Talk:Natalie Portman

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

No evidence of language fluency

There's zero evidence of her being fluent in German, French or Spanish and only one video of her speaking extremely basic Japanese ("Hello my name is Natalie...") so at most she's fluent in English, Arabic and Hebrew. A polyglot is not capable of speaking languages to 'varying degrees' they can speak languages fluently. Being fluent in three languages, trilingual is a more appropriate term. 173.32.113.83 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't call her fluent. It says "various degrees" which covers all bases. Trillfendi (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It calls her a polyglot. She isn't one. She's trilingual at most. 2607:FEA8:FE40:8BB2:5576:E8AB:6978:E5BB (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Read polyglot before telling us that someone is not a polyglot. She's quite fluent in English and Hebrew, both being her native languages, and can communicate in French. That makes her a polyglot. Sundayclose (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

See also wiktionary:polyglot & wiktionary:several. By the book dictionary, Portman is a polygot. Peaceray (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fluently trilingual (as in more than her) but I don't consider myself a polyglot either. She's not a polyglot. She is bilingual for sure, trilingual at best. Someone who can speak multiple languages at various degrees but mostly very basic is not a polyglot... I'm not fluent in Italian just because I completed some Duolingo courses. 173.32.113.83 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Give me a break. Look, we're not talking about anyone's self-styled definition. I could say that polyglots must be able to speak out of their ass but that doesn't mean it's true. Again read the official definition before spreading obviously incorrect information. This is an encyclopedia, not anyone's personal website. She's fluent in English, Hebrew, and French. By the standard definition that makes her a polyglot. Case closed. And where exactly is it stated that she completed Duolingo courses?? When you learn your native language as a child (in her case two native languages), that hardly suggests that you learn it by taking a Duolingo course. I repeat: Give me a break. Sundayclose (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That means EVERY celebrity on here who speaks three languages or more should be called a polyglot but they're not. Because that would be ridiculous. Polyglots are usually DEFINED as speaking at least 5 languages FLUENTLY. 173.32.113.83 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

IP 173, instead of incessantly spouting obvious nonsense, give an an actual link to this definition that you have fabricated. Others here have linked the official definitions, but all you have done is ranted with nothing but hot air to support what you say. Sundayclose (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Nationality part in lede

Genuine question, why is the term "Israeli-born American" still used? A few things:

1. The use of "Israeli-born" and anything with (nationality)-born violates MOS:CITIZEN where it specifically states "In cases of public or relevant dual citizenship, or a career that spans a subject's emigration, the use of the word 'and' reduces ambiguity." Which leads to my second point...

2. Portman is a confirmed and sourced dual citizen of the U.S. and IsraelTemplate:Efn, and in my opinion the use of "Israeli-born" adds unnecessary confusion about her nationality, and furthermore violates Wikipedia policy as mentioned in my first point.

3. If it is a matter of confusion regarding the status of her dual nationality or just controversy, alternative wording (e.g. "Portman is an American actress. Born in West Jerusalem (under Israeli occupation) or something along those lines), or simply just putting her as an American actress, or just omitting nationality outright (e.g. ledes of Elon Musk and Carlos Ghosn) if it's that controversial would be a lot better than using "Israeli-born".

