Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Natalie Portman talk page (Discussion page). (February 2007 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Archive

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

Theater or Theatre ?

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

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

Trivia

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.131.148 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

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

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

Is she dead?

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

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

Natalie Portman's birth date

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

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

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

I'm wondering...

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

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

Same here.

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

Languages spoken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable GA status ?

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

Juxtaposition?

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

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

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

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

Filmography: Film/TV

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

Jerusalem, Israel

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

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

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

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

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

Jerusalem

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

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

When she gained fame?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portman's intelligence

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

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

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

Portman's background

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

A little Comment on the photo shown in the article

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

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

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

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

Just a little comment

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

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

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

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

March 2009 (UTC)

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

User-08burgelaura 19:45, 25 March 2009

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

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

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

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

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

I removed lots of them yesterday :) User08burgelaura 17:52, 26 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk)

I don't like to use them!!!!!!!!!!! I think they're annoying!!!!!!!!!!! I used them because you did!!!!!!!!!!!! Ward3001 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still using them then? User-08burgelaura 16:58, 28 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk)

Read what I said above!!!!!!!!!! I used them because you did!!!!!!!!!! Why did you stop using them?????????? Ward3001 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I like you, you'r funny. I stopped using them because you started over using them AND you'r still doing it!

Anyway, I have an image for you but I don't know how to put it on the site? User-08burgelaura 17:15, 28 March 2009

If you're sure it's not copyrighted, I would suggest not putting it in the article before the rest of us have a chance to look at it. Images are not allowed on talk pages, so you should create a link to the image here, like the one at the top of this section. If it's copyrighted (and almost all images on websites are copyrighted), don't bother. We can't use it. Ward3001 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. My friend took this :) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/23512055@N07/2244230055/

It may not be from the best angle but you can see most of her face! 08burgelaura (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not a "sure thing". Sorry to burst your balloon, but as I indicated at the very beginning of this discussion (and you acknowledged that you had taken into consideration), we must have evidence that the image is not copyrighted AND permission to use freely has been legally granted. There is no evidence whatsoever that the image is not copyrighted and permission has been granted. Simply saying that "my friend took this" in no way gives Wikipedia permission to use the image. I could say that regarding just about any image I found of Portman, but that doesn't mean it's true. And if it was that easy to get an image that doesn't violate policy, we would have had better images in the article years ago because there are a gazillion of them out there. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is not copyrighted and that it is a freely available image; you cannot assume it is not copyrighted simply because there is no copyright notice. There is no flexibility here with Wikipedia policy. Such images have been uploaded (and promptly deleted) thousands of times (especially from Flickr), and if the user continues to upload, that user is blocked for copyright violation. You need to thoroughly read WP:IMAGE, WP:NFC, and WP:COPYRIGHT before proceeding. There is a procedure that must be followed if it is a free image to verify this. You need to discuss that with an admin. Your intentions were good here, but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously because there are possible legal actions for violation of copyright laws. Ward3001 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am very borded of this conversation and do not wish to discus it futher! User-08burgelaura

20;21 2nd april 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, let me check back and try to remember whether I asked you to participate in this conversation ... Nope, I didn't. You're the one who decided to talk about images for article. So if you're "borded" (whatever that means), tell it to yourself, not the rest of us. Ward3001 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not your page and I can write almost whatever I want about the images used on wikipedia and I just wanted somebody to put on a desent picture. It can't be that hard to get a non-copyrighted picture of natalie portman. User-08burgelaura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's not your page.": You were the one complaining about being "borded" [sic] with the conversation.

"It can't be that hard to get a non-copyrighted picture of natalie portman.": In that case, please find us several of them and post the links here. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath. Some people do what they can. Others do nothing and complain about what others aren't doing. Ward3001 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: a series of unfortunate comments

Listen up, gents. You both need to calm the hell down, or you are likely gong to get blocked. Your behavior here has been deplorable, and you guys need to walk away for a few hours/days/weeks. If you are for some reason unable to, you need to conduct yourself politely when interacting with each other.

