This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Birth: Jerusalem, Israel Miki751a (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done... Article already says Jerusalem... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the request. She was born in the city of Jerusalem under the Israeli government. Her country of birth should be stated as well as her city of birth. Blagai (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's ridiculous to omit it. Nausinikos (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change place of birth from "Jerusalem" to "Jerusalem, Israel". All other cities have their countries tied to them while Jerusalem is an exception. MangoMango22 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Block evasion of NetanelWorthy blocked by @Ponyo: - FlightTime (open channel) 23:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify the exclusion of the country of birth?

It is clearly listed in the pages of other persons. What is the argument to not include country of birth in this specific case? Is there some dispute as to which country Jerusalem was under on June 9, 1981? 141.226.128.250 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is dispute over whether Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty or Palestinian sovereignty. Blagai (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. The dispute is over East Jerusalem and not where Portman was born. Please fight your culture war somewhere else. Nausinikos (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both countries claim the entirety of Jerusalem. Blagai (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite that, please Nausinikos (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.il/en/departments/ministry_of_foreign_affairs/govil-landing-page

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2302961.stm Blagai (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is done purely out of antisemitism. Shaman007 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Blagai (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Unless there is clear evidence”

Seems like selectively removing a country of birth, essentially censoring a birth place arbitrarily, since Jerusalem was undisputedly under Israeli sovereignty at the time. This exclusion indeed might be seen as not based on straight facts but personal opinion. 2A0D:6FC2:6490:B800:D9CC:E861:E73B:DB20 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear evidence. They might have wanted to wait for more opinions or just to avoid controversy altogether. Blagai (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is not to "avoid controversy." It is to present facts and knowledge precisely regardless of controversy. Jerusalem has been under Israeli control since 1967 and in this exact case, Natalie Portman as listed on the "most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content" - IMDB : https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000204/bio/ has her place and country of birth unequivocally listed as Jerusalem, ISRAEL. Nstiac (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be changed, but you need to assume good faith. I'll change it by this time tomorrow if no one objects. Blagai (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contradiction to list her as having Israeli citizenship, but not listing her birthplace as Israel

I think you are confusing the status of East Jerusalem (which was captured by Israel from Jordan in 1967 and is claimed by both the Israelis and Palestinians) for the full city of Jerusalem; West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since its founding. Suggest you avoid having a complex discussion here which is supposed to be about an actress's birthplace; for simplicity's sake, that birthplace should be Jerusalem, Israel given her citizenship HonestEditor51 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as I said, I think we should wait until tomorrow to see what the Consensus is. Blagai (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need consensus to undo baseless vandalism Nausinikos (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism if it was done for a reason. Stop trying to argue whether or not consensus is needed and instead contribute to the conversation in a way you believe will reach the consensus you want. Blagai (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with waiting for consensus, but suggest we keep the default version (listing city and country of birth as is done for all other biographies) and only undo it if consensus reverts to the opposite opinion (only listing city) HonestEditor51 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usual policy is to keep it as it was before the conversation started. So far no one has seriously objected to the change, so if it stays that way until tomorrow I will change it. Until then please don't break policy as it will only lengthen the conversation. Blagai (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://x.com/WikiBias2024/status/1886460032708903107

This X user has called for editing this article. It should be noted that this isn't the place to have this dispute, because this isnt an issue specific to Natalie Portman, but rather Wikipedia's coverage of the city of Jerusalem in general. So, a bunch of IPs vandalzing this article or otherwise edit warring, is pointless. JasonMacker (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, whether or not Jerusalem as a separate article is covered as a 'city in Israel' is irrelevant to this article, since Natalie Portman was born under the Israeli government with Israeli citizenship. Blagai (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he assume bad faith? 2A0D:6FC2:6490:B800:D9CC:E861:E73B:DB20 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The fact that this is a wikipedia-wide issue doesn't preclude the discussion for this specific article. In fact, it is with these discussions that site-wide policies may be changed; (2) if Natalie Portman is born in Jerusalem under Israeli authority, it should be indicated her country of birth as Israel. Otherwise, we fall into the current situation where she doesn't have a country of birth according to wikipedia, which is misinformation; (3) More importantly, while the UN explicitly rejects Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, it does not do so regarding West Jerusalem. Given that Israel exercises effective control over the territory, we should assume — unless there are specific facts or UN declarations to the contrary — that Israel had and continues to have effective sovereignty over West Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel should be listed as the country of birth for Natalie Portman or anyone born in West Jerusalem. My proposal would be to indicate specifically "West Jerusalem, Israel". Doctorprofetes (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the issue of East vs West Jerusalem. Natalie Portman was born in West Jerusalem, which is undisputedly recognized as the sovereign territory of the state of Israel by the international community. I would note that the city is incorporated as a single municipality, rather than as "East" and "West" Jerusalem, so my proposal would be simply to label it as "Jerusalem, Israel" as that is how it is labeled by the majority of the world. Gryphonclaw18 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support 'Jerusalem, Israel'.

