Talk:Sabra (company)

This article is being used to propagate anti-Israel propaganda and to promote a political point of view

Section "Boycott campaigns" has text "...the company financially supports the Israeli Defense Forces and human rights violations against Palestinians."

This is promoting a political point of view of BDS activists. This page should be about this business and its products, not about the political point of view of one activist group or another. The information about political points of views of various activist groups can be found on their own articles. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I really don't think that epithet applies. User:96.24.75.223 may in good faith be seeing an NPOV violation where none exists, but they are clearly not soapboxing. —Swpb^talk 13:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:@Swpb: Indeed I was not soapboxing.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@96.24.75.223: If the article directly stated that the IDF commits human rights violations, that would be both POV and off-topic. However, the full sentence reads, "Activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement [emphasis mine] have called for boycotts of Sabra's products, stating [emphasis mine] that the company financially supports the Israeli Defense Forces and human rights violations against Palestinians." The statement is attributed to a specific third party, it is cited, and it is clearly relevant. —Swpb^talk 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: The sentence is not a direct quote from BDS activists, but a summary of their POV made by a different entity. The fragment "...supports the Israeli Defense Forces and human rights violations..." suggests that supporting IDF is equivalent to human rights violations. These are 2 separate things and they should be decoupled. In general I think that the article would be informative enough if it just says that this business has been targeted by BDS activists, and then the details on BDS can be found on the BDS article. Information on support of the IDF should stay in the article but be in a separate section from BDS.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note that The Strauss Group says on its English website that it sends food products to IDF soldiers, not the Sabra company. This should be clarified. -- Callinus (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So this article currently has the text "alleging that the products fund IDF human rights violations." The way this text is worded makes it sound like the allegation is that "the products fund IDF", while "IDF human rights violations" are a fact. This is a POV and it needs to be fixed.96.24.75.223 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing to "alleging that the products fund human rights violations against Palestinians". If you want different text, propose it. -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Callinus:. I appreciate you taking your time to improve this article based on my feedback, which is in sharp contrast to the hostility I've been seeing on here. You tried to work with me, and I appreciate that. Better wording would be "Activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign have called for boycotts of Sabra products, citing the same reasons they used for targeting other businesses with Israel ties."96.24.75.223 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read the policy on verifiability - it is verifiable that activists say that they target Strauss companies specifically. Readers benefit from knowing that the allegation against the company is specific to the company - they can react to that themselves, without editorialising in the body text of this Wikipedia article. -- Callinus (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So since it is verified that BDS targets Sabra Humus because they are part of the Strauss group, the text should read "Activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign have called for boycotts of Sabra products because Sabra Humus is part of the Strauss Group."

I think it is also verifiable that BDS targets Sabra Humus because of their Israel ties, because that is part of their mission statement describing "punitive measures against Israel", but for now I'm not going to get into that specifically here as the new verifiable text I presented above should be satisfactory to describe their issues here.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are asking for contravenes WP:NOR. You are continuing to mistake Wikipedia articles for blogs or forums. If you wish to write an article on your own analysis of anti-Israeli motivation, it is suggested that you start your own blog or join a forum. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy or cherry picking information from sources in order to create a WP:COATRACK to extrapolate an analysis that suits your POV (AKA shoehorning). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Your analysis is incorrect. Again, your accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Your apparent emotional involvement with this issue, to the point of stalking my conversation with this other person, raises my suspicions that your true motives are not really all about keeping this article neutral and not biased as you claim.96.24.75.223 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy is right. Please read the policy on original research and Synthesis - On topics like this, you should not use the body text of Wikipedia articles to editorialise over a source to draw conclusions that the source does not reach. Wikidemon has changed the sentence to "Activists in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign have called for boycotts of Sabra products, over the donations" - this is an accurate summation of the published material on the qconline.com news article. -- Callinus (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I opened a new discussion on the Neutral point of view Noticeboard regarding this article[1].96.24.75.223 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

96.24.75.223, do you actually understand what WP:HARASS (AKA stalking) means? In the first instance, this is the article's talk page and, because I have an account, the article and its talk page on my watchlist... alongside literally hundreds of other articles. What this means is that I automatically receive notifications when changes have been made to either page: not that I am stalking you or harassing you when I respond trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the treatment of content. While we're on the subject of harassment, it is you who have been harassing me for deigning to revert your POV changes and trying to explain why. You've now opened two ANIs in the period of a month accusing me of harassing you. While you were there, you also tried to WP:CANVASS for as many editors as you could push to involve themselves in this article.