As highlighted by my three points, my main gripe is with the use of "Israeli-born", which I'd argue is more controversial than simplifying her nationality status (taking into account the whole controversy regarding adding Israel to the end of her birthplace as an example whilst using "Israeli-born in the lede, highlighting that she was born in Israeli territory, which I'd argue is contradictory). Apologies if I sound ignorant but I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it. Thanks. SpyroeBM (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Read through the archives for how this issue has been beaten to death, and in more than one discussion. I've avoided the topic so I can't say what the latest consensus is. MOS:CITIZEN is a guideline, not a policy. Article consensus has precedence over guidelines. So if you want to make a change and have the stomach for a lot of heated discussion, I'm afraid you'll have to seek yet another consensus. But be prepared to explain and defend your ideas ad nauseam. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Template:Re for your input and I agree 100%, but I think I'm on my last stomach. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, not again! - FlightTime (open channel) 23:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@SpyroeBM, @Sundayclose I have to tag yall. And don't take my comment personally; it's not directed at anyone. So, upfront, sorry if I sounded rude, but hear me out. Can we approach this with some common sense? She was born in Israeli territory that should be in the infobox. It’s a fact, not up for debate. Regardless of anyone’s feelings (and sorry if that sounds rude), it’s still a fact. Whether we like it or not. As for her nationality: the initial version of the lead, if I recall correctly, referred to her as Israeli-American. It seemed like an Israeli editor took issue with that, saying something along the lines of “Americans stealing everything,” which somehow led to changing it to “Israeli-born American.” That change was ridiculous. “Israeli-American” makes perfect sense, she holds dual citizenship, one of her parents is American, the other is Israeli. So that makes perfect sense. Or instead, we could just call her American, as most people/ media outlets do even Israeli media refer to her as American, saying things like she’s American but "hay she was born in Israeli," and stuff like that. Again, she has American citizenship, and one of her parents is American. On top of that she lived her whole life (since she was 4) in US and i bet most people would think she's American (Because she is :/) Also, the person who originally started this debate was dulul just like the one reopening it now. Sure, both sides have strong opinions, but we need to stay grounded in reality: she is either American or Israeli-American. Adding "Israeli-born American" doesn't make sense, and removing her nationality altogether ALOS doesn't. It should be one or the other: American or Israeli-American. Leaving out her nationality entirely in the lead is absurd. It only feeds into the delusion of the people who keep reviving this pointless argument. And she’s not a politician, you can’t compare her to someone like Elon Musk. Can we please just make some sense? And sorry if I repeated myself. I just wanted to get all my thoughts out, and I hope this settles it once and for all. Lililolol (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"confusion regarding the status of her dual nationality or just controversy" no, it's a matter of feelings. Keep in mind that her Israeli citizenship/status has never really been in question, nor has it been particularly relevant, except to fans/some journalists digging into her political stance. Outside of personal political references, I really don't see why it is that relevant Lililolol (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

comment: Um, do you guys agree that I open an RFC about adding "Israeli-American" to the lead and adding "Israel" to the infobox? Hoping this would solve the issue once and for all. Lililolol (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping You misunderstood my comment. I did not state an opinion about how it should be written. If you think I did please quote my words to that effect. I simply pointed out that there is a contentious history on the issue and that you can expect a lot of push back if you try to change it. You don't need to tell me about "common sense". Sundayclose (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose I think you're talking about me :) Either way, I was just speaking more broadly. I wasn't pointing to anyone in particular, just making a general comment. I tagged you because I thought you might want to share your thoughts, but feel free to ignore it or comment if you'd like. As I mentioned, nothing personal—and apologies if the tag came across the wrong way. Lililolol (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I was involved in the last couple of discussions and agree it's been done to death, but it's worth mentioning that the most recent discussion resulted in a no consensus ruling and to revert to Template:Tq; I can't find any further discussion that resulted in Template:Tq becoming the consensus, only that people have challenged it and it's been knocked back because there was supposedly a consensus for the wording. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@4TheWynne I don't think that was the last discussion. I believe the most recent one was at Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 5#Infobox and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 5#Israeli-born?, which concluded that she was born in Israel, in an area under Israeli control. So why not simply describe her as American-Israeli? That seems perfectly reasonable. The only people who might object to that are those with strongly held political views (see: Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 3#Israeli American? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 5#The nationality thing....again). They are, of course, entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't necessarily reflect reality :) Also, I’d add that at one point, some editors questioned whether “Israeli-American” made sense, but no one pushed back. In hindsight, it actually makes perfect sense to classify her as such, considering that she claims both nationalities. Lililolol (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: After reading a bit of MOS:CITIZEN, Portman’s status really shouldn’t be up for debate to begin with :)

Like the example MOS:CITIZEN gives, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Peter Lorre were both born outside American and later became American citizens. Unlike them, Portman’s parents are both American citizens, one born in Israel, the other in America (birth laws). And yes, Portman was born in Israel, but under American citizenship laws, and as she has explicitly stated, she holds dual citizenship. I am bringing that up because it points out that her status is neither unclear nor ambiguous; it can be easily confirmed with a quick Google search. Unlike Elon Musk or Albert Einstein (who I think was mentioned in a previous discussion), their citizenship status may be debatable; Portman's is straightforward. The only real question should be whether to describe her as "Israeli-American or "Israeli and American," just like how Lorre or Schwarzenegger are labeled. And yes, I know this debate has come up many times, but shouldn’t we just stick with the MOS? Lililolol (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:U, Infobox had nothing to do with the opening sentence and Israeli-born? was more to do with/an extension of the former (based on the assumption that "Israeli-born" was the consensus version, when it wasn't). You're missing the point – there was no proper, MOS-based discussion that resulted in the change from Template:Tq to Template:Tq several years ago; the 2018 RfC was a follow-up to this 2015 discussion, in which "Israeli-born?" and variations of it were genuinely floated and the Jerusalem/Israel debate formed part of the premise as well, and a consensus was reached. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@4TheWynne Hold on! Isn't this the correct discussion about the inclusion of Israel and the opening sentences about her nationality? And about my edit removing "director" from the lead, well, that's not controversial (MOS:ROLEBIO), but we can have another discussion about it when we reach consensus on her nationality/Israel. Also, I feel like just because we got a consensus in the past doesn't mean we can't have another consensus :) Lililolol (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

