Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 1

message: Nice work. I just removed the manual px values for the images as it overrides user thumbnail preferences. -  21:35, 08 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I'm kind of a new user to Wikipedia, so maybe this is something I don't understand fully yet - but it seems like external reference links in the Natalie Portman article keep getting turned into weird anchor links that don't point to anything (#_note-gael). What's the purpose of this? Is it an editing mistake, or is it intentional?
Kevinmooney 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean the Gael link doesn't point to anything? If you press on the number by Gael, it takes you the reference down at the bottom. Try it! JackO'Lantern 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Deleted 

message: There is a picture of the Star Wars Queen's decoy in this article.  I believe that, in fact, this role was played by Keira Knightley (source: IMDB.com).  Can somebody confirm or deny this?  69.198.152.124 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a picture of queen amidala in this article. that character was played by portman. in the film, one of amidala's servants pretends to be her in order to protect the queen. that character is the "decoy" and was played by keira knightley. hope that clears things up. Amo 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I don't think Natalie Portman EVER put on the Queen Amidala makeup and costume except at the end of Star Wars Episode I. I think almost all of the scenes in the movie that has the "Queen" were portrayed by Keira Knightley. In fact, the picture in this article is most likely Keira Knightley--Secret Agent Man 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Amidala 

message: We should replace the link to the topless photo - many people looking up NP would love to see her topless. The Recycling Troll 23:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The same could be said of many people. But I wonder what we'd look like if we became known as a source for such things. Everyking 00:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see her topless (petrified, covered in grits...), but that it is a crappy, grainy photo not worth looking at.  The links to www.natalieportman.com with its extensive galleries are much better links in terms of pictures. Chameleon 09:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Though your comment is several months old, it made me laugh, something I've not done in some time. ✈ James C. 01:17, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
But not topless - we should maintain this usefull, important link! The Recycling Troll 19:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  topless 

message: my attempt at including mention of Natalie Portman's slashdot troll phonomenon in this article was neither vandalism nor point of view, I'd appreciate it if it wasn't labelled as such and removed without provocation. I won't reverse the deletion, just ask that someone else attempt to augment this article with the facts I provided - namely, the "Naked and Petrified Natalie Portman" meme proliferates within internets afterword 03:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually a bit curious as well as to why this gets deleted everytime someone puts it back in.  Could someone explain why it doesn't belong?  Dismas 04:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "notable troll" hardly means anything.  It has nothing to do with a *biography* of someone, therefore not only inappropriate but also damaging. The wikipedia is communism troll is notable, yet we don't mention which articles he's visitied inside them. zen master    T  17:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Wikipedia is Communism troll isn't notable. The naked and petrified trolling seems to have a better claim to notability but I'm not sure. Everyking 18:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems like moronic crap to me, but if it's notable enough to have its own article, it's notable enough to have a link to it from here.  — Chameleon 14:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Moranic crap does not belond in a biographical article when there is no direct relevance to that person.  It is ok in its own article and/or the slashdot article, but not here. zen master    T  22:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever.  I don't have strong feelings on the matter.  I just don't want there to be an edit war.  I also don't think you should label this as vandalism, since it is instead a dispute about content.  — Chameleon 23:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an important cultural reference. It should stay. Spakula 00:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Important cultural reference?!?!  Firstly, we're talking at most Slashdot.  Slashdot does not define cultural importance in any way, shape, or form.  Secondly, how do we know anything more about the biographied through this incident?  Should we also link to every other minor incident on major websites that happen to by-the-by involve her? --patton1138 14:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course Slashdot is culturally important - it's simply intellectual snobbery to deny it. The reference is relevant because of it's importance. Stop removing things you don't like. Natalizer 18:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slashdot is important, trolling is not. zen master    T  18:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism/naked and petrified

