Talk:Natalie Portman/Jerusalem and Israel

message: Here's how we settle this debate, and in fact every other debate on Wikipedia. If we have a large number of reliable sources on Natalie Portman that state that she was born in "Jerusalem, Israel", then we can list her as being born in Jerusalem, Israel. If we don't, not. Wikipedia reports what other sources have said - and if they've reported that Portman was born in Israel, so can we and so we should. It's as simple as that. Now let's look at what the sources say Mad Jack 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are, indeed, numerous reliable sources that say Portman was born in Israel, including StarWars.com, New York Times, IGN films interview, Kidzworld, NatalieEmpire. The majority, if not all, of the trivia/celebrity sites on the net, while not reliable sources on their own, also list her birthplace as being in Israel. That means we do have sources that list Portman was being born in Jerusalem, Israel, so that's what Wikipedia has to report. I'll restore the birthplace in a while, unless anyone has a reliable source that specifically says Portman wasn't born in Israel. Mad Jack 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion is not workable in my opinion, an article that may be considered a reliable source of information about Portman, may not be considered a reliable source about the status of Jerusalem.Alun 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very true, but this is an article about Portman, not an article about Jerusalem. I wouldn't use these sources in the Jerusalem article, and I wouldn't use sources about Jerusalem that don't mention Portman in the Portman article. Mad Jack 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, but you also wouldn't want to contradict the Jerusalem article in this one (surely internal consistency is important), especially on the basis of unreliable sources. I cannot help but think that this is simply an attempt to politicise this article. There is absolutely no need to state that Jerusalem is in Israel in the article, it in no way contributes to the quality or accuracy of the article, and is not only legally incorrect, but is also highly offensive to many people, especially those who have had their land and property in west Jerusalem stolen by the Israeli state with no compensation whatsoever. A simple statement that she was born in Jerusalem is not only perfectly correct, but is also a totally benign assertion. As the status of Jerusalem is a matter of international law, is highly controversial and is also unresolved, it seems to me that this is far and away the best solution. I really don't understand why anyone could possibly not accept this compromise. Alun 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because almost every other source about Portman states that she was born in Israel. The status of Jerusalem is something that is best kept to the Jerusalem article. If this causes a contradiction - well - if reliable sources contradict each other in this regard then I guess we can, too. By the way, there seems to be a group of even more reliable sources that say Portman is "Israeli-born" , including BBC movies. If such an overwhelming amount of sources on Portman state that she was born in Israel, I can't see why Wikipedia wouldn't say that, unless there are good sources specifically on Portman that state she wasn't. Oh, and just because something is offensive to people for whatever reason, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, especially if it's on almost every other source on the same topic (Portman, in this case). Mad Jack 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing accuracy about Portman with accuracy about Jerusalem. There is no need to state that Jerusalem is in Israel for the purposes of this article, you do not even provide a reason for doing this, your excuse for doing this is that the mistake is made elswhere, so it's OK for this page to make the same mistake, this is not a reason for including inacurate information that can just as easily be omited. You should restrict these articles to information about Portman, that information is at least reliable (depending on the source), but a BBC movies website hardly constitutes a reliable source for the status of Jerusalem. I agree with you that the status of Jerusalem is best kept to the Jerusalem article, so let's leave it off this one by simply stating that she was born in Jerusalem and nothing else. It is you who are including the status of Jerusalem in the article by claiming that it is in Israel. You give no good reason for this inclusion except to say that sources reliable on Portman (that would not be considered reliable on the status of Jerusalem) claim this. I point out to you that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, from the reliable sources guideline. The claim that Jerusalem is in Israel is an exceptional claim. Oh, a more relevant BBC page where it explicitly claims that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Alun 18:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have sources that claim she was born in Jerusalem. You have Unreliable sources that claim Jerusalem is in Israel (these are unreliable because they are not directly relevant to the status of Jerusalem). You give no proper reason as to why you think mention of Israel is at all important to the article (because it is not). If you can give me a good reason why mention of Israel is fundamental to the article, I will concede the point, but there is none. You simply want to play politics with the article for your own reasons. I will include my more reliable sources in the article and include a note on the status of Jerusalem if you include your unreliable sources. Alun 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to include a reliable source that specifically comments on Portman's birthplace, not anything on Jerusalem/Israel/etc. that doesn't have anything to do with/mention Portman herself. The sources I use are absolutely reliable and relevant to this article, because they are about Portman, and so is this article. Again, I wouldn't use these sources on the Jerusalem article, but I would use them here. My reason is that every single other source on Portman mentions her Israeli birth, and so should we. Mad Jack 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot make out if you are being fascetious, pigheaded or if you are just genuinely stupid. Stating that Jerusalem is in Israel is not directly relevant to the Natalie Portman article. Stating that it is just plain wrong. Please explain to me how it is directly relevant to the article. Alun 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am stating that Portman was