Talk:Natalie Portman

Infobox

One reasonable point that's been made is that all of the Category:Actresses from Jerusalem articles have Jerusalem, Israel in the infobox except this one. Although "other stuff exists" isn't generally a useful argument, it's worth considering why it's only omitted here. I searched on insource:"Jerusalem, Israel" and gave up counting at 3000 articles using that construct. Very few editors were involved in the Talk:Natalie_Portman/Jerusalem_and_Israel discussions. There seems to have been a single editor who was adamant that it not be included. Perhaps a discussion with participation from a wider group of editors would be useful? Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a standing consensus one way or the other? I skimmed through Talk:Natalie Portman/Jerusalem and Israel, but didn't see much in the way of consensus building. Maybe an RfC is in order, and something added to the top like Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It's very much worth noting that the idea that the status is disputed does not extend to where Jerusalem is actually located. It is located in Israel. There is of course a well-known controversy about the question of it's recognition internationally as the capital of Israel, but that's not about where it is located. As noted by Schazjmd, we use the construct "Jerusalem, Israel" all over the place, which is 100% correct becuase that's where Jerusalem is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Lol, the status of Jerusalem, one of the most hotly contested and intractable problems of the past 75+ years,has just been settled at the stroke of a keyboard by Jimbo Wales... adding this to the founding of wikipedia, there can't be many people who can claim two such major contributions to global society! Anyway ,for the avoidance of doubt, "Jerusalem is in Israel" is not an indisputable fact and our article at Jerusalem is very careful to make no such claim. While there might be a case that Portman specifically was born under Israeli jurisdiction and also that West Jerusalem is considerably less controversial than East Jerusalem,it remains the case that internationally, the city is regarded as unsettled and disputed. The status quo of simply listing the city without a country label in the infobox while going into more detail int the prose seems eminently sensible here since it neatly sidesteps the issue without giving support or opposition to any of the claims to the city.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This comment fails to assume good faith, and I don't know why you made it. Do you have any policy based arguments? Jerusalem is, indisputably, in Israel, that's where it is physically located. I haven't solved any of the very real controversies nor attempted to. My point is that none of those controversies has any place in this article, since it's a very simple fact. If you want to fight about Israel and Palestine, please go do it somewhere else.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This conversation could continue until enough users can agree to the reality that Jerusalem is in Israel but scrolling up, you can see that ScottishFinnishRadish has closed three previous discussions on Jerusalem. No other national capital is subject to as much debate as Jerusalem. Queens Historian (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Those were closed due to widespread WP:ECR violations. Discussion on this topic among extended-confirmed editors is welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand. So only extended-confirmed editors can decide if a discussion can continue. Queens Historian (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79, @Jimbo Wales Just as Hong Kong, being inside China, does not make it a Chinese province or state, the location of Jerusalem within Israel does not automatically determine its status, as this is a complex and disputed issue. Also, there was a policy (which I don’t fully remember) that says something along the lines of; just because a certain article follows a particular style doesn’t mean all wiki articles must follow the same. Lililolol (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You say it "is 100% correct becuase that's where Jerusalem is." According to who? The international community has a variety of views on this, with the overwhelming majority of countries not recognizing Jerusalem (as a whole) as being part of Israel, in a similar fashion to how the overwhelming majority of countries don't recognize Mariupol as being part of Russia. JasonMacker (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales

Sir, I apologize, but your comments seem to be the ones that fail to 'assume good faith.' For example: "There is of course a well-known controversy about the question of its recognition internationally as the capital of Israel, but that's not about where it is located. As noted by Schazjmd, we use the construct "Jerusalem, Israel" all over the place, which is 100% correct because that's where Jerusalem is." Seriously, no one would say that about Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Mexican canals, or any other place with a disputed status. Treating Jerusalem as a location with a complex identity is valid, and ignoring that goes against WP:NPOV. Lililolol (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi yall, I think an RfC would be a better approach, not just for this article, but for the "3,000 articles" and for Category: Actresses from Jerusalem. Why not aim for a consensus that articles about Jerusalem should not include "Israel" unless a source explicitly states that the person was born in West Jerusalem, a specific street, or a neighborhood? I believe this would be both fair and neutral. And as mentioned before, Jerusalem's status is disputed, and we shouldn't ignore that.