message: Is her last name Hershlag for sure? In the Hebrew version of this article it says her last name is Har-Sheleg (הר-שלג). The Hebrew version makes more sence, because Har-Sheleg means Snow-Mountain, while Hershlag has no meaning that I know of.
Since I'm not sure - I won't change it. But if someone knows anything about this, please change it or correct me in this discussion.
:It is definitely "Hershlag" in the Roman alphabet.  It may become "Har-Sheleg" when transliterated into Hebrew and then back again, but that's another matter.  These days, Natalie uses her real name, rather than her stage name, in non-cinematic contexts, and she spells it "Hershlag". Chamaeleon 12:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of Israelis have "Hebraized" names, often with the sound of a non-Hebrew name adapted to some similar-sounding Hebrew words.  For example, see David Ben-Gurion.--Pharos 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hershlag or Har-Sheleg? 

message: We have some info on Natalie's relationships.  I think it's important to have references for these, because it is just the sort of thing that the press is likely to invent and we are likely to repeat uncritically. Chamaeleon 11:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to sources for these should definately go in the article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments in "relationships" below.  I move to leave off the relationships section altogether, because it can be so speculative, and repetitive of incorrect info. That being said, the link to Liron Levo as her boyfriend is found in the interview from Cosas (already linked in article under "beliefs"). Of course I really can't prove a negative, but confirmations for the others come from photos, interviews, reports that will take some time to look up, but I'll work on it and add here if appropriate. Factual data 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyfriends 

message: WHy was the link to her academic paper removed?--Azathar 04:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, it was a fairly good read... I was impressed. TheProject 23:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In the ext. links section, called "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence" Everyking 07:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The Frontal Lobe paper link is moved to the education section now, along with a link to another paper she wrote as a student on the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen. Factual data 19:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic link removed 

message: While interesting, the lengthy discussion above does not belong here, and has used up the space.  See directions on "article size" linked above.  I suggest deleting the passages or adding them to the Jerusalem page. 67.129.74.10 07:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs here because it is about the content of the article. article size is not the same as the talk page. If you are concerned with the size of the talk page then you can always take it upon yourself to  archive it. You should not archive active discussions. Alun 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Edit discussion page has been misused, now too long'''

message: I added a link to Portman's Nov 2004 "apology letter" to Allure magazine. 
I changed the name of a fan site link to "AQMB Natalie Portman Forum" as it was listed incorrectly.  67.129.74.10 08:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Links, Correction in Listing'''

message: "Portman is reportedly between 5'1" and 5'3" tall, a size which she often credits with helping her blend into the crowd." 
Could someone convert that to centimeters too?
:That's approximately between 155cm and 160cm. --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 5'1" - 5'3" in '''cm'''

message: See discussion above regarding her "boyfriends." Please stop adding incorrect information that is found in tabloids, or "copy and pasted" from online. One can uncover who her friends are and speculate about who she is dating by searching the image galleries on fansites, and matching those up with reported sightings or the people she mentions in interviews. No need to make names up or repeat gossip already proven to be false. 
I move to leave off this kind of personal information, as too many people be tempted to add whatever they can dig up. However, if this section on "relationships" remains, I think the statement and quote about her not being opposed to a relationship with a woman, should go under "relationships" rather than tagged on to the end of "beliefs." Factual data 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised the earlier edited text for relationships and added links and sources, and included link to the discussion below and above on her relationships. Factual data 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Relationships'''