Starting a new thread on the NPOVN is WP:FORUMSHOPPING (something I've also attempted to explain to you). Sadly, I ceased to assume good faith on your behalf long ago. I think that it's high time that you WP:LISTEN to what other editors tell you, even if you don't trust me. Please drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

96.24.75.223 - I started off criticizing Iryna Harpy for what seemed (in isolation) like an unfair accusation, but it's apparent your editing behavior has been a problem before. You may have valid concerns about article content (or maybe not), but your attitude and behavior make other editors unwilling to hear those concerns. What you're doing has been called wikilawyering; abusing guidelines and processes in an attempt to get your way. Objectively, it's not working for you. You will have much better luck if you treat your fellow editors as you would your professional colleagues. —Swpb^talk 21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Student groups

The student groups are described as Pro Palestinian by the sources we use - Haaretz: "Pro-Palestinian student groups at University of Ottawa to boycott product, partly owned by the Strauss Group"; NYT: ", Palestinian students and their supporters have challenged the sale of Sabra hummus ". Is there any reason editors are trying to censors this well sourced and relevant materiel from the article, despite the fact that the reliable sources clearly describe the students as such? Here come the Suns (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Haaretz is the only RS using that descriptor. The other reliable sources do not use this description. Per WP:NPOV we abstain from editorialising in such articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. the NYT calls them "Palestinians and their supporters". Quoting a reliable source, verbatim , is the opposite of editorializing.Here come the Suns (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And here's another source, this time the Associated Press: "Princeton University students voted down a referendum by a pro-Palestine student group "[2] Here come the Suns (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, in both cases you're cherry picking a descriptor which, in light of the text of entire article, is WP:SYNTH. Note, also, that The Huffington Post is not considered a reliable source in its own right... which is why it isn't used for this article. You are still POV pushing. Why do you consider it to be so important to the tone of a small boycott section? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to pay attention: the HuffPo is carrying a story by the AP. Hint - that's what the little letters (AP) stand for. I've given you 3 reliable sources that use this description, this is really more than enough, but here are a few more for you: NBC News - [3] - "Princeton University students voted Monday in a referendum by a pro-Palestine student group"; [4] - "Pro-Palestinian student groups at the University of Ottawa launched a campaign "; You are now stonewalling and I will be ignoring you. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT Here come the Suns (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The term should be included. Assuming that Here come the Suns is quoting correctly, its used by reliable sources. I actually can't see why anyone feels the need to include the descriptor, much less why anyone would object to its use. The group is protesting a company supporting Israel, I had automatically assumed they were pro-Palestinian on that information alone. It's like saying that a group of college students had protested the use of animals in research, and then an editor adding that it was an animal rights group, followed by another editor objecting to the descriptor. The descriptor is borderline redundant (though probably provides information that they weren't an anti-Semitic group, which is the only other plausible motivation I can see). Objecting to the information seems utterly pointless: most readers who care are going to assume they are pro-Palestinian without being told. What other affiliation/motivation would they have to object to a company supporting Israel? But that is all rather irrelevant. It is supported by reliable sources, therefore it can be included. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Mark Marathon (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy , Swpb - given the above 3rd opinion, do you have any remaining objections? Here come the Suns (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that I don't accept this 'third opinion' whoever you are has requested out of nowhere, and that (much as I like to assume good faith) your editing career suggests that you're WP:NOTHERE, my objection remains as it stood. All I'm seeing in the wish to dredge up the opinion of one journalist writing for the Huffington Post for the sake of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Trying to paint a picture of the student group as being some sort of ratbag malcontents is merely an attempt to sway the reader away from the simple facts of the case. It seems to me that you've been here before... What exactly is it you're trying to prove regarding the incident? Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked for this 3rd opinion here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=904856348, which is , as I understand it, the way these disagreement should proceed to resolution. Are you saying you don't accept the way Wikipedia resolves disputes?

You are (again) misrepresenting the facts here - the description as Palestinian appears not just in the HuffPO, but as the links currently used to reference this incident in the article show, by Haaretz and the New York times. And (per the additional links I've added above) on NBC News - [5] and Jweekly. [6].