Tag relevant contributors;

@Jimbo Wales

@Sharouser

@Schazjmd

@IOHANNVSVERVS

@Amakuru Lililolol (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm tapping out of this discussion and unwatching this article. Expanding the question about one infobox on one article to a project-wide crusade that "articles about Jerusalem should not include "Israel" unless a source explicitly states that the person was born in West Jerusalem, a specific street, or a neighborhood" is too broad and contentious for me. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Sure, leave the discussion if that works for you. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to unwatch an article just because of one discussion, but do whatever makes you comfortable🫶

And sorry, but let me explain why I’m suggesting expanding this to a "project-wide" discussion. The first comment mentioned other similar articles, and I thought it would be fair and unbiased to address this more broadly rather than just focusing on one case. Lililolol (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the article about the status of Jerusalem as a whole, which is complex and disputed. This is the article about Natalie Portman, which makes it much simpler. Whether or not all Jerusalem is in Israel or not, the part she was born in was, right? Or is there a claim she was born in East Jerusalem? --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted to the status quo pending further discussion, but I am not opposed to the word "Israel" being used in the infobox; use of that word here doesn't change the more complex situation covered in the Jerusalem article, and we are already making it clear in the lede that she is "Israeli-born." It would also be more consistent with most other people in Category:Actresses_from_Jerusalem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if RS support it, perhaps we could say West Jerusalem, Israel. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps: Jerusalem (West Jerusalem, Israel) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This would be fine with me, although a bit awkward and pointless since we don't do that elsewhere. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@GRuban Right! opening an RfC or something similar, such as on a page like List of people from Jerusalem, would be more appropriate than focusing solely on Portman’s article. Lililolol (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And no, she never said she was from West or East, just Jerusalem. Lililolol (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

(Take deep breath, don't fangirl over Jimbo appearing in my Watchlist..) Not sure how many times I have reverted changes to support historical/discussed consensus, but people would rather edit war than to take the suggestion to "discuss on talk to achieve consensus". I am all in favor of change supported by discussion and consensus, regardless of my personal opinions. (Will reserve opining for an RFC discussion, if there is one.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Lol, I'm just a Wikipedian but absolutely very happy to have a change supported by discussion and consensus. It's worth noting that the current status quo isn't really supported by policy or consensus, outside of a fizzled discussion from a very long time ago. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Should a centrally-publicized RfC be opened for this question to both get more input and to reach a formal decision? Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Yes, I think an RfC would be better. Also, please tag me in the RfC because I want to join the conversation. Lililolol (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Since another discussion has already been started below, I won't open an RfC at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

We should use "Jerusalem, Israel" for West Jerusalem born person who support Israel. Sharouser (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sharouser Her support will not change Jerusalem's status, which is disputed. Also, did she clarify where she was born, whether it was in the West or not? Honestly, I don't think she did. Lililolol (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I found a source2. She was born at Hadassah Mount Scopus, which is located in the Mount Scopus region. This region is an exclave of West Jerusalem. Sharouser (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Israeli-born?

Hi, I know this has been discussed before, but let's go over it again. She was born in Jerusalem, a city whose status is disputed. In the lead, it says "Israeli-born," which seems both confusing and inconsistent. If Israel is not included in the infobox, why is it mentioned in the lead? Jerusalem is claimed by two parties and is often treated as a distinct entity—not just geographically, but also in terms of identity. Even some key Israeli politicians, like Reuven Rivlin, have referred to its residents as "Jerusalemites", so wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "Jerusalem-born" in the lead rather than "Israeli-born"? Lililolol (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I hope this discussion will be about This article and not geolocation in general, if not then it should be discussed somewhere else. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@FlightTime Yes! It's about this article. Honestly, what should be discussed somewhere else is the discussion above this one lol. Lililolol (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol: Totally agree, thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't West Jerusalem undisputedly a part of Israel? If so, and if she was born in West Jerusalem, then seems reasonable to call her Israeli-born. Excuse me if I'm missing any details here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS You are right, but she did not clarify which part of Jerusalem she was born in. That's why I suggested "Jerusalem-born" because it's broader and more neutral. Lililolol (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS & @FlightTime Hi, so I’ve searched both English and Hebrew publications about her childhood and upbringing, hoping to find something, but no luck. All I can find is that she was born in Jerusalem, without specifics like a neighborhood or exact location. Most mentions of her and Jerusalem focus on her "directorial visits" or political controversy rather than her early life. So, which should we settle on? Israeli or Jerusalem-born? Lililolol (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this vagueness is intentional on her part. I don't know why the lead and the infobox differ in their claims. But, for what it's worth, we have more arguments of the contents of infoboxes than on lead paragraphs. They are a hot-button subject on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

She already said her passport is Israeli (not some special Jerusalem passport) and she considers herself Israeli before American. Trillfendi (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I found a source2. She was born in Hadassah Mount Scopus, Mount Scopus region. This region is an exclave of West Jerusalem. Sharouser (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Great work. Here's some more info about Mount Scopus if it's relevant: [1] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sharouser Hi, I have reverted your edit because you added a bare url. Also, there is no need to add it to the infobox; instead, add it to the "Early Life" section. Anyway, wait a few minutes, I will add/arrange it myself. Lililolol (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"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)