message: Personally, I feel that there should be a "relationship" section. I mean, this is a page dedicated to everything Natalie. I do agree with the previous comment about providing acurate sources for people thas she is linked with. I read a magazine that actually had Moby confirming a brief relationship with Natalie a long time ago. We all know about Gael of course. and more recently, there has been a bunch of smaller articles that link her with the Devon Sheffield guy. But i've done some research, and apparently he's been mentioned several times on both natalieportman.com and AQMB. From what I can tell, he lives in Houston, Texas. I also read an article how she was in Houston recently visiting him. There are pictures as well about this since it was on Halloween. I'll see if I can provide the link to this.
--User:Jessyzah 2:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We dated so briefly that you almost can't call it dating. She's one of my close friends, and has so much more substance than most people I know. At this point, she's like my cousin. If we were to find ourselves making out again, it would feel a little incestuous.
Adam Levine first claimed a relationship with Portman, then said they hardly knew each other. As mentioned above in the other "Boyfriends" section, Adam is a longtime friend of Jake Gyllenhaal, who Natalie was romantically linked to from beginning  through August 2002. The June 23 2002 edition of the Boston Globe had a blurb on them being a clandestine couple based on their hotel-travel arrangements at the Nantucket Film Fest, but it's no longer on line.
As mentioned earlier, in 2005 Natalie dated Liron Levo from the beginning of the year through the summer. She referred to him as her boyfriend, in an incident in Ecuador, where somebody asked if Anakin from Star Wars was her boyfriend. She pointed to her companion Liron and said, "No, he is my boyfriend." Quote found in this story in Cosas, (see rough translation linked in article). 
Most recently (October, November, December 2005) Natalie has been allegedly seen in Spain and London with old flame Gael Garcia Bernal. The sources are Spanish blogs and UK and Spanish gossip tabloids, but a more reliable source is the Spanish edition of Glamour (December). In the intro to the interview with cover girl Portman, the writer says that she saw Portman and Bernal, along with her co-star Javier Bardem and Elena Anaya, at Pub Barbu in Madrid at 3am. Factual data 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natalie and Boyfriends 

message: Updated with current schedule. Removed quote box requesting references or sources; this request was referring to earlier information posted there with somebody claiming to be a boyfriend. It was mistakenly left up after the incorrect info was removed. Factual data 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional Life

message: Une question: was it summa (unlikely), magna (probably) or just good old Tommy Lee Jones cum? ZephyrAnycon 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you think Natalie graduating summa cum laude is unlikely; she's been known to be ridiculously intelligent long before she became famous.  (She had a 1580 on her SAT's in high school, and that was while acting in several movies.)  At any rate, according to this article, 91% of all graduates from Harvard graduate with some form of honors. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard degree

message: I removed all of that as no references were provided for any of the quotes. I don't know how the image can be considered fair use either? It was cited that the autor allows anyone to hold it for any purpose, yet the author is left unknown and no reference or evidence was provided. It's well known (even stated in the paragraph) that it was taken by the paparazzi, so Im assuming it is indeed copyright. How is it that controversial anyway? Her saying that she doesnt like doing nude scenes and than tanning on a beach is hardly controversy...please feel free to discuss if you disagree though. Forever young 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not need to be public domain. It could be classed as fair use, or it may (though prob. not) be under a compatible license like the GFDL or certain Creative COmmons license. --Computerjoe's talk 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No don't delete it. If you feel its repetitive, edit it down, don't delete the whole lead. The "I'd rather be smart than be a movie star" is not new, I did not add it. And she was nominated for a Tony award. Iam responsible for recent changes, mainly to the career section which i rewrote and the lead, which was only a line or two previously. I thought I did a good job. I would really like to work on it to improve it more. It would be great to collaborate on the NP article, is there anything majorly wrong with the professional section? Forever young 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topless photo and paragraph 

message: I removed the image because it is not Public Domain until you can prove it. I bet that photographer went to a good bit of effort for that photo and just because porno sites host it does not mean its in the Public Doman.
I removed the section because:
* It was hardly a controversey (see the other three sections for examples of.)
* Putting a reference note at the top does not give a Wikipedian the power to write unreferenced information. Please find the quotation references before submitting them.
* It seems (in my own view) that the section was put in out of bad faith as the actual incident in question is not a notable point in her career.
Forever young 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not need to be public domain. It could be classed as fair use, or it may (though prob. not) be under a compatible license like the GFDL or certain Creative COmmons license. --Computerjoe's talk 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content again