And my removing the dual citizenship in the lead! I thought that ties with the whole nationality discussion, but we didn't get consensus on that yet. And about the 2018 RfC? Was it really necessary in the first place? Personally, I don't think so.Lililolol (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I honestly don't see how the infobox is unrelated to the opening sentence. Regarding the "Israeli-born" part , while we didn’t reach a consensus on using "Israeli-American," we did have consensus to include "Israel" in the infobox, as established during the infobox discussion. So that stands. And as I suggested earlier in the discussion, we could use "Israeli-American." But as I mentioned in my previous comment, that might be redundant to restate here, right. Lililolol (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:U, I think I've made it pretty clear that a new consensus would have to be reached for the sentence to be changed... wasn't discouraging it; but as Sundayclose said earlier, if you do want to go down that path, you're going to be challenged, and be prepared for it to drag out. That's exactly what the 2018 RfC was, an attempt to discuss/change the wording, and the result was no consensus/change – what makes you say that it wasn't necessary? And no, you wouldn't be able to remove the dual citizenship (or make any other changes to the sentence) based on the outcome of a separate Jerusalem/Israel discussion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see how the infobox is unrelated to the opening sentence? Regarding the "Israeli-born" part, yes, we didn't reach a consensus on using "Israeli-American," but we did agree to include "Israel," so that stands. SpyroeBM suggested not including any nationality in the lead, which is why I removed the mention of dual citizenship (since it should probably be listed as "American" or "Israeli-American." That’s why I made that suggestion in my previous comment.) At the time I removed it, I thought we hadn’t reached consensus on including it, so I apologize for that. For now, I’m okay with keeping the dual citizenship in the lead (even though it still doesn’t make much sense), but as the discussion moves forward, we should update it. Lililolol (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What exactly should we update as we move forward? We don't change things without a new consensus. Consensus can change, but consensus does not expire with the simple passage of time. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

We should use "Jerusalem, Israel" or "West Jerusalem, Israel" for a person born in West Jerusalem who supports Israel. Since Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem is widely recognized, using "Israel" for such individuals and refraining from doing so for those who oppose Israeli sovereignty would be a fair and logical approach. Sharouser (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead image?

Hi! It seems we never reached a clear consensus on the lead image, although the 2023 one appeared to be the most preferred. Apologies if my past edit regarding the image came across as an "editing war"; that wasn’t my intention. To help move things forward, here’s a chance to reach consensus. Feel free to vote on which image we should stick with. My vote goes to A, I think it’s the best, though 2023 could work too.

Those are the newest images, and I believe they have the best quality. If you have a better suggestion, please share it. Lililolol (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I know I asked for this discussion, but I'm more interested in the process and the quality of an image than what image to use here. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

However, if I were to !vote it would be File:Natalie Portman 2023.jpg. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Before the new images from last month were thrown into the mix, I would have been more than happy to keep the existing (2019) image over the 2023 one, which is probably the worst quality of the images here as more of a zoomed-in crop, but I would absolutely go with 2025B – as before, the difference in lighting is slim-to-none (I don't understand why this is used as an argument in favour of 2025A...), and I would argue that her actually half-smiling makes it better/more "flattering" than one where she's facing slightly more towards the camera but not smiling. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: In defense of the 2023 image: it was used for months across various wikis before being replaced with a screenshot from a 2024 Vogue Taiwan video. That screenshot was used for a while but was eventually deleted, and the 2023 image was restored. Honestly, while her makeup in the 2023 image isn’t flawless, the lighting and posing are quite nice, so. Lililolol (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:U, I imagine a possible reason why there was no change from the 2023 or 2024 images was because people were just happy to have a newer image, but the other three photos are much clearer, so would make sense to use one of those, especially if two are less than a month old; of those two, I still think that 2025B looks nicer because she's actually smiling, and don't see why her looking directly at the camera should be a factor (didn't stop us using the 2019 photo...). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

