting. Had she been primarily known as a scientist it might not had been so noteworthy. The Erdős number is a well known, established concept among mathematicians, probably more so than the combined Erdős–Bacon number, and it is primarily the Erdős number I think should be mentioned. Mentioning the Bacon number for an actor, or the Erdős number (perhaps unless very low) for a mathematician or other scientist, I agree could be seen as meaningless trivia.

Regarding the OR, yes, this might be just over the line if we see to the guidelines and apply them strictly. Maybe there would be less of a violation if we were to state the Erdős number separately? EdvinW (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose even if reliably sourced. Also, the material about Portman's numbers are set forth in greater detail in the Erdos-Bacon article itself and appears to be synthesis at best. Finally, if there is a consensus for including this "world phenomenon", it shouldn't be in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nonsensical fancruft. Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Not that I think this has a chance of getting consensus, but I gotta be true to my convictions. :) It may be trivia, but it's good trivia. When we finish here, let's all go over to Adam Rutherford, who has one of those despicable Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath numbers. Sundayclose (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I just spent too much of my life looking at the erdos-bacon number. As one of three sources say, it is an interesting game. The number does not appear to be anything taken seriously. This is trivia and is not something that needs to be included in any biography. - GB fan 20:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Since there appears to be no RS discussing this, it cannot possibly pass this RfC, suggest it be withdrawn. I echo the thoughts of David Tornheim, that the main article is at best, a harmless piece of trivia. Summoned by bot Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it suffices to cover her academic background, including any publications that put her on the Erdos collaboration graph. And of course, any films that put her on the Bacon graph, without mentioning her distance from either of those giants. People like me who think Erdos-Bacon numbers are interesting will understand the implications of her publications list without needing it called it out explicitly. And as other commenters have said, the number is a comparatively unimportant bit of trivia in the context of her overall biography. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above - if there are no RS discussing this, it is OR and should not be included. Even past that fundamental objection, the "Erdős–Bacon number" seems like very specific (small audience, potentially unencyclopedic) trivia and I'd oppose it's inclusion on those grounds as well. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an Erdos number is valid and noteable, but an Erdos-Bacon number, pure trivia, keep it out! К Ф Ƽ Ħ 16:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the multitude of reasons I've brought up on this page periodically. It's indiscriminate trivia and, as presented here, WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too trvial, niche, crufty, and absolutely synth a factoid for an encyclopedic summary of Portman as a topic. I will grant you, with her rare status of having been credited in genuine research (although an admittedly minor amount), while also being a major Hollywood star, she is certainly one of a select number of people to whom the concept particularly applies (for those who are interested in such arbitrary intersections). But we'd this to appear in multiple high quality sources as a topic of discussion before it could both qualify for encyclopedic relevance and avoid running afoul of WP:SYNTH. Notice that the same approach is apparently being used for all of the individuals discussed in the Erdős–Bacon number article itself, and probably should be discussed there. In those instances, the encyclopedic relevance concern is arguably less pronounced, but the SYNTH problems remain off the charts. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. How silly. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose bot summoned You want me to accept that thing which is responsible for so much vandalism? I'll legalise grand theft cruise missile first. L3X1 (distant write) 04:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I put my deletion career on the line by AfDing Erdo-Bacon number, and I mean it in all seriousness, that isn't a pre-mature April fools POINTY AfD.L3X1 (distant write) 04:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

I think this RfC is premature, we need to find a source first then discuss the merits of including it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is without a RS this discussion is pointless. We do not include original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How widely has this been covered by RS? --Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natalie Portman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150406105839/https://screen.yahoo.com/snl-digital-short-natalie-raps-000000618.html to https://screen.yahoo.com/snl-digital-short-natalie-raps-000000618.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Born in West Jerusalem

Natalie born in West Jerusalem, west of the green line in Hadassah Medical Center. Therefore she born in Israel's Internationally recognized sovereignty territories. We need to mention that she born in Israel (and I've already read the discussions here). Sokuya (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you've read all of the discussions in the entirety of the archives, including those devoted specifically to "Jerusalem and Israel", then you know that this issue has been discussed extensively several times; the consensus has always been overwhelmingly against including country of birth, although clearly she is an Israeli citizen. Wikipedia is neutral regarding which country has any legitimate claim to Jerusalem or any specific parts of Jerusalem. Wikipedia may discuss political controversies, but it never takes a position on any controversy. Wikipedia is not here "to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs" on any issue or any side of an issue. You will need an equally overwhelming consensus to change the current consensus because this is such a sensitive issue. If you decide you want to continue arguing this point, please try to avoid repeating all of the previous arguments; all of us are capable of reading them and it would only annoy most of us. Sundayclose (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Her "first" academy award

