Talk:Gal Gadot

Image

So, 2016 is ugly, so I changed it to 2017 because it's way clearer and shows her face while she looks directly at the camera with nice lighting, in comparison to most of her 2013-2016, 2018-2023 images, which have either a bad angle or bad lighting. So, what do yall think?

Some of my suggestions are from 2019; because, it just better in terms of lighting and it shows her face. Others could be..

A (But it could be a duplicate because it is on her filmography page idk)

B the current one

C (the one that I removed)

Also yall can check her images here: Category:Gal Gadot by year Lililolol (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of uploading her Maxim photoshoot for 'Women in the Israel Defense Forces,' but I'm not sure because it's a non-free image. I believe it could be allowed since it would increase readers' interest in the article, (WP:NFCCP) but I'm not certain. What do yall think? Lililolol (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Filmography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a merge. Lililolol (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Hot take, but is she really big enough to have her own filmography page? Other actors in similar cases (notable for a superhero role) don’t have separate filmography pages. Sure, she’s been in a some "lackluster" Netflix movies, but that still doesn’t seem enough for a spin-off article (WP:SPLIT/WP:SAL). Just my opinion, merging makes more sense Lililolol (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If it’s not merged, will the "Awards and Nominations" section be included in the Filmography page? Lililolol (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"Awards and Nominations" section should remain where is. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem Apart from DC, she's not that significant yet, so it might make more sense to merge her filmography until she gets more lead roles that solidify her as a stand-alone actress Lililolol (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

OK merge Filmography. Makes sense to me. Of course, "Awards and Nominations" section would remain where it is. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ROLEBIO

WP:ROLEBIO states that only primary occupations should be mentioned in the opening para. Is modeling her primary occupation, Lililolol? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Modeling? I’m not sure. She’s still modeling here and there. Plus modeling is what launched her career @Krimuk2.0 Lililolol (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Also what is a "spoon-feeding"? Lililolol (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Here and there" and "launched" is not what primary career means. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

K, what a "spoon-feeding" mean? Lililolol (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Google it, k? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

K why? Lol Lililolol (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your problematic attitude is best suited for social media and not an encyclopedia. Please contribute there instead of wasting our time. TYSM. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 I'm not sure, but when I searched "Is Gal Gadot a model?" I came across multiple sources, some of which referred to her as an Israeli actress and model. Plus, Israeli Forbes ranked her among the highest-paid models in Israel in 2012-2013 (this is mentioned in her personal section, though I was considering moving it to the career section)

Some are here

• Times of Israel, here
• Parade magazine, here
• i24NEWS, here and here
• collider here
• The Forward here

So idk, what do we think? Lililolol (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, what she did prior to her acting career in 2012-2013 is not her primary profession. Also, cherry-picking some sources that incidentally mention her modelling (most of them from before she became an actress) is exactly what ROLEBIO tells us not to do. WP:CIR issues here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 Well, that's true, but I would clarify something: I wasn't cherry-picking. I tried to pick sources from different time frames, such as Parade magazine, which was released a few weeks ago, and the rest are from 2015 onward, after she gained attention for Wonder Woman. So where's the cherry-picking? Lililolol (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"third-highest-grossing actress of 2017"

Lililolol, do you have multiple high-quality sources to back up your claim that being the "third-highest-grossing actress of 2017" is "generally what makes her notable"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 Hi, regarding her being the third-highest-grossing actress of 2017, that information comes from Forbes. (I think I used a different source in the article, so I will change it later.) As for "generally what makes her notable", for DCEU, it's literally what put her name out there. It makes sense to word it like the current version, which is sourced in the "Breakthrough" subsection of the Career section. Lililolol (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not the answer. No one is doubting the fact of her 2017 gross or that DCEU made her notable. You chose to edit-war by citing that her being the "third-highest-grossing actress of 2017" is "generally what makes her notable". Now please provide multiple high-quality sources that support that particular claim. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 The "third-highest-grossing actress of 2017" by Forbes, isn't that a strong source? Also, I apologize for the confusion. When I mentioned "generally what makes her notable," I was referring to this summary . As you said, it's not "lead-worthy," but I believe being the third-highest-grossing actress is a crucial moment in her career, closely tied to her DCEU roles. That's why I added it after mentioning DC. It essentially launched her into higher ranks on other major industry lists. Though I may not have worded it perfectly, I still believe it should be mentioned. I hope this clears up my point, what do you think? Lililolol (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the DCEU made her notable is sufficient. Individual grosses of the films or of each year belong in the body. Do you see individual yearly grosses of Scarlett Johansson or Daisy Ridley or Jennifer Lawrence or Charlize Theron, all of whom had substantial female-led blockbusters, mentioned in their lead? Combined gross of her films, if substantial, like for Johansson, make sense, but not this, and definitely not for the reasoning you used to revert. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this makes sense. I guess I will change the lead Lililolol (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Title!

Hi again, @Krimuk2.0 why are we always on different pages?

Anyway

I noticed you reverted my edit [here] on the section title "2021–present: Red Notice, Heart of Stone, and live-action Snow White" to just "2021–present."

The section was titled this way for a while without issue, and I explained my reasoning in the edit summary [here] Your reversion didn’t provide a clear or strong explanation, and I’d appreciate discussing the matter before making such a change.

I wanted to explain again why I reverted to my version, and I hope we can discuss it. These three films (Red Notice, Heart of Stone, and Snow White) are some of Gadot's most notable works post-Wonder Woman. While not theatrical releases, they achieved significant success on Netflix, the largest streaming platform (the first was number one, and the second was number two, in ranking). And Snow White? Well, it gave her a publicity boost with all its controversies, and the media started calling her the Snow White star (as in the past, she was referred to as a WW star), And the film itself is considered a success, not a flop, by definition. I believe including the names of these films reflects their significance in her career. (Subjectively speaking, and I dare say she was a C-list star, but afterward, she evolved into more of a B-plus star. Just my observation, also, publications started mentioning these rules when discussing her.)

Also, you accused me of owning the content. How exactly? [here] I provided an explanation and valid sources to support my edit. I don’t think my approach was incorrect, but I’m open to dialogue to reach a better consensus.

Also, you want me to respect WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, but you did not seem to respect them yourself. It is clear that you didn't agree on my edits, and that is fine, but it would have been more appropriate for you to initiate a conversation rather than just editing first, and am open to discussing it. Lililolol (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Under absolutely no definition is Snow White a success. It will lose money for the studio and the reviews have generally be negative. Rcarter555 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Rcarter. Lililolol, I suggest you pay heed to your own advice, take some time out and actually read what WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD and WP:ONUS has to say, and stop blindly reverting my edits as you have done multiple times, including this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Information on my additions to the page

Hi all, I added several relevant, well-sourced information in Gadot's "Advocacy" and "Personal Life" sections, detailing her LGBT advocacy and comments on attraction to women, her experience with cerebral venous thrombosis and speech therapy, and advocacy for health checking, and her status as a neurodivergent individual as an ABI survivor. Some of the cited materials are YouTube videos with statements by Gadot herself. I'm happy to further clarify timestamps or sources if needed! Alyadar (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Please check sources before removing edits

Some of my edits on this page were removed. I understand everyone here has the same goal, to enrich Gal Gadot's wikipedia page by adding accurate information. I urge everyone to check the sources both before adding or removing any edits by me or other members. I cannot speak for everyone, but my sources are extremely accurate, ethical and mostly primary sources from Gadot herself. Take the time to read the articles, posts, and watch the YouTube videos (interviews of Gal Gadot, not manmade videos) before making any changes. It is important to acknowledge and celebrate Gadot for her advocacy and survival.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to reach out to me before deleting my contributions. Alyadar (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Urging editors to review sources before removing contributions, especially when sourced from Gadot herself

Hi folks,

Wanted to pop in here again and give a little bit of context for my recent edits on this page.

I added relevant information about Gadot's advocacy and engagement with the LGBT community, including her support for LGBT fans and her own comments that place her within the community or have led her to be read as belonging to it.

I wanted to clarify that these statements are NOT speculative in nature and are appropriately sourced with pronouncements from Gadot herself. These statements are not meant to label, fetishize or harm Gadot in any way and it is impossible for them to do so because they have been shared by Gadot herself and have been publicly available for years. I was careful to state that she has not labeled her sexuality, which is true. Gadot has never claimed to be either heterosexual or queer, but the inclusion of her comments suggesting attraction to women is a relevant part of her biography and an attempt to complete this page with accurate sources rather than label Gadot.

I understand that these topics are sensitive, especially when centering public figures, but Gadot has been open about it and I am simply adding her own statements to her wikipedia page. I take the privacy of persons I admire, and even those I do not very seriously.

Additionally, I added relevant and factual information about her CVT (cerebral venous thrombosis) which is a rare form of stroke, as listed by the Cedars-Sinai website, which is the hospital that treated Gadot. Her advocacy and effort to raise awareness in this matter is also important and should be depicted on her wikipedia entry.

The research on Gadot's identity have been part of the research for my thesis about diversity in pop culture, so I decided to contribute to wikipedia as I have been researching the matter for the past few months.

Before removing my contributions or assuming it is made in an attempt to label or categorize Gadot in any way, please check all the sources listed. You will find everything I included in my contribution in the sources, either stated by Gadot herself, medical journals or news websites quoting Gadot's own statements. There are YouTube videos included, and I understand they are considered a less reliable source, but in this case the videos are interviews of Gadot herself, therefore primary sources. Alyadar (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yoav Eliasi

Currently the right-wing Israeli rapper Yoav Eliasi is mentioned by name three times in this article. Is he really such an important figure that hearing his specific opinion on something Gadot has said/done is relevant in every case? It feels disproportionate. — jonas (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonas1015119 Well, he's not really important himself, but I think it's appropriate to mention the criticism that she received. Right? Lililolol (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If its broadly representative, sure. But he doesn't seem like such a notable figure that name-dropping him three times instead of including criticism from other right-wing figures (politicians, journalists etc) would be proportionate. I'm also not sure how prevalent right-wing criticism of Gadot is compared to the much more widespread left-wing criticism in the US and elsewhere. Individually attributed criticism like this usually requires that the person saying it is notable enough for it to matter on its own, or represent a broader consensus. — jonas (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Idk, I will trim it later. Lililolol (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Structure and due weight

I have some concerns about how this article is currently structured and how content is being considered for inclusion. There's a lot of content in this article where one-off comments or events of little significance are given undue weight. WP:BALASP says that An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. The advocacy section, which is made almost entirely of these, is now given as much space as her acting career. This is also causing WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:PROSELINE issues as each minor detail is put on its own line and given detailed description. I also have concerns with the "controversies" heading, which is what initially attracted my attention to this article, that's used just to mention that she made a poorly-received video in a way that raises WP:POVSTRUCTURE problems. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Hi, so where should her imagine video go? It feels off to place it under the Advocacy section (it was originally there, and tasteful or not, the video is what most people recognize her for. It's a major part of her public image, so it deserves its own section. or idk, where do you think it should go?). And honestly, "advocacy section, which is made almost entirely of these, is now given as much space as her acting career" She's a special case; her name is better known in political discussions than in acting, so I'm not sure.

Were you suggesting trimming the Advocacy section? From what I see, it does include both her perspective and the criticism—fairly representing both sides, right? I'd like to hear your suggestions though. Lililolol (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've already expressed my belief that it best fits under "Cultural reception", but my main concern is that it uses a "controversies" heading in a way that slants the POV per WP:STRUCTURE and WP:POVSTRUCTURE. I don't see anything to substantiate that she's not most well-known for being an actress—if that's the case then the lead sentence should be changed to "Gal Gadot is an Israeli activist and actress". I already quoted BALASP above; this article is basically collecting example cruft of everything she's said or done in relation to advocacy. The overquoting contributes greatly to this as well, but that's something that affects the entire article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really have a dog in this hunt, although I agree there is too much weight given to fairly minor events. However, the claim that most people recognize her from the imagine video is simply unsupported by common sense. Rcarter555 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rcarter555 & @Thebiguglyalien You guys clearly misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that they (Imagine vid and advocacy) gave her more publicity than in any other film she has ever been in—aside from Wonder Woman, that is (just search her name with common sense; that will substantiate my claims). And about placing it under "Cultural reception," honestly, I feel it is misplaced; it's its own thing. Maybe consider retitling it "Imagine" or moving it under "Career"? As for the whole advocacy section, maybe needs some trimming, but definitely not “minor events.” Lililolol (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Take this for example: Later, Gadot joined the #WeRemember campaign after receiving a personal request from Toby Levy, an 84-year-old Holocaust survivor who asked Gadot on Twitter to help preserve the memory of the Holocaust. Gadot responded by posting a photo with the hashtag, joining over 1.5 million people worldwide in the campaign organized by the World Jewish Congress. CEO Robert Singer praised her participation, noting the crucial role influencers play in raising awareness of antisemitism. That's three sentences just to say "she posted a tweet". Why does the article need to be updated every time a tweet she posts gets mentioned in the news? If you could find a source from years later looking back on how important that tweet was and how it affected her career, then I'd be convinced it's significant. Otherwise, it's not clear why it's included. This sort of thing occurs throughout the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I just googled her name. It took 8 pages of results before the Imagine video was mentioned. This is hardly the thing she is most recognized for. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rcarter555 "I just googled her name. It took 8 pages of results before the Imagine video was mentioned. This is hardly the thing she is most recognized for." Just because it's old doesn't mean it's not relevant, just saying. Lililolol (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I trimmed some stuff; check it out and give me your thoughts. Lililolol (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Thebiguglyalien & @Rcarter555 I would really appreciate your thoughts on the advocacy section after I trimmed it. Lililolol (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s better, but frankly I feel like there is still FAR too much here on “advocacy” that is fairly non notable, especially for someone primarily known as an actress and not an advocate. I’m not familiar enough with all of it to get into the weeds, but it surely feels like there is undue weight given to this aspect of her career. Rcarter555 (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rcarter555 "still FAR too much here" can you pinpoint exactly what you mean? Lililolol (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To me personally, virtually nothing in the "advocacy" section is notable. Neither is MOST of the "support for Israel" section. I haven't done the math, but those two sections combined (along with the "Reception" section, which is mostly about her support for Israel (or the reaction of others to her support) are probably longer than the entire sections covering her acting and modeling career, for which she is FAR better known. This feels like someone with an advocacy of their own added all of this stuff (and that was almost all you, to be fair). Rcarter555 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rcarter555 um just to clarify, when you said "and that was almost all you, to be fair" could you explain what exactly you meant by that?

That said, I respectfully disagree with the idea that she is "FAR better known" solely for her acting. It's a bit more nuanced. Yes, Wonder Woman gave her more fame, but her political visibility, especially they are wildly covered (especially since those events and her involvement/comments were widely covered) has kept her in the spotlight, and that’s a significant part of her public image now, whether we like it or not. She herself has admitted that she's not a "real actress" before Wonder Woman and even after, let's be honest, she's self-aware, and her fans should be as well.