message: The new paragraph at the beginning of the article should not have been added. It paraphrases information that is already in the article. If the editor wants to add some of their information to the existing text, that seems okay, but to add an entire new section that merely repeats what is below is not necessary. 
Anybody else agree with deleting it? Please do so, or I will do it soon. Factual data 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No don't delete it. If you feel its repetitive, edit it down, don't delete the whole lead. The "I'd rather be smart than be a movie star" is not new, I did not add it. And she was nominated for a Tony award. Iam responsible for recent changes, mainly to the career section which i rewrote and the lead, which was only a line or two previously. I thought I did a good job. I would really like to work on it to improve it more. It would be great to collaborate on the NP article, is there anything majorly wrong with the professional section? Forever young 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition of Content

message: For a biographical article, we don't need all these images. I think we can get rid of all but two: the main picture (for identification purposes) and the picture of her in Leon (to represent her child acting days). Thoughts? -- MisterHand 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MisterHand, I think the article looks good with the photographs. Please do remove pics, however, if there are copyright problems. regards, gidonb 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion they should stay. Forever young 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too many images. Bronks 26 feb 2006.
I think the article violates policy stated in WP:FAIR, namely: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." -- MisterHand 13:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your probably right. It most likey cannot be fair use due to the amount of images. I think we (regular contributers, I know there are a few) should tackle the problem, before someone else comes along and deletes them all. So lets discuss - What should stay and what should go? I know the Free Zone image at the top is popular, but what about the career ones (screenshots)? Cvene64 23:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned, copyright is the only good reason to delete some of these nice pictures. gidonb 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: well they filmed in 1997, and i think her casting may even have been announed as early as 1996. Can anyone find a source?
Amo 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cast in 1999?

message: anyone have a source cos i have never heard that middle name mentioned? Even on sites that attempt to deconstruct and analyse her name...
Amo 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "natalie marie herschlag"

message: :"Portman turned down many roles during this time due to her position on regarding young adult actors and actresses being exposed to sex in films." (second paragraph)
I'm not sure what this means... is it that she turned down roles because she felt those roles were too sexualized?  Thanks.  --Allen 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it for now. It could be seen as POV, but what it was talking about, is that she turned down roles because of the sexual content in the film. Theres some more info in the career section, which talks about Anywhere But Here. Anyone feel free to rework it into the lead if they want to. Cvene64 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember (but don't have a cite for) reading or hearing that she turned down enough roles for this reason that it was a known or notable point about her. So it may be worthy of working into the lead. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for clarification 

message: I find the chronology of events in this section a bit confusing: it says she started attending theatre camp at 13, then took up professional role in 1993, and "Léon opened on November 18, 1994 and marked her feature film debut at age twelve." Am I missing something?
And when did she take "Portman" as her stage name? Was it when she was "introduced to the talent scout" earlier on, or only after given the part in Léon?
Could someone be kind enough to advise? Thanks!
Tonyho 09:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i think it goes like this: spotted in pizza parlour, some broadway (understudy/dance) experience, world patrol kids, Leon, Summer camps all through teens.
Amo 13:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Career : Chronology 

message: I've never seen this suggested. i think it would be pretty incledible if her mum were doing this. Nastalie's huge!
Amo 13:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiscali seems to say this. JackO'Lantern 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "who now works as her agent"

message: Is it time to archive this talk page? It is 54 kilobytes long right now...Cvene64 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I've heard from a couple of sources--this page included--that Natalie was a semi-finalist in the Intel Science Talent Search, but the STS website (www.sciserv.org/sts) seems to have no mention of her in any of their past semi-finalist lists, going back to the 1997-98 school year (I would imagine she should have entered the competition a year later, but she's in none of the lists). Can anyone confirm that she actually was an STS semi-finalist?
AdamSolomon 23:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed until it can be verified 69.168.67.216 10:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intel STS semi-finalist? 