While 2025 photos have better quality in my opinion, I prefer the 2023 image. For some reason, to my brain, the Comic Con one looks nothing like her. Trillfendi (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the 2025 images, she seems kinda plastic, made up, while the 2023 are more like the person and not Hollywood. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Can I suggest the addition of a reference to the appearance that Natalie Portman made at the Change Now Conference in Paris in 2025, where she stated that her decision to involve herself in anti-poverty activism was due to her being "so upset at the imbalances of power, economics and social issues between Israelis and Palestinians" to the section "Views on Israel"

The quote can be seen here (18:46):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGCA-mq2AdA&t=1161s Victor at Zama123 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Rainsage (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

"Outspoken supporter of Israel"

Why does the Haaretz article describing her as an outspoken supporter of Israel come before the article which quotes her as describing her feelings on the subject as complicated? Surely a source which directly quotes her should take precedence over the mere opinion of a journalist? Also, given that more than half of the section entitled "Views on Israel" is dedicated to criticisms she has made of Israeli government policy, it is misleading for it to begin with such a strong statement that runs directly contrary to most of what follows. The aforementioned quote of Portman describing her views on Israel as complex should be the sole introduction, as it gives a better flavour of her actual feelings, and comes directly from her. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I am requesting that the sentences referencing the Haaretz article should be removed, unless Lililolol can find a quote that is directly from Portman where she describes herself as an outspoken supporter of Israel. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victor at Zama123 What's the problem with including Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper (dare I say, an Israeli Rolling Stone?), for its cultural and political relevance? Adding a Haaretz examination actually adds flow, context, and a more accurate reflection of reality per WP:WEIGHT. Adding Haaretz present both sides. The source describes Portman as "outspoken" based on her public actions; this is accurate. Like okay? Her declining to attend a state-sponsored award ceremony does not mean she is a hater or an advocate against Israel. Portman herself has called her relationship with Israel “complex,” but she has never positioned herself as an anti-Israel advocate. Expecting her to take that role seems less about her words or actions and more about public projection. Honestly I would argue that the removal of Haaretz article that examine her career/ advacocy is an example of projection, because why would she campaign against her own people? Sorry for repeating my talking points, but again not including Haaretz would give a wrong image, and keep in mind that i also presented her critiques of Israel in the same section. So, what's the problem besides rejection and denial? Lililolol (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a misleading statement with which to begin a section which is mainly comprised of criticisms she has made of Israeli policy. I never said she was a "hater" of Israel, but neither is she a dyed-in-the-wool cheerleader. And she is not especially outspoken in her support. Unlike a number of other prominent Jewish celebrities, she did not sign any pro-Israel petitions after 10/7, and apart from condemning the attack itself has mostly stayed quiet ever since. Contrast that with someone like Gal Gadot, who has been tweeting and posting about the hostages non-stop since the start. Other celebrities have been far more outspoken than her in their support for Israel. Moreover, she made comments recently at an event in Paris where she said that her decision to get involved in anti-poverty work was due to how "upset" she was at the inequality between Israelis and Palestinians (18:40):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGCA-mq2AdA&t=1127s

Saying that would get you branded a traitor in Israel; she may not be Norman Finkelstein, but you are putting far too much emphasis on the opinion of a single Haaretz writer from 10 years ago. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you object so much to the quote from the Vanity Fair interview? It perfectly sums up her views - that she loves the country but has deep reservations about it at the same time? That is far more accurate than a blanket statement that she she supports everything Israel does. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victor at Zama123 Hi, so I never objected to adding her quote from the Vanity Fair interview! Like! when did I say anything about Vanity Fair? I would point out that I didn't remove it because there was no reason to do so, and I'm not dulu; she's critical but also supportive, so the Vanity Fair/Haaretz articles reflect her two sides. Yes, the Haaretz article is over 10 years old, but so is the Vanity Fair article! It's around 7 or 8 years old, not that much different. Therefore, your argument isn't that strong :)

And her putting Israelis and Palestinians as if they’re the same group or similar people is problematic in itself, and the fact that she’s not criticized at all for that is honestly wild. Anyway, on Wikipedia, editors usually try to start with something positive before moving into criticism (I guess it’s kind of a rule of thumb across Wiki articles). So, saying her relationship with Israel is "complex" could be interpreted negatively that's why the Haaretz comes first then Vanity Fair. Also, what do you mean by "a blanket statement that she supports everything Israel does"? The Haaretz article never said that. They mentioned her fundraising for northern Israel as an example of her support, which anyone would interpret as support for the people, not necessarily the government. Like! You get that she supports the government from the Haaretz article! How did you come to that interpretation? I'm genuinely asking! Lililolol (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The two articles may be of roughly the same age, but one is a direct quote from her, whereas the other is the opinion of a journalist (the article is an opinion piece, not an editorial representing Haaretz as a whole).