82anon (or "08burgelaura") - If the image is copywritten, we can use it under very special circumstances (this is not one of those situations), but it will always be replaced by an image that is free. An example of a free image is someone who took a picture of the subject themselves. Note that the person who took it is the one who has to allow it to be used. You cannot prove friendship with the photographer and then port their picture in. Folk get banned from Wikipedia for doing that, as WP cannot violate copyright. By the way, either sign in or set up an account - two different ids making the same comments creates suspicion where none is apparently warranted.

Ward3001 - You have been here long enough to know not to bite the newbies. We are both well aware that being a jerk doesn't get the point across quicker, and it certainly doesn't change the other person's mind; if anything, it makes them far more resistant to change, turning discussions into an all-or-nothing battle where no one is willing to listen to the other. That's is what you have created here. If someone doesn't get it, you help them get it - that's the way Wikipedia works. You do not punt them across the discussion page. The anon was trying to contribute, and you simply shut them down, and you know that if someone did that to you, your high-pitched scream would be have dogs barking for miles around. Calm down, please.

The quickest way out of this - as I said before - is for both of you to walk away fromt he article and to furthermore not bother each other. The only other alternative is for you both to work together peaceable-like. If you cannot stop the drama here, it can certainly be resolved somewhere else. Consider this a warning, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken Arcayne, although I must say, I generally don't bite newbies unless they are arrogant and more unreasonable than most other newbies. And this user clearly falls into both of those categories. And I don't believe I'm the only editor who feels that way, as other editors have commented similarly to me. And I must respectfully disagree with you on one point: I believe I did initially try to help this editor "get it", but he/she refused to be helped and instead decided to arrogantly point out his/her perception of my shortcomings. But thanks for your concern (seriously), and believe me, I'm finished with a useless discussion about how easy it is to get non-copyrighted images of someone whose article has been around for many years with little changes in the images. Ward3001 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne, that really did help more. I'm sorry if I have offened you Ward3001, this is new to me and Im only 13.

Geez this confusing!!! If you were tring to help I did'nt really get it. (By the way , im not a gent, im a girl.) User:08burgelaura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you truly are 13, my apologies for assuming you should have been more mature. That having been said, let me make two very serious suggestions. First, if you get into a disagreement, it might be a good idea to let people know you're 13 (never with any personal identifying information, of course). Secondly, please consider being adopted by an experienced Wikipedian (go to WP:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area). That should not be considered insulting. People of all ages seek adoption if they are inexperienced. By the way, if your username is similar to your real name, you should change usernames. At your age it's a bad idea to make yourself easily identifiable. And finally, another reason to sign in instead of editing with an IP is that it is harder for others to determine your location with a username. Ward3001 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Information

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

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

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

Funny or Die videos

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

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

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

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

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

Theater play???

Hello

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

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

and

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

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

Hershlag/Portman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm with Ward3001. We should go with "Natalie Erschlag, known by her stage name ..." because "born Natalie Erschlag" implies her name has been changed for some reason, while we know she has used Erschlag as an adult. This is also obviously the preferable version per WP:MOSBIO. There is no confusion if the article is titled 'Natalie Portman', and the stage name appears in the first sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture is so bad

1. It's a side view. 2. Bad lighting. 3. Does not really represent her.

What are the rules for posting images anyways? Do you have to own the image yourself, as in have taken the image yourself? She needs a Brad Pitt quality image in her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.180.26 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Images must be free-use, as in either you took it yourself or it is released under a non-restrictive Creative Commons license. Most images online or in magazines aren't acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Swan

Hello, the filmography table is not complete, is it possible to add the film Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky for the year 2010. Presently, the movie is in pre-production. Source : IMDB. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonNico (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't add films to the filmography table until a role has reached the actual production phase or there is a reliable source given for an upcoming role. When it does, it can be added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Her Rap with The Lonely Island?

could someone link me to the wikipedia article for the rap please? thank you. --Huik01 (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hotel Chevalier peer review