message: Anyone know her stance? Did she refuse to serve (as someone said up above)? Just wondering.
-- Al™ 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did not live in Israel at drafting age, so the question should not have been very relevant to her. She left Israel when she was three years old. She does hold an Israeli citizenship, as verified by  the Hebrew interview I added to the external links. gidonb 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, thanks -- Al™ 06:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi 152.130.8.2. Well you answered the question yourself. Hey, in the internet age it is in darn hard to sell newspapers and magazines. Don't be too rough on them! ;-) Cheers, gidonb 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Army 

message: Is it just me or is most of the controversy section a bunch of non-notable crap?  68.145.141.4 19:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your just about right. It is a joke having it there, but pple keep putting stuff back in. Cvene64 00:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never understood how the last one is even a controversy. --Bacteria 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: It doesn't matter if she is going to read this. This section violates WP:TPG "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." So as the guideline suggest, I have deleted the fan letter. Putting it back will be seen as violating the above guideline and maybe even as vandalism. Gdo01 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Natalie  

message: I hate the front image in this article, it looks so ugly and i replaced it twice with a better one from the premier of v for vendetta, the first time it was mysteriously removed from wikipedia and then the article, the second time (a couple of hours ago) it was removed from this article by Comicstanding3 saying that this is COMMONS image, you can not replace it with a fair-use one, that is a copyright violation...
now, i'm not modifying the commons image, i'm just replacing it with a perfectly licensed and with a known source and tags ang everything image.. why is that wrong?? --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a copyright violation to use a fair-use image in place of a free-use image. Comitmanto 09:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly front image 

message: Given that the statement is "the film adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel, V for Vendetta", the link should clearly be to the article about "Alan Moore's graphic novel". The article specifically relating to the film is linked to more that once already. Amo 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''V For Vendetta'' link

message: Highly suggest at least add Mathilda/"Leon" role, not to say about the fact that it is even more noticeable than Amidala role. Have a look at Top 250 movies at IMDb and note that Léon_(film) (where Natalie Portman ) takes the 43-th place while the highest Star Wars with Natalie Portman takes just 245-th place. I am not adding it myself due to "Please do not add any other roles without discussion"
Honeyman 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it probably would not be wise to add any other roles besides Padmé Amidala, because, as I noted, they were changed three times in almost as many days, and because rationalizations could be made for adding almost any of her roles; "Mathilda should be added because Léon is a popular/highly-rated film;" "Alice in Closer should be added because she was nominated for an Academy Award;" "Sam in Garden State should be added because that's my favorite movie;" "Evey Hammond in V for Vendetta should be added because she shaved her head;" "Ann August in Anywhere But Here should be added because she was nominated for a Golden Globe ..." etc.  Not sure how you figure it's "even more noticeable than" her Star Wars roles, but that's an opinion rather than fact, which is my point--there isn't any one way to pinpoint notable roles, and in my opinion, the infobox entry is for putting the one most notable role in general, and any others should be (inarguably) on par with that one--it's not, in my opinion, another place to list many or all of a given actor's film roles.  -Shannernanner 06:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding:  Just as an example, Harrison Ford came to mind, and I checked his page:  his infobox contains only Han Solo and Indiana Jones. -Shannernanner 06:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is incredible that this kind of thing is a part of the infobox, as all articles should be neutral. It is impossible to dtermine what should be there, there is no compromise, or rationale answer, as everyone has a different understanding as to what she is notable for. Should be removed altogether imo. Valet5 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is worthwhile; I think of it is a general identifier, as if a person who was not familiar with the actor in question came upon the page could read the infobox and recognize the role--in some cases, roles--the person is known for, as a means of identifying them.  That obviously doesn't work in every case, but seems to be the purpose to me. -Shannernanner 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Leon to the notable roles section for the simple fact that it was well known and widely regarded as her breakthrough role. That, in my opinion, and in common sense, makes it notable. The pedantic warning exists on no other article, and they all manage fine not to dispute the contents. Thanks. 59.18.237.254 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was looking at some of the more prominent celebrities/stars (Hanks, Jolie, Cruise, DeNiro), and none had a notable role, except for Julia Roberts. And, there was not much of a concensus in the infoboxes-the 'callouts' were never the same. Isn't there a standard infobox for actors that should be adhered to? For my two cents, I think Mathilda has more importance, but as for world recognition, it is Padmé. Jimcripps 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the standard actor infobox. -Shannernanner 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason DeNiro has no notable roles is because they're all Oscar nominated. If you look at Johnny Depp's infobox, I think this is a prime example of how a good one looks. The Academy awards section takes care of the Oscar nominated roles, and the notable roles has ones generally accepted as notable; e.g. breakthrough role in Edward Scissorhands, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas etc. In my opinion, Padmé is obviously notable, as is Mathilda in Leon, and maybe Sam in Garden State; but that's about it at the moment. BTW, people don't actually need permission to add to articles, whether you agree or not, and so this whole trying to find a solution to a non-existant problem isn't really the best use of everybody's time.CelebHeights 10:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable roles 

