Talk:Natalie Portman

"in Long Island"

One cannot be raised "in Long Island." This is a common error. She was raised "in" Nassau County, "on" Long Island. 2600:1017:A8FF:5AD8:69EA:7361:9789:187E (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1017:A8FF:5AD8:69EA:7361:9789:187E

She was raised in multiple places across New York, specifically in Long Island, where she began her career. Most sources, like The Times of Israel here, described her as a "Long Islander" Lililolol (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol: I think they were just saying the preposition should be on Long Island rather than in Long Island. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@CWenger Uhh, got it, sorry for misunderstanding :> Lililolol (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews?

I don't think there is a source that describes her as an Ashkenazi Jew. Sorry if I was wrong, but I feel it is common sense (WP:UCS) to call her Ashkenazi because her origins are in Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Wouldn't that make sense? Lililolol (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:UCS doesn't mean one person's idea of "common sense" overrides core policies of Wikipedia, in the case verifiability. This would require citation to a reliable source. Ancestry from those countries might mean she's an Ashkenazi Jew, but that alone does not confirm it. We can't make the logical fallacy that many Jews from Poland, Lithuania, and Russia are Ashkenazi, therefore any Jew from those countries is Ashkenazi. Moreover, some of her ancestors were not from those countries. Sundayclose (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You’re kind of right, that’s why I removed the category about Ashkenazi. But in general, most people associate Ashkenazi with whiteness, which is why I brought up the common sense perspective. Sorry about that. Lililolol (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Image

Arguably, the most recent photos of her are these from Vogue Taiwan, like this one—let's call it A image. I added a different image; B image, because it's better—she's looking directly at the camera, and her features are clearer than in image A. What do you all think? Lililolol (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose Okay, about This. I get why you referred to this WP:BRD, but WP:BURDEN? What does that have to do with an image? Lililolol (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose waiting for your response Lililolol (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue to the talk page. I disagree that it's a better image. We have different opinions, so let's see what others think before making a major change. Its very late where I live so I'll continue this tomorrow if needed. Sundayclose (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

A (the current image) is much better than the B one. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Advocacy for Israel?

Given that more than half of this section actually describes criticisms that Portman has made of the Israeli government and its policies, would it not be more appropriate for this section to be entitled "Views on Israel" to reflect the more mixed nature of her statements on this subject? "Advocacy for Israel" implies that she is a totally uncritical supporter of Israel when this does not appear to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor at Zama123 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2025

The introductory paragraph to the section entitled "Advocacy for Israel" beginning with a quote describing Portman as "one of Israel's outspoken supporters" seems a little misleading given that more than half of the section comprises criticisms Portman has made of the Israeli government and its policies. As a result, might it not be more appropriate for the section's title to be changed to "Views on Israel" and the opening paragraph to cite an this article instead?

This contains a quote from Portman herself where she describes her relationship to Israel as "very complicated", which seems a more accurate summation of her views than the above mentioned quote, which seems to imply that she is an uncritical supporter. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I feel that consensus should be established for an edit like this before it gets made. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 08:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Ok. I have added a new discussion below where I give a fuller account of why I believe that this section should be altered. I also cite several more sources to support my contention that Portman's views on Israel are more nuanced than the current title and introductory paragraph imply. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"outspoken supporter" of Israel

At the request of Opm581, I have decided to give a fuller account of why I believe the section entitled "Advocacy for Israel" should be altered to reflect Portman's more nuanced views on this subject. More than half of this section (citations 238-250) in fact cites criticisms that she has made of the Israeli government and its policies. While she has always spoken fondly about her deep emotional attachment to the Land of Israel and its people, this has often not translated into support for Israeli state policies, particularly in recent years, where he as been vocally critical of Netanyahu and the general rightward drift of Israeli politics, as well as the discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs.

As a result, the opening paragraph, which quotes a Haaretz article describing her as "one of Israel's most vocal supporters" is misleading. In fact, she has on numerous occasions described her relationship to Israel as difficult and complex.

Here are a few quotes and citations:

'She describes her relationship to Israel as “very complicated, like family—you love it more than anything else in the world and you also are more critical of it than anything else in the world.”' (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/10/natalie-portman-cover-story)

"It's complicated. I think all Israelis know that its much easier to criticise in Israel than outside. Its such a hard combination, to obviously have a deep love for the place you're from and also see what's wrong with it. So yeah, it becomes a tricky thing, and certainly increasingly tricky." (An interview with Israeli Channel 2 News in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrG5e3KKYA [6:43-7:13]

"Its hard to be from a place where your life is political. You're put in the position, and its the people you love, and their lives are personally affected by all of the decisions politicians make, and that their neighbours make for them. I just hope to be part of changing that, and making us, like truly love our neighbours and work with our neighbours." (Interview with BBC Arabic in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnj9ai9lVQ (9:02-9:30).

Given that these quotes a directly from Portman herself, should they not take precedence over the above-mentioned Haaretz quote, which is merely the opinion of a journalist?