And I'm very sorry that you're offended by the fact that she sees Israelis and Palestinians as equal human beings who deserve equal rights, but the fact is that she clearly feels that way and thus it should be reflected in this article.

And saying that someone is an outspoken supporter of a particular country necessarily implies some degree of support for the government. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I am not calling for the removal of all the references to pro-Israel statements by her, such as her Harvard Crimson letter in 2002, or denunciation of 10/7, since those are linked to verifiable statements from her, rather than being the opinion of someone else. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victor at Zama123 I'm not offended :) What I meant is that her actions are subtle, and either way, I was also thinking of including her entire message about not attending the ceremony, because she explicitly does not endorse Netanyahu but also doesn't boycott the state. That subtly aligns with Haaretz's description. Anyways, I was planning on changing the format of this subsection; I will work on it and propose it here. Alright? Lililolol (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

++ Including the opinions of journalists is not discouraged. Plus, sometimes artists say one thing while their actions suggest another; therefore, journalists' perspectives can be a good addition, especially if they are published by major newspapers. That is where my point is coming from, and I am not trying to sound rude. I am sorry if I did. Lililolol (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I would support including the full message about the Genesis Prize. And once again, my problem with the Haaretz quote is that it is out of step with the rest of the subsection, which contains more instances of her criticising Israel (although not to the extent of delegitimizing the country itself) than praising it. And in this case I do not think Portman's actions and words on this subject are in contradiction. She has basically always hewn to the same "soft Zionist" position of supporting Israel's existence but also expressing deep reservations over many aspects of its policies. Victor at Zama123 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge sections?

I was thinking: why not remove the “Filmography and Awards” section and instead include it as a link using the “See also” template, placing it at the top of the “Career” section? Also, I was considering merging “Early life” and “Career” into one section titled “Life and career,” as is done in other featured articles about Jewish actors. I think merging the content could be a controversial move, so I am bringing this up here before editing. So, what yall think? Lililolol (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose all suggested changes. It's quite standard for bio articles of this length to have separate "Early life" and "Career" sections. It accomplishes nothing to merge them, except make it more difficult for a reader not familiar with the article to navigate to the desired information. We write articles for readers, not editors. It's also standard to have a brief “Filmography and Awards” section even if there's a separate article, which results in a link in the table of contents for those who want to quickly go to that section. And we don't have a different article format for "Jewish actors". Her ethnicity is entirely irrelevant. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose Well, why would you put quotation marks around "Jewish actors"? Anyway, I think this article has the potential to become a featured article (in the coming months, probably). I took inspiration from other featured articles—I believe I'm not the only one who does that, right? For example, female actors like Priyanka Chopra, Marilyn Monroe, and Catherine Zeta-Jones, just to name a few, have their filmographies listed as "See also" links under the "Career" section, or selected films listed as bullet points, which I think is a better approach. It reduces redundancy. I mean, why repeat the filmography and notable awards in two different sections? Also, I disagree that it ruins the reader experience. The list is mentioned twice—once as a quick link (infobox) and again in the career section. So, what's the issue? (Not trying to repeat myself, but I would go with the See also approach, because in Portman's case, everything mentioned in the "Career" section is repeated again in the "Filmography" section, so why the repetition?)

And the Jewish actor I had in mind when I wrote this was Jake Gyllenhaal, so yay, his article is also an FA. +++ Articles are better kept under 8k words, so the merge will help (WP:SIZERULE) Lililolol (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I put quotation marks around "Jewish actor" because I was quoting your comment about the format for articles about "Jewish actors", as if the format of actor articles has anything to do with the actor's ethnicity. There is no specific format for Jewish actors, whether it's Portman, Gyllenhaal, or any other Jewish actor. Don't restrict your comparisons to articles about Jewish actors; instead compare to all actor articles of similar length, whether they are Jewish, Arab, African-American, or any of the many other ethnicities. This article may very well reach featured status, but not by making it less reader friendly and dissimilar to other articles about actors of similar length. Your opinion is noted, but don't change anything without consensus. I suggest taking a very close read of WP:CON because some of your comments on this talk page suggest that you don't quite understand some of the details about consensus. See my comments in other sections above. Sundayclose (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected My English is not too great but I will explain. In the second paragraph of „early life“ it says „migrate“ instead of „migrated“ and „wheen“ instead of „when.“ 141.44.198.76 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Respond. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)