message: Hi, I am an admin of a Forum Dedicated to Nat.
It is www.nataliehershlag.tk
I feel with its advertisement here it will grow massivly. Why? Well there are no good forums out there for people to comment on what THEY think. Most websites just post the admins thoughts. This forum is genuinly for everyone to post their comments, thoughts and feelings about numerous topics.
Please allow me to put my Link in the External Links
Thx
Drew
*Please don't. Wikipedia is not a link collection, nor a place to advertise your web sites. - TexMurphy 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Gdo01 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to add a link 

message: The selection of links in this article is pathetically inadequate. I have removed a viciously phrased hidden message that was unfit to be included in Wikipedia as it was incompatible with the basic anyone can edit tenet of Wikipedia. I know very little about NP, but would ask those who do to add at least half a dozen extra external links. 82.18.125.110 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:EL specifically "Links to be avoided : Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." You should also read WP:SPAM and not to mention WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not "mere collections of external links or Internet directories") Gdo01 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the second fansite link as guidelines suggest only one. Plus natalieportmanfanclub.com seemed to replicate the content of natalieportman.com, only with less detail. I agree that a forum isn't really a necessary link. It doesn't necessarily inform, and the fansite listed offers a messageboard and two chatrooms of its own, as well as linking to other fan communities.Amo 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia: External links says that "a lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links", and point seven in Links normally to be avoided is "discussion forums". Amo 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I prefer that links only be used in a bibliographical sense--not just for their own sake.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, after all.  Also, www.nataliehershlag.tk is a for-profit redirect.  It shouldn't even be mentioned on the Talk page.75.26.6.26 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction:  the ".tk" website isn't just a for-profit redirect.  It's a for-profit redirect with compulsory registration for use.  If only I could stab people in the face over the Internet...just 2 times! 75.26.6.26 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: the fact remains, 58.107.97.172 that the pages Gdo01 pointed you in the direction of recommend not linking to sites like the forum.Amo 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are two ad popups and Google ads on the forum. No money is made from those? And please keep your language clean. - TexMurphy 08:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I won't argue with you anymore, you seem unable to have a civilized conversation anyway. Nevertheless, the link doesn't belong here and I will continue to remove it. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided before adding this link again. - TexMurphy 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopelessly inadequate selection of links

message: Portman said, that her granfather was Polish. Polish Jew, of course. Than we can talk abiut her as a Polish Jews and a Polish-American. What do you think?
:No, that means we can say her grandfather was a Polish jew. :-) -Duribald 07:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish grandfather? 

message: She would receive a Tony nomination for her role as Anne Frank
Anybody see a reference for this ever, I have'nt.
:I can't find a reference either, so i've removed it. You can search the archives on the official Tony site here: http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/pastwinners/index.html (and yes it does list nominees who've never won) but she's not listed. Amo 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony