Talk:Gal Gadot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Image and infobox added to article, request that both be improved (changed to a modeling-specific infobox perhaps)

I like you,from China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.128.14.208 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant?

Gadot was born in Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel. In 2007, she took a part in the Maxim photo shoot "Women of the Israeli army", which focused on Israeli models who were members of the Israeli Army.

Umm...aren't virtually all young Israeli women members of the Israeli army? This is like "Women of the American electorate," which focuses on American models are are members of the American electorate. john k (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them serve in the army. Besides, this seems to have been Maxim's criterion. -- Nudve (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true not all serve if you are disabled you do not serve but if you are able bodied you must serve. So it is redundant, as an Israeli in America it makes the article look ridiculous. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

i think its fascinating they chose Gadot, of obvious israeli or general middle east ethnicity, to play a character usually represented as "all american". I would love to find references showing why this is, but i suspect its related to how they will portray WW in the new film (which we probably wont get info on until its release). WW is, after all, not american, but an Amazonian, whatever that translates as.(mercurywoodrose)99.157.205.106 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gal Gadot is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (her family came to Israel from Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and Poland), which means she is the same ethnicity as most Jewish actors you're familiar with. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131212075857/http://www.totallyjewish.com/entertainment/features_and_reviews/?content_id=16371 - referenced for her family's origins - doesn't mention them. Mcljlm (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

yeah, same as my great grandfather. superhero films tend to be either all american (white) or occasionally black actors, with villains often portrayed by those historically, or stereotypically, considered "ethnic". This casting is different, and i expect commentary from reliable sources on this at some point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, the casting is "different"? Many superheroes have been portrayed by actors of Ashkenazi Jewish background, i.e. Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield), The Spirit (Gabriel Macht), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Supergirl (Helen Slater), or Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone). While not playing a superhero, Israeli-born Natalie Portman was the female lead in the Thor films. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a minor, and perhaps silly, idea. I suspect she was chosen in part because she "looks" middle eastern (whatever that means, i know there is no such thing), and is NOT what most people expect wonder woman to look like. I am expecting commentary on her looks (she is already getting commentary about her slim build as not suitable, which may be notable enough to mention in the article on the movie). hollywood has a long history of ethnic typecasting of all sorts, and she may have been chosen for her "exotic" looks (similar to natalie portman, actually, now that you mention her, and she has played "alien princesses" twice now), and thus could be portrayed as coming from a far away land-the island of the Amazons. I am thinking of how Yul Brynner was cast as Thai, and Anthony Quinn as just about every ethnicity under the sun. again, i really probably shouldnt belabor this point, and you are correct that ashkenazi jewish actors are found all throughout hollywood films in all sorts of roles. i just think she is going to bet some attention and commentary for this aspect of the casting, esp. after people like lynda carter played her so "all american". and to be clear, this is not a personal critique i have about the casting (i think she will be great, which is not what most people are saying at this point), im just trying to state a possibly interesting area of commentary. maybe no one will comment, in which case we are further along in our social progress than i thought. a great example of a film which completely exploded all ethnic type casting was The Mahabharata (1989 film), where various members of the 2 warring East Indian families are portrayed by every imaginable ethnicity.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't look "Middle Eastern", she looks European, like Keira Knightley, Audrey Tautou, Monica Bellucci, or Penélope Cruz. Southern Europeans are still European. A Sephardi Jew like Emmanuelle Chriqui looks more "Middle Eastern", as does a Persian Jew like Bahar Soomekh (though Persians are not Middle Eastern). Wonder Woman is Greek, and Gal Gadot reminds me a little of Maria Callas. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, she looks greek. thats my point. she doesnt look strictly anglo, or nordic. thus, in the cloistered world of comic book character ethnicity, she represents an effort to expand the notion of superhero to people not anglo. and i suspect thats one reason she was chosen, if the director is trying to revamp the character from scratch.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wonder Woman is Graeco-Turkish in ethnicity. (If anything). Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why Turkish? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Themiscyra was in Asia Minor, I believe. (Although in the comics I think it moves around a bit). Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In answer to all the above commenters, there is more to this "controversy" than anyone so far has been willing to state: First, Wonder Woman is Mediterrean (and "northern" at that,[which also includes Turkey'] as opposed to "southern" Mediterrean, i.e. African (Egyptian, Cyrenaican, Algerian, Moroccan, Libyan; or Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian. So, this gives some credence to this unknown actress. that being said, I contest why not have an American actress fulfill the role; or is it that the obvious years-long contention by movie-industry honchos could not come to any consensus of who should play the role, and what ethnicity should represent the character (it goes without saying that an African-American, or Africana actress would be THE last consideration-if at all-to be a candidate! Also, in the article, all these references to her "Jewishness" (added to her gritty credentials as an army commando,)and "Israeliness" as qualification for her playing this character seems as self-serving to the notorious nepotism in Hollywood. Doubtful she'll be elible to knock-off Audrey Hepburn's mantle. (Otherwise, I really cared for the character except for the early 70s iteration, when she was stripped of her powers, and appeared more like a "two-dimensional" profile-at least. (Taking her powers then was absolutely sexist, I thought at the time!! --65.88.88.125 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

The American actress Lynda Carter's character played a Mediterrean princess, whose alter-ego was an "All-American" seeming professional female, "Diana Prince"!!! --65.88.88.125 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gal Gadot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130727110102/http://www.shalomlife.com:80/culture/16982/top-50-hottest-jewish-women-10-1--page2/ to http://www.shalomlife.com/culture/16982/top-50-hottest-jewish-women-10-1--page2/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131214090001/http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/gal-gadot-on-fans-motherhood-and-fast-furious-6-video/14130 to http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/gal-gadot-on-fans-motherhood-and-fast-furious-6-video/14130

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gal Gadot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131212075857/http://www.totallyjewish.com/entertainment/features_and_reviews/?content_id=16371 to http://www.totallyjewish.com/entertainment/features_and_reviews/?content_id=16371