I would appreciate if other editors could respond to this and establish a consensus of support for a change that I feel would improve this excellent page still further. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Retitle the section to "Views on Israel" and reword the first paragraph to remove the "outspoken supporter" quotation. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose & @Victor at Zama123, your argument seems to be applying undue weight, according to WP:WEIGHT. For example, the case you mentioned is often exaggerated by Israeli nationalists. While she was initially criticized, her actions, along with Israeli media coverage, later portrayed her as a strong supporter. However, she does not appear to support any other side (without explicitly naming names). And calling her views "nuanced" is delusional, with all due respect. Also, keep in mind that this section about advocacy does not cover everything. Lililolol (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"the opinion of a journalist" yes but no, Haaretz quote reflects a broader view of her support for Israel, which shouldn’t be dismissed. Like yes Portman has a complex relationship with Israel, and focusing solely on her criticisms doesn’t fully capture her position. For balance and neutrality, I believe the current framing should remain as it accurately reflects her views. Lililolol (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Unbelievable, why does this even fucking matter? She's human. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@FlightTime Umm, why doesn't it matter? Lililolol (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the section should focus solely on her criticisms of Israel. My suggestion would leave her criticism of the accusation of Israeli apartheid in the Harvard Crimson in 2002 intact, as well as her condemnation of Hamas after October 7th. I simply feel that introducing a section of which more than half constitutes criticism of Israel with a quote calling her an outspoken supporter and under a title called "Advocacy for Israel" is misleading. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, I do think that the quotes I cited above are more relevant as they are direct quotes from Portman rather than the second-hand opinion of another writer. Surely Portman knows her own views than the Haaretz writer? Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• better than the Haaretz writer*

Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Late addendum: I would also object to the label of "one of Israel's most outspoken supporters" on the grounds that numerous other celebrities have been far more outspoken than her in expressing support for Israel's war in Gaza (as opposed to merely condemning Hamas for 7/10). Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, Mayim Bialik, Brett Gelman, Noah Schnapp to name but a few. All of these people (and others besides) have been regularly posting in support of Israel ever since 7/10, as well as signing petitions opposing a ceasefire and other actions. Portman only put out 2 Instagram posts immediately after 7/10 condemning Hamas and calling for the release of hostages and has been radio silence ever since.

By any measure, Portman is far from among the most vocally pro-Israel celebs out there. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Victor at Zama123 Just let me check and I will answer you later Lililolol (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"For example, the case you mentioned is often exaggerated by Israeli nationalists"

Except only one of the quotes cited above refers to the Genesis Prize controversy.

"While she was initially criticized, her actions, along with Israeli media coverage, later portrayed her as a strong supporter."

She expressed strong support for Israel's existence. However, her actions clearly did not show strong support for the actions of the Israeli govt. As the page itself currently notes, her reference to "atrocities" in her Instagram statement was most likely a reference to the shootings at the Gaza border. Hardly an unqualified endorsement of Israeli state policy.

"And calling her views "nuanced" is delusional, with all due respect."

Why? She has repeatedly expressed support for peace and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. How is that not nuanced?

My basic contention is that it is misleading for a section to be entitled "Advocacy for Israel" and to begin with a quote describing her as "one of Israel's most outspoken supporters" when more than half of that section in fact describes criticisms she has made of Israel. It is true that she is no anti-Zionist, but she is not an apologist for Israel either. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Umm, sorry, I know this is a bit random, but since we're all here, what do you think about her current image, as discussed above under the title "Image"? Just taking advantage of this discussion to ask, lol. Sorry for my unseriousness, but I am serious about my question! :) Lililolol (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Victor at Zama123 Sorry, but just to emphasize how it was exaggerated by Israeli nationalists—for example, they accused her of supporting the movement that boycotts Israel, even though she explicitly stated that she doesn’t and that she loves Israel. But I guess she just "hates" / disapproves of Netanyahu's actions. That doesn’t mean her views are "nuanced" or neutral. Lililolol (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Then go to the proper venue to argue world politics, she's just a person who had no choice where she happened to be born. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@FlightTime

Umm sir about this

"Then go to the proper venue to argue world politics, she's just a person who had no choice where she happened to be born"

i didn't start this conversation. So Lililolol (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That was my statement in general, so I don't get your point, except, maybe, stirring the pot. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see any infobox image chioces, but the current one is fine with me. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Walls or Walla?

I see a lot of Hebrew sources have been added to this article by Lililolol, particularly one that they have formatted as either "Walls" or "Walla", such as this and this. The latter article's title is apparently "Skeletons in the Closet: 5 Facts You Didn't Know About Natalie Portman". Could someone check whether this source passes the WP:RS criteria? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 when it comes to celebrities, Walla is a Hebrew secondary source. The information presented there is originally mentioned by Portman herself in other Western magazines. So, Idk—it’s just easier to use Walla because I come across it while searching for the original magazine (Which I couldn’t find, maybe because it's old infos). About "Skeletons in the Closet," some of the "facts" are just repeating what other Hebrew sources have said. For example, her name Neta-Lee was first mentioned by Haaretz and Hey Alma, which are strong sources, right? Lililolol (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And the rest of the other four facts are also repeats of what is publicly known about her, which she has also said in some Western interviews. Lililolol (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If they are rehashing what she said in "Western interviews", then it's our job as editors to do better research and add those high-quality sources that meet our WP:RS criteria. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but "rehashing what she said" in Western interviews is essentially what a secondary source does, right? So, it should be fine to use, at least, that’s what I understood from WP:RS. Lililolol (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If an Insta or X post rehashes what she said in an interview, would you use that as a source? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 It depends on which insta or X account shares it. If it’s an account for example Us Weekly, then yes, I’d use it because it's not just a random account. There might be better sources, but it works Lililolol (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason to open a new discussion since that one is still open. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok sorry Victor at Zama123 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)