This implicitly suggests that she's going to get more academy awards, which (as I mentioned) violates WP:CRYSTAL; every casual reader will scour the article looking for her second academy award, or third, etc. We have no idea what comes next for her, award-wise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It could very well be language to avoid, yes, but you see it written in news articles all the time – some of them, describing her receiving the award at the time, could very well have said, "Portman has won her first Academy award" or "congratulations to Portman on receiving her first Academy award" – so I don't see too much wrong with it. Also, if that was you who reverted me, don't use caps to shout in your edit summaries, and don't create "nonedits", as that's just disruptive. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use "her first Academy Award for Best Actress" here. It's confusing since it does indeed suggest that there is at least one more. This use of first appears to be a count, particularly when followed immediately by "her second Golden Globe", rather than simply an indication of the first time something has happened.

It's not disruptive for an editor to make a dummy edit to state that an IP edit was theirs. Reverting such an edit is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, Meters. And Wynne, if I hadn't noted that the IP edit was mine, someone with an axe to grind might have accused me of socking through an IP. So, I let everyone know asap. And, if anything, reverting a non-edit of clarification is pretty much textbook disruption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Although this is not a WP:REICHSTAG issue for me and I think 4TheWynne edits in good faith, I don't see that it adds anything to use the word "first" and, in fact, could be confusing. I also don't think news articles should be the standard for an encyclopedia (and often are not the standard that Wikipedia uses). If we want to make a comparison to another publication, it should be a reputable encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica simply states: "Black Swan (2010) won her an Academy Award". 23:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anywhere but here

If she turned down the lead in Anywhere but here, then accepted the redraft how did she get nominated for best supporting actress? Surely it would have made more sense if she was nominated for best leading actress. Mobile mundo (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, someone (producer? studio?) submit entries, they deem someone to be a lead or supporting, or if a movie is a drama or comedy.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natalie Portman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123210534/http://bauergriffinonline.com/2008/05/index18.php to http://bauergriffinonline.com/2008/05/index18.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem nonsense

I don't understand this idiocy; we are speaking about West Jerusalem, which is within the 1949 armistice lines, if that's not part of Israel, not even Tel Aviv is. And if you look at the article Jerusalem District, you will learn that only the eastern part of the city is under dispute. If nobody answers this, I will revert again. Anyone who stops me without an explanation is engaging in vandalism. Sincerely, Backarn (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't you go round trying to tell people how Wikipedia works – look at how long it took you just to open a discussion. Before making your next comment, please read the appropriate discussions (regarding Jerusalem and the opening sentence) in Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4 and Talk:Natalie Portman/Jerusalem and Israel. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I just read it and I didn't find anything contradicting what I just wrote. You've got one hour to issue such a contradiction, or I'm reverting again. Backarn (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories question

According to the article she is from Jericho, NY and went to two different schools in Long Island, so why are we listing her in Category:People from New Hyde Park, New York and Category:People from Syosset, New York? That doesn't add up. Govvy (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Use dictionary key to write name at birth

Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג still displays in a cached version of this page when I do a bing search on this wikipedia page. Is there a standard on using non-Latin characters? Clearly, the birth name could be transliterated as Neta-Lee Hershlag, but it was not written like that at birth. Why not use a pronunciation key instead of pretending that the name at birth was written in the Latin alphabet? /nɛta-li/ MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I added the Hebrew names. Sokuya (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sokuya: You added redundant information. נטע־לי הרשלג was already in the note beside Neta-Lee Hershlag; you have to click the superscript "a" to read it. Please remove your addition because it is in the note, and the note gives more detail about her birth name. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the edit. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the 'a' subscript only designates her Hebrew name, it doesn't have "נטע-לי הרשלג". You're right to maintain as it is not in the subscript. LivinRealGüd (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)