born in Jerusalem and in Israel. This is what almost, or maybe all, other sources on Portman say. Why they all think it is relevant, I don't know. Wikipedia doesn't make its own judgments or decisions - we just report. If this is what has been reported on Portman, then we report that too. Mad Jack 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, again, I can not stress this enough. If you want to remove "Israel" from the birth place, find a source on Portman, not on the status of Jerusalem, that says she wasn't born in Israel or something along those lines. Anything else is original research Mad Jack 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Can't you find any 'real citations for the status of Jerusalem then? You have to peddle your POV on this article. You still have not explained why you claim that it is important to state that Jerusalem is in Israel in the article. I do have an alternative proposal. How about we state that she was born in Jerusalem and is Israeli? Would you accept that as a compromise? Sorry about before, I don't want to get into an edit war. Alun 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What real citations? What do you mean? The only citations acceptable for this article are citations on Natalie Portman, and I've found plenty of those that state that she was born in Israel. I have no interest or desire to debate the status of Jerusalem. It already states that Portman is Israeli. What I want this article to do is reflect every single other source on Portman, which states that she was born in Jerusalem, Israel. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do - in an article about whatever subject, it is supposed to say what reliable sources have said about that very subject. If these sources say Portman was born in Israel, so should we. If you think that's the POV of these sources, well, I guess you have the right to that opinion. But until reliable sources specifically comment that Natalie Portman was not born in Israel, we can't present that point of view here. If you really want that "contested" link in there, fine, but this is as far as this discussion can go without reliable sources that state Portman wasn't born in Israel - for whatever reason. Mad Jack 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article now claims that Jerusalem is in Israel. This is irrelevant to Natalie Portman and her article, which you must know. You are interested in none of the things you claim, you are only interested in repeating the erroneous assertions of others from unreliable sources. None of your sources is qualified as a reliable source for the status of Jerusalem. You have no real reason for including this information, it is not necessary to include it just because some articles about Portman are written by people who obviously spend far too much time on the trivial pursiute of interviewing celebrities rather than engaging in real journalism. Plenty of Portman articles simply state that she was born in Jerusalen and make no mention of Jerusalem being in Israel, I simply ask that we use that model instead of the ones with erroneous information Alun 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article now claims that Jerusalem is in Israel, this is not a properly verified statement. These sources lack any credibility regarding the reliable sources guideline when it comes to making such claims. Exceptional claims demand exceptional sources, this is an exceptional claim, but your sources are just sad. If you want to include this misinformation, then I suggest you include it as a quote from one of your sources, at least that way it ensures that it is only seen as a quote from a magazine, rather than a legal fact. Alun 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way erroneous information is not a POV, it is a legal fact, please read, and try to comprehend some of the sources I have provided. Alun 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to restate it one more time:
*The article now says Portman was born in Jerusalem, Israel. This fact is properly cited and can be found in almost any source on Portman.
*If you can provide a source on Portman that contests her place of birth, and says she was in fact not born in Israel, then we have an issue, and then it becomes an exceptional claim. Until then, the only one contesting this is you, and Wikipedia users aren't reliable sources. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion until sources about Portman are presented that contrast the information that is cited and up right now. Mad Jack 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are asking the impossible and you know it. You also know that you cannot provide proper verifiability, so you are using unreliable sources to try to imply that it is commonly accepted that Jerusalem is in Israel. This statement is incorrect, your sources lack the authority to verify this claim. From WP:RS: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing, in this case is Jerusalem in Israel? I do not think your sources count as experts in the field of international relations, and this Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, same again. Your sources are not good enough to make this claim. Alun 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was not meant as a personal accusation, it was not meant as an accusation of any kind, I am sorry if you percieved it as such and appologise for phrasing my comment in this way, I do not wish to cause offence. I disagree with your reasoning, your reasoning about Portman is correct, but the article still claims that Jerusalem is in Israel, this is irrelevant to the Portman article, and so can be removed without harm to the article IMHO. Be that as it may, I do think you are acting in good faith, and I hope you understand that I am. Although I think there are neutrality issues with the statement I don't think these issues are concerned with the subject of the article. I did consider putting an NPOV tag on the article, but have decided that this could be construed as inflamatory, and I have also come to the conclusion that, while I think it is a breach of the NPOV policy, it is not important vis a vis the main subject of the article. SO I will leave it as it is, I don't think we can gain any headway here and I do not think edit waring is of any benefit to any article. If it's OK with you I will archive the discussions regarding the status of Jerusalem in order to clear some space on the talk page. Alun 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please, go ahead and archive the discussion. Thank you for ending this, I don't much enjoy these discussions. Mad Jack 06:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerusalem, Israel?