Editors and watchers of this article might be interested to comment in the peer review of the article on Hotel Chevalier, the short film in which Ms. Portman famously appeared nude. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  15:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

bisexual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As said by Ward, She did no say she was bisexual, she said she was not opposed to homosxual relationships. Old topic I know, but just in case someone else brings it up. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What's her real name?

so her real name is something like "Christmas Deer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

_target advertisement should be removed

in the personal life section it says:

"She does not eat animal products or wear fur, feathers, or leather. "All of my shoes are from _target and Stella McCartney," she has said.[50]"

I think the first sentence is sufficient to make the point. The second sentence is pretty much just an advertisement for _target (and Stella McCartney) which does not belong into an encyclopedia. I think it should be removed. The footnote should be kept for sentence one... 217.83.74.201 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) me

Question?

Why is this article protected from editing by anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.170.155 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article used to be a _target for antisemitic attacks by anons. Amoruso (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Information in doubt

"At Harvard, Portman was Alan Dershowitz's research assistant (he thanks her in The Case for Israel) in a psychology lab." I have double check Alan Dershowitz (who got a wiki) is not a Psy scholar, but law faculty. Also, I have not found her name in the acknowledgement of book The Case of Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahoo (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is only one article for that particular name. I am sure it is the same one, since he wrote the book mentioned in the article. Alan Dershowitz is a famous lawyer, not a professor of psychology. If she is really mentioned in "The Case for Israel" I do not see it in the book nor the credits. Since then the information has been removed. If anyone can readd it with a source, please do. ★Dasani★ 18:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment?

I think the lede isn't quite good enough for a Good Article.I see that Cirt (talk · contribs) expressed similar concerns in 2007, but they seem to have gone unaddressed. Perhaps a reassessment would be in order? decltype (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead was decidedly improved after Cirt noted it on Christmas 2007. See here. No offense intended, but if you think the lead is short, why not fix it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right - there has been obvious improvement since then. My mistake, I've struck that part of my comment since it's totally misleading. Primarily because I do not know the subject that well, and have not made substantial edits to the article I don't think I'd do the best job of it. I also have a history of writing poor introductions for articles I have created myself - at least on the first few tries. That's not to say that this article has a "poor" lede, just that it could perhaps do a better job of summarizing the article. Don't you agree? decltype (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything can be improved. I tend to ask Rossrs to address lead questions. He's crackerjack at writing them. He could be asked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a shot - hopefully an improvement. decltype (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Syntax RE:Natalie's Name, Opening Line

So, the first line of the article begins as follows:

"Natalie Portman (Hebrew: נטלי פורטמן‎, born Natalie Hershlag; June 9, 1981)"

Is the Hebrew translation a translation for the name Natalie Portman, or for her given name, Natalie Hershlag? If, as I assume, the translation is for her birth name, shouldn't the sentence read as follows:

"Natalie Portman (born Natalie Hershlag, Hebrew: נטלי פורטמן‎; June 9, 1981)"?

Perhaps this is nitpicking, but the way the sentence stands now, isn't the implication that the Hebrew characters are a translation of her adopted name? And if this is so, shouldn't the characters represent her given name?

Cheers, etc. Yesitsraining (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just ran the Hebrew characters through a translation device, and this is the translation for "Natalie Portman." Again, it's a fairly minor issue, but since the last name "Hershlag" is her native Hebrew surname and "Portman" is her adopted (perhaps Americanized) last name, should this read "Natalie Portman (born Natalie Herschlag, Hebrew:" &etc?