When using birthplaces, we should use the municipality name the country of birth uses, alongside the country itself. Blagai (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let us be factual. WikiBias did not call at any point for this article to be edited. They merely pointed out what it's happening, with which many of us happen to agree. In this specific instance, Natalie Portman is listed as born in Jerusalem, ISRAEL throughout multiple sources, including authoritative ones like IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000204/bio/), https://www.natalieportman.com/natalie-portman-wiki/, And the New York Times who cites: "Ms. Portman, who is Jewish and was born in Israel, has starred in such hit movies as “Black Swan” and the “Star Wars” prequel trilogy. " - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/world/middleeast/natalie-portman-genesis-prize.html Along with People's Magazine who says "Because of her birthplace, Portman is a dual Israeli-American citizen." - https://people.com/all-about-natalie-portman-parents-8677146

Not to mention that this very Wikipedia article we are all referring to begins with the phrase : "Natalie Hershlag (Hebrew: נטע-לי הרשלג; born June 9, 1981), known professionally as Natalie Portman, is an Israeli-born American actress" - notice Israeli-born ?

Leaving any doubts as per the country she was born into as Israel settled. The only ones disputing without evidence the fact the she IS an Israeli born person are the editors that removed it the first place. Or has anyone evidence that she is Palestinian or she believes herself to be Palestinian ?

Thus, removing Israel from Jerusalem in this article is, per it's very own nature, going against the factual, biographical, objective, evidentiary and source based reality of the actress herself, which is in the end, the reason for this article. Nstiac (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop citing IMDB as source for this discussion, since it could never hold up in this type of discussion anyways, less confusion that way. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Twitter account in question did not explicitly call for edits to be made, this is undoubtedly a consequence of it. Biased recruitment to Wikipedia is against the policies, even though I do support this edit. Blagai (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not really sure about this, it's just an article that raised attention to the matter at hand. What if it were a blog or an editorial newspaper article would you have called it "biased recruitment" just because a few good samaritans took to correct what they see as wrong/unfair ? Don't take me wrong, there has to be limits and I don't know how many 0day editors came to make changes. But if it were not a massive number I'd just call it citizen action because they're not actually calling for anyone to do anything, they're just (lazyly I might add) pointing out an issue (instead of actually taking action through the appropriate means.)

Anyways, I personally think the end result should be the same regardless of the ulterior motives anyone may have. For some of us may be plain fairness and objectivity, for others may be tradition, poitics, history or even social acceptance. But, if the edit is right, no matter what the reason is, it should be done. Nstiac (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue is wikipedia:canvassing, which I believe the twitter post would qualify as. That doesn't mean that a change shouldn't be made, but its still an issue. Gryphonclaw18 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a very thin line separating the concept from real life given Twitter/X is not an "editor's only" platform and this Twitter/X post user handle (WikiBias).

We must thoroughly consider if we want to actually ban possibly correct edits whenever they're raised openly in social media and the implications and repercussions this may have going all the way to freedom of speech.

Will it come to a point where an opposing editor can point out that the issue was "raised in social media" thus invalidating an edit because it may be considered canvassing?

Will we only be allowed to make edits to issues not present at all in social media ?

This considerations will become more and more present given that all editors access social media nowadays and for the foreseeable future. Moreover who will decide and under what set of rules ?

Should edits be considered on merit alone or context/background/referral should play a major role?

Hopefully truth and common sense will prevail and this peer based community will keep objectivity as it's prime directive ;) Nstiac (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, facts should matter more than consensus. Consensus here is based on popularity rather than reality. Facts favoring Israel will always be outvoted by anti-Israel activists.

How many comments on the talk page will it take before the reality of "Jerusalem, Israel" becomes the final call on this bio page? Queens Historian (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem's state as Israel's capital is contested by Palestine's claim for it and the lack of UN recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Since both countries claim the same city, the neutral thing to do is attribute it to neither country, hence why it's not "a city in Israel" in its own page.

And as i said multiple times, if the consensus of changing it to "Jerusalem, Israel" stays until tomorrow, I will edit it. Blagai (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's Israel's capital. West Jerusalem is in Israel, either way and the hospital where Natalie Portman was born is west of West Jerusalem. Even the PA doesn't contest West Jerusalem. Nausinikos (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the canvassing, coming from another user in the same thread - https://x.com/NetanelWorthy/status/1886517932970102932 SubSeven (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources stating she was born in 'Jerusalem, Israel', and even if there weren't, I'd argue it's fine since it's common knowledge Jerusalem was under Israeli control when she was born. Either way, here are some of the sources I found with a quick google search:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/natalie-portman

https://www.fandango.com/people/natalie-portman-541591/biography

https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/natalie-portman/bio/3000029590/

https://www.tvinsider.com/people/natalie-portman/

https://www.natalieportman.com/natalie-portman-wiki/ Blagai (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]