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

This is hardly suitable for an infobox image when we have a proper portrait photo. We're not Maxim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN & IP editor, please review my revision. Please, all of you, refrain from any further edit warring. This way everyone is happy. EditsOrArticles (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure the second photo is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I liked it (for scientific reasons), and it fits just fine. Anyway, can you help me with my question down here? EditsOrArticles (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that "scientific reasons" is either a joke or an ESL language difficulty. The photos were taken 16 minutes apart. Thus, the second photo adds no reader value, unless you consider cleavage reader value. Be selective with images. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Gadot is one of the only actresses to attend 2 different Comic-Con panels for 2 different films, at the same day (Wonder Woman & Justice League). We can showcase that with two different pictures. EditsOrArticles (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the less zoomed one, although having them both is just as good. Ismadeby (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Neil and Mandruss that the second photo, which is from the same event as the infobox photo, is not needed in the article. Calibridor removed it as well, it was replaced by EoA with the reasoning there was consensus to keep it. That is untrue. With my comments here, and Calibridor's removal, that makes for two editors wanting to keep it and four wanting it to be removed. Consensus is clearly for removal. I will be removing it after I finish this talk page comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My removal was based on adding the original photo, which has elements of both of the photos. I assume the point of the second image was to show more of her body, and the original photo before it was cropped, for no apparent reason that I can see, does that. Calibrador (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Skin tone

While on the subject, the skin tone in the infobox photo seems too pink on my computer, as if she has a minor sunburn. Maybe she did have a minor sunburn, but we don't have to show it. Anybody else? If so, I can fix that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone had Photoshop'd her head a tad too much. This is the original version. EditsOrArticles (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss can you adjust the colors again? It looks a bit too yellow-greyish now. EditsOrArticles (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Good job Mandruss. This version of yours is actually better. EditsOrArticles (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which version that is. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The second of yours, and third in general. Would you also help me with my question down here? EditsOrArticles (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In other words, the current version. Fine, I'll leave it unless someone complains. It is showing the original version in the infobox for me, for some reason, but I'll assume that's a problem on my end. I can't help you down there because I don't know IPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not just my end, something's wrong here. Look at the file page. Look at the thumbnail for the current version. Look at the lying-down letter C on the sign behind her. You can see about 90% of the letter, which is how that version of the image looks on my computer. Now click on the thumbnail. You now see less of the C, perhaps 70% of it. The thumbnail is correct, the image itself is the original. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a wikiMedia glitch. Try to clean your browser's cache files. EditsOrArticles (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, also restarted browser (FF 47.0.1). No change. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to re-upload it with 1 less pixel to force update? Or just wait. EditsOrArticles (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done (took 20 pixels off the bottom), cleared cache again, no change. Clicking on current thumbnail still shows original image. Clicking on the -1 thumbnail now shows the correct -1 image, however. My infobox still shows the original. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gal Gadot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.totallyjewish.com/entertainment/features_and_reviews/?content_id=16371
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710151545/http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-roman-abramovich-buys-tel-aviv-hotel-1001028069 to http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-roman-abramovich-buys-tel-aviv-hotel-1001028069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Children's names

I think WP:MINORS applies here: the children's names should not be included, even if substantiated by reliable sources. The guidance states "Do not name or otherwise identify the person, even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice."- Bri (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Name

The original version of the family name was Grünstein, as they did not come from any English-speaking country. It is German, with an Umlaut. The literal translation into English would be Green stone. So apparently after emigration they felt they had to alter the vowl to ease pronounciation by people unfamiliar with German sounds. - The same happened in many instances in North America after Emigration. You easily recognize that in a name if you are familiar with the language.

Regards, --147.142.186.54 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The lede summarizes the article. Notable events should be covered in the lede; consistent removal of notable events (Miss Israel Pageant win, and Fast and Furious role) are notable items within her biography, and should be included. These are items that made her notable long before Wonder Woman was ever offered for a role, as shown by her notability prior to 2014. Scr★pIron^IV 21:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Sokuya (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It looks to me like the lead can be developed more into more substantial paragraphs. Looking at articles for comparable actresses might be helpful. Also, since Gadot winning Miss Israel is cited in the body of the article the citation does not need to appear in the lead. Knope7 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I expanded it a little. I think the article could benefit from some reorganizing. I think it's fine to separate modeling and acting into their own sections, but even within an individual section the article jumps back and forth in time and can be hard to follow. Knope7 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Activism and recognition" section

The current version of the article has a section named "Activism and recognition". The section has a single paragraph which states:

On October 21, 2016, the 75th anniversary of her first appearance, the Wonder Woman character was designated by the United Nations as its "Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls", a gesture intended to promote global gender equality and empowerment. In attendance to mark the occasion was Gadot, fellow Wonder Woman actress Lynda Carter, DC Entertainment President Diane Nelson, Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins and U.N. Under-Secretary General Cristina Gallach.

The content of this paragraph is

A) Not recognition: Gadot was not recognized, the character Wonder Woman was recognized

B) Not activism: This was just part of the promotion of the movie

C) Not worth mentioning: because less than two months later, the character was stripped of its dubious title of "Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls" (see story by CNN titled "UN drops Wonder Woman as honorary ambassador")

I am therefore removing this section. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sometimes. Thanks for raising these issues. In my opinion, the reasoning you offer does not justify removal of the material, in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nor the standards that are indicated across the project and in this very article. Let me see if I can address your three arguments:

• The section did not say that Gadot was recognized rather than Wonder Woman. Rather, it mentioned her appearance at the United Nations with U.N. Under-Secretary General Cristina Gallach, which is certainly relevant to Gadot's career.

• The appearance was not to promote the movie, nor do any of the cited sources say otherwise. She was there to mark the occasion of the character's designation, which was to promote UN Sustainable Development Goal No. 5, which seeks to achieve gender equality. That is indeed activism. Besides, outside of Comic-Con, studios tend to promote films in the weeks and days leading up to release, not seven months before release. It is also is unlikely that Lynda Carter was there to promote a film she had nothing to do with, so if we can grant that she was there for her connection to the character, and for the U.N.'s interests, why can't Gadot? For that matter, why would the Under-Secretary General be promoting a movie? Even if we were generous and granted your argument that this is not activism, that would only justify changing the heading, and not wholesale removal of the passage. Gadot, after all, is a professional entertainer, one for whom public/media appearances, like all those mentioned in the section on her Modeling and beauty pageant career, is a salient part of the career for which she is notable, so removing this one because it "isn't activism" makes little sense.

• The fact that the character was stripped of its status does not mean that therefore, Gadot's appearance must be removed. It only means that the passage may require updating. Gadot's appearance at the UN, after all, still took place, and is still relevant to her career and public image for the reasons mentioned above.

When you read any number of articles on entertainers, you will see plenty of similar material, which the editing community regards as perfectly appropriate for inclusion, when properly written and source-supported. For this reason, I have restored the section, with the relevant update. If you'd like to have a consensus discussion on this matter, I'd be happy to have one; I'm fairly certain that any consensus of the editors who tend to work on these articles will support the material's inclusion for the reasons above. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk)

Gal Gadot joins to The Academy

• Academy, The. "New Academy Members". Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 28 June 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokuya (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added this info to the article. However, rather than use the primary reference you provided, I used a secondary reference. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

This section was recently removed from the military service section by Avaya1, a biased pro-Israel user who has a history of adding pro-Israel material and removing material which paints Israel in a negative light from various articles. This was done under the pretence that it was political and should not be included in actor entries. This is not reasonable as wiki entries should very much contain political leanings and affiliations, especially for those actors who use their spotlight to shine light onto these personal leanings.

The movie has been banned in a number of countries due to these remarks by the actor; it would be disingenuous to pretend that it was not relevant or important.

I propose that we add to the personal life section, or create a new activism section, or a controversy section:

Gadot has spoken publicly about her support for the Israeli military in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As the conflict between Israel and Gaza deteriorated, she uploaded a photograph of herself praying with her daughter Alma, and wrote “I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens. Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children...We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom!" This message was "met with immense backlash, calling Gadot out as a Zionist".

Her latest film, Wonder Woman, was banned in Lebanon by the Lebanese government following an effort by a group called Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel which accused Gadot of "boasting about the army training her for Hollywood" and condemned her for supporting the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, in addition to Gadot's service during the 2006 Lebanon War. The film was consequently also banned in Tunisia, and Qatar.

Since she took the acting role of Wonder Woman, "the actress has been ridiculed for the character she plays vs. what she stands for, with her critics noting that she chooses to support inhumane war crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians while playing a character that would be opposed to such a thing."

In 2012, she appeared nude—with parts blurred out—in a TV commercial for the Israeli clothing brand Castro; Gadot being the face of the company. The advertisement was criticised for being too racy by legislators, and nine members of the Knesset signed a letter of protest against what they called the “pornographic commercial.”

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainJustice (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• "flagging her as Zionist" is never going to fly on a BLP. "Owing this to the ongoing conflict between most of the Arab world and Israel since its foundation" isn't comprehensible and if it were, probably wouldn't belong either. WP:CIRCULAR references are not proper. Suggest you rewrite this material neutrally and without adding personal interpretation. - Bri (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. "flagging her as Zionist" has been removed and replaced by a quote directly from the Israeli newspaper source. If this can be worded better, then please do suggest appropriate wording. The 'incomprehensible' section has also been removed. Explicit information regarding her statement has been added for clarity, including sources. CaptainJustice (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC) CaptainJustice

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That semi-protected template was added automatically, and I do not know what it means to its full extent. I have now removed it. I simply wish to add a controversy section to the page easily. I can try adding it to the "New Section" part of wiki instead, if that would make things more straight forward... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainJustice (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• CaptainJustice, please signature your comments using ~~~~ and tag Avaya1 in the discussion so maybe the user could explain the edits. Thanks (I made some fixes in this discussion to make it more readable) Sokuya (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Added as a new section. CaptainJustice (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be illogical and against guidelines to include such a section. Nor would it be a neutral addition.--Light show (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Light show, thanks for the heads up; I can instead add the content to the military section, which would then be within guidelines. Also, I appreciate you undoing my edit. It seems that I am now able to edit semi-protected articles. The "Neutral addition" comment you made is somewhat perplexing however. The article's entire body is showing the subject in a positive and flattering light only: Roles won, awards won, pageants won, awards nominated for et al. Any negative content which aims to paint a more complete picture, even when genuinely true, has been removed. This is hardly "Neutral". How do you propose that one integrates the above section into the article better so that the overall article is more "Neutral"? CaptainJustice (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You could consider how similar material was included in Elizabeth Taylor's bio, which noted that her films were banned by Muslim countries throughout the Middle East for similar reasons. Likewise, Marilyn Monroe, whose films were banned after she converted. There's also the way such material was blended into Omar Sharif's bio, the Egyptian actor whose film was banned by numerous Arab countries because he costarred alongside a Jewish actress. Those examples should help since they didn't need a controversy section. --Light show (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's some great information there Light show, I'll try to incorporate as such. Avaya1's history (below) shows the user to be in edit wars, which I do not wish to participate in. I would point out, however, wiki articles: Wikipedia:BLP_zealot and Wikipedia:Crying_"BLP!". BLP policy clearly states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In opposition to what Avaya1 implies below, I do not think one can justifiably remove content citing BLP, because the content is pretty well sourced and the facts themselves are not in dispute. I would also like to point out that omission of information for whatever reason is in itself a political motive. I hope to present my edits here to you and hope that you will accept the edits or suggest alterations which would be appreciated - Thank you kindly. CaptainJustice (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest CaptainJustice read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:AVOIDABUSE before making accusations against other editors. The material on Twitter comments and Zionism are clearly undue and not suitable for a BLP encyclopedia entry, as a result multiple editors (including myself) have removed this material. In addition, CaptainJustice has apparently stated at the beginning of this very discussion, that he is adding this content for political reasons.Avaya1 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Military service section

Light show, would you kindly consider the following?

Again, I would like to highlight that the article's entire body is showing the subject in a positive and flattering light only: Roles won, awards won, pageants won, modeling contracts won, which brands she represents, awards nominated for et al; and her immense income from these streams . Any negative content which aims to paint a more complete picture, even when genuinely true, has been removed. The following additions aim to paint a more neutral picture of the subject so that the article is less a five star endorsement / advertisement of the subject, and more a wholly rounded information peace, which is more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.

I propose that the military section be edited to: CaptainJustice (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'll comment and took the liberty first of numbering the paragraphs and tightening some spacing below to make comments easier to follow. --Light show (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts relevant to numbered paragraphs:

Opening text above: This implies a potential issue regarding SPAs, so would recommend you review the topic and modify any suggested edits if necessary.

Thanks for the helpful replies Light show. I am a new user, so it would be natural that I do not yet have variety in my contributions as yet. Being a Super Hero comic/movie fan (Username Captain Justice might give it away ;-)), I was personally taken aback by the contrast between WW the Character and WW the Actor, hence my first delve into this land. I'll reply in-line, to keep the wonderful job of the new formatting you have done in tact.CaptainJustice (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Captain, I'm not sure you understood the SPA factor. Most of your comments are an extreme form of advocacy, which goes against guidelines. Since you made clear that your entire agenda in editing her article is not to be neutral, but to present only negative commentary, you may need to review the guidelines and try a different approach. --Light show (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Light show, that's understandable, thanks for the guidance. Can I edit my comments in this section to appear more neutral, or do guidelines stipulate that I have to begin again? I would ask you 2 further questions though:

1. I question the acceptance of users adding only positive attributes to the article. I am sure they were not questioned regarding their neutrality as they wrote the entire article in a positive light. Why then should users who wish to add "negative" commentary to balance the article out have special qualifiers? It seems the default mode is accepted as "be positive", not "be neutral" as preached. This is not an accusation, I simply wish to understand :)

2. Would you kindly give an example of how I may be neutral with my edits, as everything positive has already been said; adding anything "negative" to balance the article would automatically qualify a genuine neutral user as a non-neutral party. It's a catch 22 situation. Thank you for your time. CaptainJustice (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "adding anything negative," but of focusing entirely on the negative, that undermines your effort to be neutral. You wrote earlier, The article's entire body is showing the subject in a positive and flattering light only: Roles won, awards won, pageants won, awards nominated for et al.

You could therefore add neutral material to those aspects by noting the roles and awards she tried, but failed to win. If she entered a pageant and didn't win, you could state that. And if she was only nominated for something but didn't win, that would be a neutral statement. Just add the sources which discussed it. And if you happen to find something positive to add that's not yet in the bio, adding it would prove your good faith in being neutral. It's worth thinking about, Captain. --Light show (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your guidance Light show, I shall give some thought to what you have said. CaptainJustice (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, Captain, maybe you can delete that Too Fab cite you added, since it's infectious and seems to be responsible for doing some damage to my system, which happened soon after I clicked on it. It could likewise harm others. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have checked all the sites you have had problems with Light show, there are no problems with malware etc. You can check for yourself by scanning websites for problems using tools such as https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/ . You have probably picked up a website hijacker/malware from elsewhere, which is causing you problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_hijacking . Thinking logically, is there more chance that most sites I linked have a malware problem or that you have picked up malware from elsewhere and the sites I linked (and others) are being redirected? Your best bet is to start by using Malware Bytes. Look out for the earliest dates of the infection. You will likely note that the date precedes my links. For stubborn malware, also flush the Hosts file and reset your browser to defaults. Also make sure you are up to date on your system updates. Lastly, install uBlock Origin. I Majored in CS, and build extreme performance computers as a hobby, so know a thing or two. Best of luck to you. CaptainJustice (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Nothing changed from current article text.

2) Posting a Facebook message giving moral support to the military in which she was by law enlisted seems like trivia. Had she defected to ISIS or Hamas, it would be notable. In any case, your two sources are a problem: Clicking on Too Fab, gave me a red flashing Trojan alert, so the source is dangerous to click on. The second source relied on anonymous Twitter tweets which are not reliable sources for offering opinions.

I understand your POV, and I have reflected upon it. I feel what is noteworthy is that critics are of the opinion that while at the height of the conflict, she used a very public forum to support her massively superior side which has modern tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons, and which uses munitions which cause high collateral damage such as bombs; and then blames the massively disadvantaged opposition fighting aggainst foreign occupation who can only fight with decades old or home made munitions for the civilian casualties caused by the Israeli bombs. She chose to make this politically charged statement at the height of the conflict in a very public forum, and the press covered it as such. I believe that the context makes it noteworthy, more so than simple encouragement. If I were to find better sources, would it be allowed as an addition to the article? CaptainJustice (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

3) This paragraph is both OR and synth, and is speculation in any case. Natalie Portman moved to the U.S. when she was three, and is a U.S. citizen and an American actress, so the comparison is not encyclopedic.

It is noteworthy because Lebanon has only ever banned one movie related to Israel: Wonder Woman. I don't believe it is correct to say that the ban was because the actor was Israeli. No film has ever been banned in Lebanon for the actor being Israeli, and there are a huge number of great Israeli actors (1,486 on imdb). "In Lebanon, Wonder Woman‘s banning was prompted by Lebanese group Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel-Lebanon." The subject was singled out for a reason: the facts are that a campaign group campaigned for the film's ban for the subject's support for, comments made about, and being enlisted in the Israeli military; and Lebanon used an old existing law to make it happen at the 11th hour, even when the country’s censor had granted the film screening permission - it had already gone through all Lebanon’s regular censorship process. Even a previous (Batman vs Superman) movie, in which Gadot appeared as WW was not banned. We can add both these points to the paragraph - what the group campaigned for, and the official reason for the ban. That way we an avoid any speculation, and the reader can come to his/her own conclusion of they wish. Would this be acceptable?CaptainJustice (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

4) Lebanon is officially at war with Israel, so banning the film is expected. If there were an Arab Muslim country where the film was not banned, that might be notable for inclusion. As for the Daily Mail as a source, that tabloid is no longer allowed in WP as a reliable source.

Agreed, DM is an awful source. It was however the first source I came across;- I can find many other better sources for the same material. Regarding "If there were an Arab Muslim country where the film was not banned, that might be notable for inclusion". The film has been banned in 3 places only: Lebanon, Tunisia, and Qatar. There are 22 countries in the Arab League: . Reply to #3 above poses the question of whether it would be acceptable to add the reasons the campaign group gave, and the official reason for the ban? CaptainJustice (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

5) Same issues as with #3.

6) Opinion sourced from a news tabloid, and with the same Trojan-infected source.

Alright, here is another source:. I wonder if there is perhaps better way to convey thousands of messages on twitter etc. stating such sentiments, if there is only opinion pieces from tabloids covering them? CaptainJustice (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

7) Not military related so can't comment. --Light show (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, would a user be allowed to make such an edit as suggested without infringing Wikipedia guidelines?CaptainJustice (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against those edits. Some of them are disinformation: like the reason mentions for the ban of the movie in Lebanon who doesn't even supported by the source that you given. The Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel-Lebanon didn't ban the movie, they campaign for it. It is the Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy and Trade who banned the release of the movie. The country’s censor had granted the film screening permission, it had already gone through all Lebanon’s regular censorship process. After the boycott campaign and just 2 hours before the screening, six-member committee of the Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy made the decision to ban the movie.[1] They ban it based on the law in Lebanon and because the movie lead actress is Israeli.[2] They published an official statement and detailed the reason they banned the movie because Gal Gadot is Israeli. Furthermore, most of the other suggested edits are just not WP:NPOV. It seems like you are trying to politicize this article. This article is about an actress and not a politician, most of it isn't relevant to encyclopedia. Sokuya (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

An Israeli user fluent in Hebrew with a history of pro-Israeli edits to related articles is "strongly against those edits". I am shocked! ;-) Please excuse me if I don't take your view as neutral. My explanation is in reply to #3, and your comment seems to support my suggestion that we can add both pieces of information.CaptainJustice (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You should really read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I will appreciate if you reply to the points and not Ad hominem. Sokuya (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Military service and support for the Israel Defence Forces

1)   At the age of 20, Gadot served for two years as an enlisted soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, serving as a combat trainer. She says of her time in the army: "You give two or three years, and it's not about you. You learn discipline and respect." Gadot says that her background helped her to win the role of Gisele in Fast & Furious: "I think the main reason was that the director Justin Lin really liked that I was in the military, and he wanted to use my knowledge of weapons."

2)  Gadot has spoken publicly about her support for the Israeli military in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As the conflict between Israel and Gaza deteriorated, she uploaded a photograph of herself praying with her daughter Alma, and wrote “I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens. Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children...We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom!" This message was "met with immense backlash".

-----------------------------

3)  I would like to kindly highlight here that unlike other films which had been banned in Arab countries in the somewhat distant past simply because an actor was Israeli, Gadot's film was banned because of her publicly stated support for one side in the conflict as well as boasting about her military training. Had she not made these remarks, the film would most likely not have been banned, especially on the 11th hour before premiere screenings. Giving an example, Natalie Portman is Israeli but there is no ban on her films (for any reason). Portman, in fact, wrote a letter to a paper highlighting her neutral stance, and calling upon us all to take responsibility, including Europe and the US. CaptainJustice (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

-----------------------------

4)  Her latest film, Wonder Woman, was consequently banned in Lebanon by the Lebanese government following an effort by a group called Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel which accused Gadot of "boasting about the army training her for Hollywood" and condemned her for supporting the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, in addition to Gadot's service during the 2006 Lebanon War. The film was consequently also banned in Tunisia, and Qatar.

-----------------------------

5)  Obviously I can't add the following, word for word. However, can I add the gist, but perhaps in a more tasteful manner? I want to highlight that very many people feel that Wonder Woman's stance would be that of Portman which highlights the similarities between all of us and calls on us all to take responsibility, rather than that of Gadot who naively supports a single side in a multi-faceted conflict. CaptainJustice (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

-----------------------------

6)  Since she took the acting role of Wonder Woman, "the actress has been ridiculed for the character she plays vs. what she stands for, with her critics noting that she chooses to support inhumane war crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians while playing a character that would be opposed to such a thing."

7)  I believe Avaya1 has also removed a section which dealt with Gadot being the face of an Israeli clothing brand Castro, where she attracted criticism from the Israel's more conservative community when she appeared nude in a commercial; prodding 9 members of the Israeli senate to write a letter of protest.

-----------------------------

Modeling After: Gadot has been the main model for fashion brand Castro in 2008–2016.

I would like to add:

In 2012, she appeared nude—with parts blurred out—in a TV commercial for the brand. The advertisement was criticised for being too racy by legislators, and nine members of the Knesset signed a letter of protest against what they called the “pornographic commercial.”CaptainJustice (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Military service

Military service is compulsory in Israel (although some avoid it). Woman are required to serve 21 months (there also seems to be some variation in time depending on the type of training received, I didn't do a very deep search). Service is required at age 18 although there seem to be allowances. The article says Gadot served for 2 years, so basically the time required.

Not many countries have compulsory military service for women. You can read between the lines but one specific sentence "Gadot joined the Israeli Army." is misleading. Without knowing the cultural background and the _unusual_ fact that service is required, that phrasing implies much more choice than really exists. I do not want to diminish her service to her country in any way, but an encyclopedia should be clear and unambiguous and try to avoid misinterpretations that might arise for readers with different cultural backgrounds. I would advise a more cautious wording. (Also while writing this and looking closely at the sources, I notice that the paragraph says, she was modeling at age nineteen, and again somewhat redundantly says, "At age 19, Gadot joined the Israeli Army" but the source UMM.ca says "At the age of 20," so the current wording is not supported by the source. The source for her studying law is also unclear, the phrasing implies she left her studies incomplete as her film career took off, but the source says she was working as a model and actress. It is entirely possible she was also studying law but I haven't trawled through the other sources yet to try and find out where that is stated.)

The article already requires review but I don't have a specific wording yet that I think would be better. I'd appreciate if someone could take a look and maybe phrase things more cautiously. (Corrections, or named references, may also be needed to make sources clearer, for the minor issues I mentioned in parenthesis in the previous paragraph.) -- 93.107.152.97 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the Hebrew Wikipedia, Gadot was not a "Combat Instructor" but a "Combat Fitness Trainer" (She didn't teach soldiers how to fight. She kept them in physical shape). Barakb32 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This is accurate that it is mandatory to serve in the Israeli defence forces. This is not notable, nor special as all Israeli 18 year olds must serve. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says "Combat Trainer" which is a nonsensical title that implies she was involved with tactical or melee instruction. 122.249.85.143 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gal Gadot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423153542/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-42015-michael-bay-starts-tmnt-sequel-gal-gadot-begins-keeping-up-with-the-joneses-natalie-dormer-wraps-shooting-on-patient-zero/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-42015-michael-bay-starts-tmnt-sequel-gal-gadot-begins-keeping-up-with-the-joneses-natalie-dormer-wraps-shooting-on-patient-zero/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Revlon

Gal Gadot is the new face of Revlon.[3] Sokuya (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Usage of image

This image was reinserted by Winkelvi. I think it has no MOS:PERTINENCE, as it just an image of her on her own at the same event is used just before in the infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• 

Keep Yes, it was reinserted. There's no apparent good reason offered why it cannot exist in the article even if it is a photo taken on the same day at the same event as the infobox photo. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Probably on my own on this but I think the image looks fine, It's a different angle and it shows her body instead of just her face, Seems fine to me anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove -- I'm guessing the image was reinserted because it showcases ... certain features of Gadot? :-) In any case, it seems unnecessary since a very similar image is included in the infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't guess. It was reinserted because it's a long-standing photo in the article and was removed without what seemed to be any semblance of reasonable rationale for removing long-standing content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it does not add anything new or interesting, since it's very similar to the infobox image. The additional concern is that it can be perceived as objectifying, so a discussion is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as objectifying because Gal Gadot doesn't see it as objectifying. She chose to wear the outfit and she wore it in public at a well-attended ComicCon. If she doesn't think it's objectifying, why should we worry about what a few people looking at an article on Gadot might think? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, not ComicCon. Besides, what does the image add to the article? Genuine question. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep Going by our policies - does the photo present the subject in a disparaging or demeaning light? No, especially as she's regularly photographed wearing similar attire. [4] Is the photo purely for "cheesecake" purposes? Not necessarily as the article covers Gadot's beauty. But I hear K.e.coffman's concern loud and clear and I wish some women would weigh in (apologies if any of you are). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Might have to ask someone at WP:WikiProject Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red for that opinion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Can anyone confirm that this is actually how you would use this special spelling method to pronounce Gal Gadot's name correctly?

  gah-L GAH-do-T'

And here is her saying it at Jimmy Kimmel's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA8pQMJrcNY/ EditsOrArticles (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this will help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V4XyghZQ-4. I speak Hebrew but I don't know how to read this special spelling method. (Tag me) Sokuya (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This has just been edited sourced to a YouTube clip and contradicted what was there before, so I have removed the unreferenced version. However, interpreting the articulation of one speaker on a sound clip is not satisfactory as a source, so would welcome input from someone knowledgeable about Hebrew pronunciation: Noyster (talk), 18:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The second pronunciation is about Hebrew and Hebrew has only five vowels, so there's nothing "contradicting" there, and there's no way the Hebrew pronunciation of her name would be transcribed other than [ˈɡal ɡaˈdot]. As for the English pronunciation, in the cited video she pronounces her own name with the first syllable with a somewhat fronted vowel ([a ~ ä]), but definitely not with a back vowel [ɑ], and the last syllable with a lengthened [o]. This is consistent with the vowels Hebrew has (except anglicized to some extent), so in the diaphonemic transcription system Wikipedia uses for English pronunciation notation, /ˈɡæl ɡəˈdoʊt/ is how it would be transcribed ([a] and [oː] are how /æ/ and /oʊ/ are pronounced in some dialects. As a YouTube user noted, Gadot is closer to "boat" than to "dot" in her own pronunciation); although, granted, since she is not a native speaker of English and her name is merely Hebrew, it could be argued that there is little point or evidence to have the English pronunciation notation in the article and that it would be better only to have the Hebrew pronunciation and let the reader decide how they're going to pronounce her name. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If "she pronounces it the same in all languages", then that means she doesn't have an anglicized way of pronouncing her name in English, which is all the more reason to include the Hebrew pronunciation only. The problem with that Kimmel video is that she is only correcting Kimmel and never pronounces her full name in isolation, not to mention we don't get to hear her pronounce her first name. In order to include an English pronunciation transcription, we would need a source in which she introduces herself with the full name in English, preferably with an enough amount of speech to distinguish /æ/ vs. /ɑː/, /oʊ/ vs /ɒ/, etc. English and Hebrew simply don't have the same phonological system, so it would be impossible to transcribe the way she pronounces her name with {{IPAc-en}} or {{Respell}} if she doesn't have an anglicized pronunciation (or unless a particular way of pronouncing her name in English becomes verifiably prevalent regardless of her own pronunciation). Nardog (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nardog Do you mean a video like this? I must say, as a native Hebrew speaker, she's saying her name in full Israeli ascent - a name is a name no matter the language. Sokuya (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew pronunciations are similar to Japanese. A vowel like 'o' represents 'dot', and not 'boat'. A vowel like 'a' represnts 'father', and not 'dad'. (Source: My native language) 79.182.172.150 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The English notation has been reinstated citing this article, but whoever wrote it clearly didn't understand how language works. As mentioned above, the vowel in the final syllable is [o] ([o̞] to be precise), which doesn't exist in English. So English speakers are likely to perceive it as whatever is the closest sound that exists in their accent when they hear her pronunciation. Chances are Americans hear the sound of boat, while Britons hear the sound of dot, because generally the words are pronounced respectively with [oʊ] (starts with a back sound with lip rounding) and [ɑ] (no rounding) in many accents of North America and [əʊ] (starts with a schwa, i.e. no rounding) and [ɒ] (single sound, rounded) in RP. But strictly speaking neither are correct because [oʊ] is two sounds, [ɒ] is too low, and [əʊ]/[ɑ] are not round for good measure. Whatever the case, the confusion seems primarily to lie in whether or not the final "t" is pronounced (mistaking it for a French name), so, again, we can't possibly have one definitive notation until one particular way is adopted by the majority of English speakers, and it might be better if we just had one Hebrew pronunciation and let the reader decide how to articulate it. Nardog (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the correct pronunciation is GAHL GA DOTE (with a long "O" sound and more or less equal emphasis on all three syllables). And Gal rhymes with doll.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In the Jimmy Kimmel interview, Kimmel pronounced her full name as /ˈɡæl ɡəˈdoʊt/, to which she corrected the last name to /ɡəˈdɒt/. She says it later again with the same Anglicized pronunciation. As for the first name, she didn't correct Kimmel, and said it afterwards with (what I assume is) an Israeli accent, so either

1. /ˈɡæl/ is her preferred English pronunciation, or
2. she doesn't have a preferred English pronunciation for her first name.

Either way, she clearly has a preferred English pronunciation for her last name, so it should be noted alongside the Hebrew pronunciation.
--maczkopeti (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if she pronounces it with /ɒ/. Hebrew has a typical five-vowel system of /a, e, i, u, o/, so we don't know if it was as low as /ɒ/ ([ɒ̝ ~ ɔ]) until you examine the formants. Besides, we don't know if she speaks a variety of English that distinguishes /ɒ/ from /ɑː/, so even if her pronunciation was phonetically similar to /ɒ/, that doesn't immediately warrant the phonemic analysis of it as /ɒ/. Also, you're probably basing that on the shortness of the vowel, but remember most varieties of American English don't distinguish vowel lengths. We also don't know if she speaks a variety that does (aaand she's not a native speaker so it might not be consistent).

Also, she immediately says "More T at the end" after correcting Kimmel. So presumably she's not really "correcting" (i.e. drawing attention to) the pronunciation of the vowel, just that of the consonant.

Even if it was /ɒ/, most American speakers don't have /ɒ/ and replace it with /ɑː/, which is rather closer to /a/ in her language. So she might prefer /ɔː/ over /ɒ/. But many American speakers also don't have /ɔː/ and replace it with /ɑː/. So she might prefer /oʊ/ over /ɔː/. But in British and Australian English, which do distinguish vowel lengths, /oʊ/ and /ɔː/ are rather long, so she might prefer /ɒ/. And now we're back to where we started! I still think it's just impossible to notate the pronunciation of her name in an English phonemic representation, unless one variation sticks or she has a preferred anglicized pronunciation. Nardog (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Her having a preferred pronunciation is exactly what I was trying to point out. "More T at the end" just implies the ⟨o⟩ is a checked vowel, which phonemically can only be /ɒ/. Phonetically speaking, her pronunciation of the checked "o" shows American influence in that it's longer than the other checked vowels. The same lengthening can be heard in her pronunciation of her surname.

--maczkopeti (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In the first video, she first says /ɡəˈdɒt/, then /ɡəˈdɑːt/, and both can be interpreted as /ɡəˈdɒt/. She can't expect Americans to say /ɡəˈdɒt/, as /ɒ/ merges with /ɑː/ for the vast majority of Americans. The sequence ⟨ot⟩ is never /ɔːt/ in English, so that's a no-no either. The reason she corrects the /ɡəˈdoʊt/ pronunciation is simple ignorance of how English accents work. Kimmel doesn't even get /ɡəˈdɒt/ right and says /ɡəˈdʌt/ instead.

/ɡəˈdoʊt/ is a perfectly regular anglicization of Hebrew /ɡaˈdot/, at least as far as American English is concerned. In loanwords, stressed ⟨o⟩ is regularly mapped to /oʊ/. Spanish /o/ is practically the same as Hebrew /o/, yet nobody has a problem with saying /ˈɡoʊmɛz/ for Gomez or Gómez.

I don't think she can truly have a preference for the exact English pronunciation of her name. She should educate herself on English phonetics and phonology before correcting native speakers on that and then make an educated choice on how to pronounce her name in English.

Compare the very similar case of Alja Tomljanovic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Gadot has said in another interview that the T is pronounced as "a lighter T...a softer T." Another article absurdly takes the position that the T is "aspirated", citing a video by Geoff Lindsey. I assume what she's insisting on, rather, is an unglottalized, released stop, probably without a clipping of the preceding vowel, as opposed to a preglottalized, possibly unreleased, stop, with a shortened preceding vowel, as in most English speakers' pronunciation of an utterance-final /t/. But this is not something most speakers can voluntarily control and calculate exactly how it's going to sound. But in the future she might get an English speech training for a role and become more familiar with English phonology (where Lindsey can help her out!), and finally have a preferred anglicized pronunciation (I think her not quite nailing English pronunciation, albeit fairly competent, comes in part from the fact that she can't definitively decide what variety of English she's going to base her pronunciation on—a problem common among EFL speakers). (I still don't think Maczkopeti's addition was appropriate, but whatevs.) Nardog (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. It'd be further evidence that she needs to learn more about English phonetics and phonology.

I hope she chooses General American by the way. It's easier to learn. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not her fault though. It must be simply the result of people asking "How's your name pronounced?" time and again and her answering to the best of her knowledge. Nardog (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: I agree that it can't be willful ignorance. I should've said it earlier. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the English IPA. [5] says that the correct pronunciation is /ɡəˈdɒt/. But in [6] (which it cites), we can hear that Gadot can't differentiate between /ɡəˈdoʊt/, /ɡəˈdɒt/ and /ɡəˈdʌt/; instead, all she "corrects" in Kimmel's pronunciation is the final /t/, which she apparently wants to be audibly released, not being aware that the distinction is allophonic in English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I second this decision, as I've explained above. Nardog (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Husband's name - Yaron or Jaron?

CindyShae1986 made an edit yesterday changing the spelling of Gadot's husband's name from Yaron Varsano to Jaron Varsano. I reverted because it's spelled Yaron in the cited source. However, they then pointed out to me on my talk page that Varsano's Instagram account is jaronvarsano. I did some Googling, and it seems like the spelling is just about interchangeable - I see many articles spelling it each way, with maybe a few more coming back as Yaron (and at least one referring to "Yaron Varsano aka Jaron Varsano"). Anybody have any idea what's going on here? I'm guessing there's a linguistic thing going on that I don't know anything about? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 04:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal name status?

The subject was identified as Gal Gadot Varsano in the introductory paragraph on the basis of this source: "גל גדות על פרשת אופק בוכריס: "איפה הצדק?"".

Now, the publication making this claim is Ynet; can we trust the site to have properly vetted that the Ynet account in question does belong to Gadot? —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Ynet the top online newspaper in Israel? Yes it is.

Does the Hebrew Wikipedia article for Gal Gadot use the same source for her full hyphenated name in its counterpart opening paragraph ? Yes it does.

Case closed. 109.65.24.143 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the Ynet article, it's an arm of the newspaper but not a news website; it's general information and written by independent writers. And, we are not the Hebrew Wikipedia. We have our own policies on reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Another source: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a9868643/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-facts/

Ctrl+F "sound of our love" and you'll find it.

Case closed. 109.65.24.143 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That source corroborates the name, but there is no hyphen! —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In Israel, Double-barrelled names are always hyphenated to distinguish them from middle names. Source: Living in Israel. 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the lede needs to say "Gal Gadot Varsano (née Gadot)"? Because in both places, where screenshots of other websites are used, there is no hyphen; we'd need to distinguish that she took her maiden name as her middle name, if what you're asserting holds up. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that Gal Gadot-Varsano in the opening pargraph + her birth name in the Infobox (Gal Gadot) ontop of her husband's name (Yaron Varsano) + the first paragraph of Early Life (Gal Gadot was born in) are more than enough for our clever readers to get the situation.