Cheers, etc. Yesitsraining (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Americanized", but she chose the name "Portman" because it is her grandmother's maiden name. As for the Hebrew version of her name, I see no need to change it to Hebrew for Natalie Hershlag. Portman is the name she uses. If she is speaking Hebrew, I don't think she necessarily refers to herself as Hershlag any more than she would if she were speaking English. Cresix (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. It just seemed to me like, since Natalie Hershlag is her given Hebrew name, that it probably would be the name she used when speaking Hebrew. Fair enough, thanks. Yesitsraining (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a little editing

Sorry if someone disagrees with me, but I put the Education semi-section inside the Personal life section because it makes more sense than being inside the Early life section. Education is about your personal life, not about your early life. --187.22.63.171 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of opinion. Usually education, at least formative education - primary, secondary and third level - take place in one's "early life". --BwB (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made the "Education" material a main section. --BwB (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Education section

From the above mentioned section:" Although she says her family was not religious,[12] Portman learned to speak both Hebrew[13] and English and attended a Jewish elementary school". Now I see WP:OR getting involved here. Who said that only religious Jews learn to speak Hebrew or attend Jewish elementary school? My educated guess, which change nothing for the matter of my argument-just as a footnote, is that most Jews in USA, religious or secular, attend or attended Jewish elementary school (which also means that many of them have at least some knowledge of Hebrew). My proposal is to rephrase it to "Although her family is not religious, Portman attended a traditional Jewish elementary school (source)" and then, in different sentence that Natalie is fluent in both Hebrew and English (source). Thanks in advance--Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

She also spent the first three years of her life in Israel; she probably heard a lot of Hebrew then. I agree with your suggestion. The statement about "family is not religious" does not belong in the "Education" section. It should be in "Early life". Cresix (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Added Religion

Added religion to actor infobox. 74.62.164.163 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That information does not need to be included in the infobox. Please don't add it again. - PM800 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Erdos-Bacon Number

I am removing the section on the Erdos Bacon number, because Wikipedia and other sources define Erdos number as the "collaborative distance" between a person and mathematician Paul Erdős, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers Natalie Portman’s Erdos number was based on the following paper ^ a b Baird AA, Kagan J, Gaudette T, Walz KA, Hershlag N, Boas DA (Aug 2002). "Frontal lobe activation during object permanence: data from near-infrared spectroscopy". Neuroimage 16 (4): 1120–5. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1170. PMID 12202098 Judging by the abstract this is not a mathematical paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.10.249 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erdos-Bacon number , Part II

Due to her scientific publications, Portman is among a very small number of professional actors with a defined Erdős–Bacon number.

I removed the foregoing material because I consider it trivia. It was replaced twice by a dissenting editor. I'm proposing on this page that the material needs removed because, not only do I consider it trivia, but it's not a reference that can be understood without following the link and reading most of the article. The Erdos-Bacon Number is a bizarre, artificial concept with no practical value, and the only reason the article about it survived being deleted was because more people weighed in wanting to keep it, not because it has any relevance or notability. I'm willing to bet there won't be a similar interest in keeping this material in the Natalie Portman article, as it acts as a puzzling speed-bump to readers and wastes their time when they follow the link. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Bin it. The Erdos-Bacon number is a joke, not worthy of inclusion in a biography article. --hippo43 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree! Sure, it's somewhat trivial, but not much more trivial than most other information in any biography (there is a paragraph devoted mostly to her hair--seriously, that's relevant?). That some readers won't understand what it is, well, let's not aim too low. Now, if it were more than a sentences, that would be a different matter--but it's just one sentence. The references, that's another matter. I'd like to see one reference that firmly and reliabely establishes her number.

How about this: You both scrap this entire argument and propose a new one: the material is to be removed since it's based on original research. If that proposal gets a second, we can take it to a vote, and since it's three of us there won't be a tie. (Just don't pass this on to an uneven number of people.) But I insist on the formality of the process; that's entirely in the spirit of the project. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is not OR. However, there is no requirement to have a vote - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is in no way notable. When you say "let's not aim too low", are you serious?? Most readers won't understand what it is not because they are insufficiently erudite, but because Erdos-Bacon numbers are a ridiculous in-joke. It has to go. --hippo43 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, grow a sense of humor and get off your high horse. I didn't say anything about requirements; I made a remark about the spirit. And yes, I am serious about not aiming low. Then address the paragraph on the haircut. Then delete what you think is ridiculous (a POV term, I might add.). I made you a nice proposal, I thought. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the view from up here on my high horse! I reserve my sense of humour for things which are funny, unlike Erdos-Bacon numbers.