And just to clarify: the Advocacy and Reception sections aren't the same thing. Reception reflects how the media/Israel sees her, how she's been branded, whereas the advocacy section speaks for itself. We can't really merge or compare them directly. Yes, tweaks may be needed. I'm open to structural tweaks, but I don't think it's fair to say the advocacy content is all insignificant/not notable that feels more like a biased take than a neutral assessment. Also, a note: I mostly helped shape several sections (Background, Career, Other Endeavors, Reception), and I nominated the article for GA. I mention this for transparency and context. Lililolol (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If something was reported on for a single news cycle and then never given significant coverage in a source again, then it probably doesn't belong in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

100% agree. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What I meant by “that was almost all you” is that you have added much of what exists in those sections. Your “tweaks” consist mostly of wholesale adding of any minor mention of some Israel support based news item. The very fact that you think she is more known for that than her acting speaks volumes. She is far far more known for her acting and that’s a fact. I don’t edit this page because it’s not a big deal to me but you asked for my opinion and there it is. This page was much better before your additions IMO. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"This page was much better before your additions IMO." I kinda feel offended, like? have you seen how the page was before my edits? 🫠 Lililolol (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And it was better. It is far too cluttered with non notable advocacy stuff now. You seem to be under the impression that that is what Gadot is known for. It’s an opinion I don’t share. Rcarter555 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"And it was better. " What a bold, based statement, but okay, the world will keep spinning, I guess 😕 Lililolol (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the tone is getting unnecessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone is less than cordial. It isn’t meant to be. But you yourself said that if something is mentioned in a single news cycle and then disappears, it probably isn’t notable enough for this article. I think you would agree that this page is currently filled with content that meets that definition, almost all of it added by a single editor who is under the impression that her acting and modeling career are somehow a secondary reason for her notability. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You asked for my thoughts on your edits and I gave them to you. Sorry if they weren’t the glowing report you expected. If I cared about this articles at all, I would be bold and remove almost all of the non notable nonsense that you continually add and I would encourage any editor who does care about the page to do just that. Rcarter555 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sixth-generation "Sabra"?

The article currently says, under Background, that "Her father is a sixth-generation Sabra, and one of his ancestors was the first chemist at Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem".

Avshalom Feinberg, born 1889, is considered to be the first "Sabra". Now, Gadot's father can only possibly be a "sixth-generation" Sabra if literally every one of her ancestors born in Israel happened to become a parent at the average age of 16. To see this, let us assume that her father was 16 years old when he became a father. That means that he (6th-gen) would have been born in 1969. His parent (5th-gen), 1953. Their parent (4th-gen), 1937. Their parent (3rd-gen), 1921. Their parent (2nd-gen), 1905. Their parent (1st-gen), 1889—which is the same date as Feinberg.

The claim of "sixth-generation" is also based on what she herself has said, rather than actual evidence.

Unless someone has evidence that all of her ancestors happened to become parents at ridiculously young ages, this claim should be removed—or at least marked as dubious. 197.245.185.114 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's what she claims, and it's supported by sources, so what's your point? Also, this level of math belongs on Twitter or even TikTok, not here🫠 Here, regardless of our opinions, we try to be as neutral as possible and rely on sources, not personal interpretation or comprehension skills. (See WP:NPOV/WP:V) Lililolol (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

And about "least marked as dubious." I don't think Wikipedia has something like that, especially since her claims were supported by multiple sources, including primary and secondary sources. (see WP:SOURCE/WP:PSTS) Lililolol (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2025

Change "over the status of Israel's Arab minority. After Netanyahu's remark" to "over the status of Israel's Arab minority after Netanyahu's remark" to merge the second, incomplete sentence into the first sentence. 24.152.138.71 (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Restore "Jewish unity" to the sentence about "Voice of the People" initiative in "Support for Israel" section:
• This was removed in Lililolol's "trim" edit on May 7th, but the sentence doesn't make sense without it:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gal_Gadot&diff=1289305836&oldid=1289252242:

2601:410:4200:393:8456:23D2:F739:50E1 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

References