As I said before, in Israel double-barrelled surnames are always hyphenated - that's why all the Israeli editors who've read this article in English never changed it. 109.65.24.143 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Then why is her name not hyphenated in either of the sources you mentioned? —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How come her name is hyphenated in the Hebrew Wikipedia (her native language -- for crying out loud) opening paragraph, ever since it was added back in 2016? 109.65.24.143 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is why should we hyphenate her name when neither of the sources show her name as hyphenated—including the Cosmo source, where the name appears in English text? —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

[7] <- Check this out. 109.65.24.143 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's machine translated from Hebrew. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts

An anonymous IP who seems to have a knowledge of Wikipedia already (possibly editing anon to escape scrutiny with their registered account?) is insisting on Gadot's name in the lead to be solely Gal Gadot-Versano, despite policy found at WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:LEGALNAME. It's established policy that we use recognizable names and names commonly used and known by - if there is a name change, we still use the commonly known name. It's also common to add "aka" (also known as) in the lead for the uncommonly known and used name following a name-change. In the case of this article, the name should read, "Gal Gadot (aka Gal Gadot Varsano)".

Would love to see this anon IP comment here rather than edit war. My suggestion is that the pending change/reversion they have just made not be accepted until discussion ensues and a better understanding and/or consensus is reached based on policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the hyphen is back in the name, I wonder if it's the same anon as the above section. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

C.Fred, I think I might know who it is. They've been edit warring at this article for at least a couple of years. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME don't apply to opening paragraphs because they are under Wikipedia:Article titles. And MOS:LEGALNAME doesn't recommend a construction with "aka". The relevant sections of guidelines in this case, rather, are MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:MULTINAMES, and they doesn't mention "aka" either. As for hypen vs. space, unless there is an existing guideline or consensus on how to represent Israeli names on English Wikipedia, what we should consult is not Hebrew sources but what reliable sources written in English do and what other English Wikipedia articles about Israelis do. And I haven't seen concrete evidence to support putting the birth name before the current full name (which MOS:FULLNAME proscribes) or using a space for separating the surnames. I'm not going to fight this because it is far from my priority, and sockpuppetry is indeed inexcusable, but it is nonetheless strange to find myself siding with an IP against a couple of seemingly very experienced editors. Nardog (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede revert

@ScrapIronIV: How does my edit not reflect the content of the current sources? 13zmz13 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit because you claim that Gadot studied international relations, but that's not mention in the cited GQ article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gal Gadot in 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gal Gadot in 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Reversion back to old photo showing a less mature Gadot was done. The current image is a newer photo, reflects who she is now, and the change to the current one was made based on that. It has been status quo for a few months now. The revert back was bold, now WP:BRD applies - please discuss on article talk page, Avaya1. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I added and high-definition, September 2018 image. For some reason, it was removed. I will restore it soon if nobody gives me a resin not to. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@13zmz13: The file is up for deletion, per CSD F7, please wait an administrator's reply there and stop your disruptive editing. Plus, current image it is much better pic. --Miaow 18:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The "newer photo" Winkelvi (ψλ) is talking about is the current image, which is from July 2018. This image from 2016 is the image Avaya1 tried to replace it with. Besides, you have been given multiple reasons not to restore the non-free image. Nardog (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I know. My point is that Winkelvi's rationale applies even more to the picture that I added.

Multiple? I've only seen one reason, and I've already disputed it here and here. 13zmz13 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If there are freely images available, why do you want to use a non-free image? Per WP:NFCC#1, we can't replace the current pic. --Miaow 00:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Her grandmother left what before the German invasion?

What area did her grandmother leave before the German army came? Calle Widmann (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Father

The Wiki article says her father is 6th Generation Israeli but that's not possible. Israel was formed in 1947. Gadot was born in 1985. Take a conservative estimate, and imagine that her father was a young as 20 when he had her, that would mean he was born in 1965. If his father was 20, that would mean her grandfather was born in 1945, before Israel was formed, so Michael would be a first generation Israeli, not sixth. I see the citation is Rolling Stone Magazine. I love Rolling Stone but they're not exactly a peer-reviewed source. I think they it wrong, because it is possible mathematically possible. Could some please delete this from the main body of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.204.254 (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of what the article meant is that five generations of her father's family have been present in what is now Israel. It's awkward, but I don't want to change it one way or the other based on what's present. Also, even though they probably based the story on an interview with Gadot an info from her (publicity people), I'm willing to accept the Rolling Stone story as reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Gal Gadot is not the voice of Wonder Woman in The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part. Wonder Woman in that animated film is voiced by Cobie Smulders. 104.49.119.231 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Sourcing for the role is at the Lego Movie 2 article and goes to this story on Movieweb. Please provide a source other than IMDB that Smulders is keeping the role. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hospital visit

It is nice that actors visit sick children in hospital and all, but I don't see how it is particularly notable. (Chris Pratt and Chris Evans have visited hospitals in costume but it is not mentioned in their articles.) Could someone please clarify why this is notable and add the necessary context or remove the sentence from the article. -- 22:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.235.192 (talk)

It is a fun bit of news, and there are 3 sources to properly WP:VERIFY that it is true but is it relevant here? Is this representative of ongoing charitable work that Gadot does on a regular basis and therefore worth including in an encyclopedia biography article? Or is it promotional work for a film that maybe belongs in the film article but not in this biography? Anyone? -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Gal Gadot Versano" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gal Gadot Versano. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New projects at Pilot Wave Motion Pictures

I think her upcoming projects, as announced on the official Instagram for Pilot Wave Motion Pictures and other sources such as Deadline, should be included on this Wikipedia page. #bodyContent a[title="User:Dreamfigure"] { background-color: #00FFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-weight: bold; } 07:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

@IslamBro: has taken it upon himself to change the infobox image to one that is two years newer. I am not so sure it is an improvement. The lighting on the 2016 photo is very good. Her face is very visible, and seen straight on. The 2018 photo is two years newer (that's a plus) but the lighting is poor, deep shadows, her face is darkened and can't see well, the background has poor contrast. Thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen at least three back-and-forth changes of this image, and nobody has discussed it here. @IslamBro: @General Iroh, the Dragon of the West: please weigh in; do not edit-war. Elizium23 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have only edited the pictures once, and I more or less restored them to the positions they were in prior to me starting editing this article. But yes, I agree that the 2016 picture is of much better quality and should therefore be used in the infobox. Iroh (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@IslamBro: I've reverted you now after you changed the photos umpteen times. When are you going to come here to the talk page and discuss the changes before going ahead and unilaterally doing it against consensus? Elizium23 (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

Can you add a space between Apple and TV+, please? 45.72.243.103 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)