Fixed both problems in the article.--hippo43 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I fix her hair then? Wait--I don't need consent, right? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to "fix her hair", you'll need her consent. If you want to fix the article, that's a different matter. :)

I thought I'd removed all the hair references already, but I missed some. Fixed now, I think. --hippo43 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Todos contendos y yo tambien. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Erdos-Bacon Number, Part III

Hi, I have reviewed the citations for the sentence that was discussed above, and I do not believe that the citations back up the statement, which is (paraphrasing), that Ms. Portman is one of a very small number of professional actors that has a defined Erdos-Bacon number. I argue that there are two unsupported statements here. First, I cannot find evidence in the citations that Ms. Portman even has an Erdos-Bacon number. Note that I am not debating whether or not she has such a number--I am simply pointing out that the sources do not verify this statement (see WP:V, the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability). The sources are a web database of people with an Erdos number (due to their scientific papers) and scientific papers done by other professors. This seems to be Original Research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia (see WP:OR). For it to be verifiable, we would need a reputable source stating "Ms. Portman has an Erdos-Bacon number. Second, there is no source for the claim that she is one of a very small number of professional actors with an Erdos-Bacon number. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Here is are two quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability policy "Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy." and "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." (the latter quotation is from a footnote). I would like to ask those who wish to keep the Erdos-Bacon number sentence in the article to show the other editors a quote from a reliable, third-party source that states a) that Ms. Portman has an E-B number and b) that she is one of a very small number of professional actors with an E-B number. As it stands, the sentence in question appears to be drawing inferences from multiple sources.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No particular opinion on the inclusion, apart from the fact that the fact that she has a number can be easily cited. See e.g. [1] (Interview by Jake Gyllenhaal in Interview magazine), [2] (Princeton University lecture notes), [3] (American Physical Society newsletter). decltype (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a source. It is unequivocal. It clearly states that she has an EB number, and that she is one of the most famous people to have an EB number, and that her number is five. I may add another source when I have time. Now, that should put this matter to rest. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for finding those sources about the E-B number and Ms. Portman. There is another matter that I have brought up before in regards to this sentence about the E-B number. I believe that it would be helpful for Wikipedia readers if we "glossed" the term "Erdos-Bacon number" in this article. The Wikipedia guidelines for wikilinking states that "... articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions, unless they are defined in the article – ...always consider providing a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link to another article." One of the reasons why it is helpful to provide a brief gloss of technical or unusual terms within an article is that some Wikipedia users print out the article (e.g., at a local library) and read it in a paper format. Even for users reading Wikipedia online, having a gloss of "E-B number" helps the reader to gain a quick sense of the meaning. I am simply proposing a short phrase within the sentence.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nine cites for "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon"

That seems a little much for any ordinary claim, particularly a piece of trivia. Is there any reason why one or two wouldn't do? This seems like trying to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to one's site. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we cannot attribute a quote by her to The New York Times that does not appear to have come from The New York Times — various search terms using her name and words from that alleged quote turn up nothing on the Times website. One of the two cites for it here does not say where the supposed quote comes from, and the Time Out New York article is not linked. Either way, per a Times search itself, and barring search-engine malfunction, this quote does not appear to have originated there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction: it's her Erdos-Bacon number, which is more complicated than her Bacon number. Several reasons there are nine citations for those of us familiar with the history of this page: First, there is no rule on Wikipedia against multiple citations for a fact, but that's a minor point. Secondly, the link between Portman and Bacon is fairly straightforward (one citation if I remember correctly), but the connection to Erdos is more complicated, requiring several citations. Thirdly (and most importantly), about once every year or two some editor comes along and challenges the notability, relevance, importance, etc. etc. of Portman's Erdos-Bacon number. Look at this talk page (and the archives if there are any archives). Along the way, editors have added citations to bolster the notability of Portman's EB number. My suggestion is leave it like it is. If any of them are removed, inevitably someone will challenge the EB number again, and the citations will be added back. Just a suggestion, but why fix something that isn't broken, especially when there is no policy against multiple citations. BTW, the issue about the quotation in the New York Times may be a good point, but as far as I can discern, that has nothing to do with her Erdos-Bacon number. If I'm wrong, please explain. Thank. Cresix (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining — although I'm not sure what is notable about an Erdos-Bacon number. I think the article needs to explain why it's a significant, encyclopedic fact. Specifically, why do we include it for Portman and not for everyone? I promise I'll read the archives, and I did read the Erdos-Bacon Wikipedia articles, but this still seems like trivia.

The Times point is a second, separate issue. You're right — I probably should have retitled this section "Article concerns" or some such when I added it to my first concern.--Tenebrae (talk)

I don't see a need to explain the EB number in the Portman article any more than what's already in the article. There is a link to Erdős–Bacon number that readers can click for more details. The gist is: (1) it demonstrates a person's accomplishments in both acting and scholarly publications, and (2) it's an interesting fact. The "why do we include it", as I said, has been debated several times, and there has never been a consensus to remove it. As for "why do we include it for Portman and not for everyone", I'm not really sure how many articles on people with defined EB numbers mention that fact, although I suspect Portman is not the only one. But the short answer to that question is that there is no reason it should not be included in the article for anyone with a defined EB number. It's up to those who edit those pages to add it. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't feel strongly enough to start a big thing, but I'm really not sure why a parlor game involving the fairly arbitrary choice of actor Kevin Bacon has any real meaning that defines anyone's life in any significant, encyclopedic way. As wonderful an actor as Kevin Bacon is, I find it hard to see his critical importance in human affairs being such that an encyclopedia article has to give a mathematical relationship to him. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point about the indiscriminant collection of information; it's one that I have applied in removing some of the trivia on Wikipedia. I happen to find this particular fact about Portman interesting enough to leave it in the article. I think it provides something unique about her not seen in many actor bios. Only my opinion, of course, but that's generally what this debate always comes down to. In the three earlier debates about this issue (maybe more, I can't remember) the prevailing opinion is that the EB number info should remain in the article. I suppose if enough people decide to jump in again we'll have the next round of debates on this issue. Some of these tidbits from the "collection of information" available about a person are worth keeping, in my opinion. I find Portman's EB number as informative about her life as, let's say, Lindsay Lohan's fling with bisexuality, or as someone pointed out earlier, Winona Ryder's escapades with shoplifting. I think Portman's EB number is as notable as those aspects of other actors' lives, just not as headline-grabbing. If we were discussing whether to include the name of Portam's dog as a child I would be arguing as strongly as anyone to remove it. Where we draw the line obviously is a matter of consensus if there is disagreement. There is a gray area as to what is "indiscrimant". My opinion is that this lies on the "keep" side of that gray area. Thanks for your comments. Cresix (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards removal

Why have numerous awards Natalie Portman has received been removed? They all had Wikipedia pages and several people have attempted to revert the changes, but a few users continue to undo the changes. Why aren't they notable for the section? Almost every other actress this year who's been gathering awards (i.e. Jennifer Lawrence, Hailee Steinfeld) has hers listed. Also, why not just delete the Wikipedia article for the award if it isn't even noteworthy enough to include on its own website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesreadsbooks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Many good articles include all awards and nominations, such as Carey Mulligan. Why is it that only this page is removing them? AndrewAllen15

I don't have a problem with including awards of notable organizations (i.e., they have Wikipedia articles). Some awards given by organizations without articles have been removed, which I agree with. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of strange that awards and nominations are listed in both the Filmography table and the actual Awards section. The lists aren't exactly the same in both. Maybe it would be a good idea to list ALL awards/nominations in the Awards section, and only major awards in the table? - PM800 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it (can't believe I didn't notice), I don't think there should be any redundancy in the tables. Tables should be a very brief summary of something and, in my opinion, should not overlap. It's OK for the text to include material also included in a table, but not another table. Cresix (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The redundancy is there, and it is, indeed, problematic. As to the awards, there are, literally, dozens and dozens of organizations giving awards, and while the Central Ohio Film Critics Association may pass notability standards for an article, that does not means its awards are notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data, and stuffing a list with the undue weight of marginal awards creates a skewed perspective that diminishes the meaning of historically notable, critically significant accolades. We are under no obligation to include every single minor award or nomination. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we should add every award in the Awards section. If you feel so strongly about the awards sections on Wikipedia, Tenebrae, I feel as though you should take the time to remove the awards for the numerous actresses mentioned other than Portman. You seem to have a partiality to her, and it's unfair for you to continue to undo user changes. You're edit warring. Just as "We are under no obligation to include every single minor award or nomination," we are under no obligation to heed to a few cranky Wikipedia contributors. I've seen at least five people attempt to undo the removal of her awards, but you (and a few others) continue to repeal that. I just don't see the big deal in including the awards in the AWARDS section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.82.28 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please drop the hyperbole and accusations, anon 66. Tenebrae has not edit warred. And name-calling neither helps your argument nor is appropriate. As for whether Tenebrae has "partiality", methinks thou doth protest too much. The vitriol in your comments suggests you may have some partiality. This is a legitimate discussion, and everyone is entitled to express an opinion here (civilly, that is). You (or I, for that matter) may have opinions different that Tenebrae's, and that's fine, but that's what this discussion is about: ironing out the differneces. There is a problem with the number of awards; I'm not sure what the best solution is, but the attitude you have expressed does not move us closer to a solution. Just because the problem is settled one way on this article does not obligate Tenebrae to fix every article exactly the same. That being said, I think we should begin by removing the redundancy. My opinion is to put all awards either in the filmography or the awards section, then decide whether they should be pared down. Cresix (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Cresix, I do not see the need for an awards section, this information can be easily tabled in filmography. I am also in agreement with Tenebrae only awards deemed notable by Wikipedia should be listed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for the call to civility, and the understanding and perspective you show. I'm always gratified to know that as Wikipedia continues into its tenth year — and I've been on for over half of that — editors more and more often behave with more grace and reasonable discourse than many of our real-world leaders and commentators. I treasure that about us.

I agree the awards should be lumped together rather than repeated, and the filmography seems the most efficient place for that.

As for which awards, I think we're being fairly liberal and inclusive: Many articles and reference sources only talk about or list the Oscars, Golden Globes, National Board of Review and NY Film Critics Circle awards. But we also include a great variety of other national awards — women critics, Latin critics, online critics and others — as well as major film festival awards and awards from critics in acknowledged cultural centers such as Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and, as far as movie culture is concerned, Los Angeles.

That's a wide perspective covering a broad range of geographic, ethnic and cultural points of view. I'm not sure what the value is of including minor, regional awards — the film critics of Phoenix, Ariz.? San Diego? Mid-Ohio? Any five or ten people can form a critics' group — or of online-only, essentially fan/amateur clubs. Do their choices add anything to our broad understanding of the subject, or do they simply add quantity?

We can't include every one of the dozens and dozens of awards that are out there; we each draw a line in our own minds. It would be efficient, save time and reduce contentiousness if we draw that line together. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance at the awards link to Jennifer Lawrence and came to the opinion that many of these actually fail WP:GNG despite having their own articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't you delete them? --Rexalex52 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't have to, I can contribute where and when I want.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rexalex52, we all can only do what we're capable of doing with the time at our disposal. There are thousands of actors and actresses, and every edit can create a long discussion such as this one. We're all doing the best we can, as I'm sure you are, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If an award has an article about it that award is notability since it meets the requirements for inclusion in wiki. It is also notable who receives that award. Any other judgment of worth is based on a value point of view of an editor as to what that individual editor thinks is important or not and is not a neutral point of view. If an award is not classed as notable that discussion should take place in a deletion discussion about the article on the award, not in the articles about people receiving it. 75.163.234.224 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, notability is not inherited. Even if the Smallville Film Critics Association has had sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG, it doesn't automatically follow that each award they make is automatically notable. Moreover, notability is a criterion for whether an article should exist on Wikipedia, not a criterion for whether a fact should be included in an article – that is covered by WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. There is a general prohibition on making collections of trivia in articles, so editors need to exercise judgement on whether a particular award is significant enough to deserve a mention, and this talk page is the proper place to make reasoned arguments to find a consensus on that. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumption is award is notable if article about that award is in wiki and the award itself for an actor is supported by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the awarding organization. That presumption can be rebutted by reasoned discussion where consensus is met to exclude, such as is happening here. Absent consensus we need fairly simple NPOV criteria that does not depend on an individual editors concept of what that editor thinks is important or not. Problematic is wholesale removal of info by editor being WP:BOLD that does not want to follow WP:BRD. I have looked for and didn't find any guidance on this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. 75.163.234.224 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't a question of notability. Take an example:

• 1996 – Chicago Film Critics Association, Best Supporting Actress: Beautiful Girls; Most Promising Actress: Beautiful Girls

The award is Best Supporting Actress and has an article. So any group that awards 'Best Supporting Actress' is making a notable award. That's not really much help, as every actor could potentially have thousands of these awards or nominations. If you want the notability of the group making the award to be a criterion, I can point to the fact that the Chicago Film Critics Association article has no indication of the subject's notability (I'm surprised somebody hasn't tried to delete it already). You're right about non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; that's a prerequisite for inclusion of a fact, but by no means is the only criterion. As for wholescale deletion of unsourced text, I expect you already know that the burden of proof falls on the editor wishing to include it to ensure that it is verifiable by in-line citation if challenged. As far as I can see, there is no citation of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources for any of the awards – and judging by the history, there never has been. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here and in his comment above, I believe RexxS sums up the situation well. By the very nature of WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"), we make consensus-derived judgments. In this case, we're not a catalog of every trivial award that every small group gives out. I'm sure everyone agrees we have to draw the line somewhere -- Brooklyn Tech is notable, but if it were to give out the Brooklyn Tech Film Club Awards, would be need to include them? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 revisit

121.54.54.54, seems determined to readd the awards to the filmography. Though he/she is going about this the wrong way, it brings up the fact that we have never settled this issue. I think we all agree that we do not to list Portman's awards in both its own section and in the filmography. So lets determine consensus here of how to present this information. I am still of the opinion that Awards does not need its own section and can be tabled in the filmography. What say you?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From an accessibility point of view, separating them is a lot better. Can you imagine a voice browser going through a filmography table full of awards (essentially a list within a list)? Also, for the visually impaired, having two tables is clearly an advantage. Compare this table with this table. Which is easier to read? Nymf _hideliho! 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the awards belong in a separate section, and I believe that's the general consensus here. It seems the only remaining issue is how notable and award must be to be included. Cresix (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with keeping huge lists of awards out of a filmography. It make the experience so much nicer for anyone using a screen reader to have information compartmentalised, so that it is possible to choose what info is being read out. Separating the sections for awards is being kind to the visually impaired – and separate lists for won and nominated is a bonus.

The question of what awards to include may be a matter of judgement. An actor new to the profession may have only been nominated for a minor award, but that may be a significant event worth mentioning in their biography. Conversely, high-profile oscar-winning actors may have been nominated for hundreds of minor awards during their career, and including all of them adds very little to an article; in fact they may swamp the reader with information so much that the most significant awards get 'lost' among them.

Having said that, you may prefer to use a hard-and-fast rule, rather than case-by-case. One criterion could be that the award itself has a Wikipedia article (i.e. the award is demonstrably notable, such as Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut), or you could use the existence of a Wikipedia article on the awarding body as the inclusion criterion (i.e. the awarding body is notable in itself). I think the former is more rigorous, since the Ambridge Film Appreciation Society may be notable merely because of the press coverage when the treasurer absconded to Rio with all the funds in 1987. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

missed line in filmography

what about The Professional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.11.97 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the filmography? The first entry is Léon, aka The Professional. Cresix (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)