What I am trying to do is describe these group the same way thee New York Times, NBC news Haaretz and AP are doing. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I still vehemently oppose your proposed changes and your continued ill-advised interaction with this article, for reasons so thoroughly explained by others and so thoroughly ignored by you that I see no reason to recapitulate them. Find something better to do with your time and ours. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 19:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this supposed "ill-advised interaction with this article"? Did you read the third opinion? Here come the Suns (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can all see that you have been shopping. Could you please explain where it was that you made the third party request? There is nothing on that contributor's Wikipedia talk page, nor on their WikiCommons talk page from you. Transparency of process, please? How did you come across this one contributor amongst the thousands of contributors, and why this one person? Are you not logging in as yourself, or are you using a different account? None of this makes any form of sense outside of a single minded inability to drop the stick. You disappeared for literally years and suddenly decide to ask for a third opinion without rhyme, reason, or even any attempts to commence some form of dialogue first on this page? And, yes, without going any deeper into your editing history on a public talk page, your continued interaction with this article is most certainly ill advised. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not shopping, but following the recommended procedure for dispute resolution, as outlined here - [7]]. I gave you the link to where I made the 3rd opinion request in my comment, preceded by the words "I asked for this 3rd opinion here-". In case you somehow missed it, here it is, once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=904856348. Do you not undersatnd how 3rd opinion requests work? Here come the Suns (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, but I did miss the link. Nevertheless, you've merely solicited an opinion... and, yes, it is forum shopping. Editors other than myself have expressed their objections clearly - and following policy and guidelines - on this talk page. The "third opinion" board clearly states that it is for articles where only 2 contributors are involved (i.e., yourself and myself). That is not the case as there have been others involved including an administrator. There is also no need to reiterate the policy-based arguments against inclusion as nothing has changed. Content is not contingent on a !vote, although it appears that you think that it is. The "third opinion" doesn't actually point to any policies, nor is there an argument outside of a personal opinion as to what the reader already makes of the content. In fact, this third opinion actually questions why it's even a point of contention, stating that the "... descriptor is borderline redundant". That's a lay observation, not an WP:NPOV opinion. I suggest that you do what you told me to do in December of 2015, being to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll also throw WP:POINTY into the reading material. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So, following the recommended procedure for dispute resolution is forum shopping, according to you? How will the dispute get resolved, then, without involving addiotnal editors? There was no administrator involved in this content dispute, where only you and I had participated on the talk page discussion, prior to me asking for a 3rd opinion. what is your policy-based objection to this content, whcih is supported by multiple reliable sources?Here come the Suns (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Who's Swpb then, chopped liver? You don't know who the admin is? You've been on his talk page regarding this matter for the last couple of days. Please stop playing the victim. You're doing a truly unconvincing job of it. Sorry, but I'm ending communications here because you're going to keep trying to WP:BAIT me... and I'm not biting any more. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Swpb is not an administrator, as far as I can tell, and he did not participate in the talk page discussion until after I had posted the 3rd opinion request . The admin on whose page I posted was very specific that he is not involved in the dispute: "I have never expressed any opinion either way as to whether the inclusion of the wording you prefer is desirable or undesirable, nor do I intend to do so now" . Again, what is your policy-based objection to this content, which is supported by multiple reliable sources? Here come the Suns (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

Regarding anonymous revert of "cultural appropriation" reference, please provide references of hummus originating from Israeli (eg. Jewish) or American cuisine. Sabra advertises hummus as "cultural" with zero to none reference to its origins, thus implying the very definition of Cultural appropriation. PetrKlíč (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@PetrKlíč and Huldra: The sentence "X is a great example of what is known as Cultural appropriation" is neither encyclopedic in tone nor in style (random capitalization, "a great example"), let alone in terms of its content as an assertion made by an impartial encyclopedia. Here are the IP's three arguments:

1. For one, the statement and references were not fact based, but rather opinion based editorials, and more importantly, this is an American product, and has no relevance to the referenced articles.
2. inappropriate content. Unsupportable claims. Absurd mischaracterization. And incorrect usage of a term.
3. This is a controversial statement that is politically based, is editorial, and is a matter of opinion. The statement must have been added by someone with political intentions, not an honest interest in publishing unbiased matter of fact encyclopedia-based content. You would not find the sentence deleted in a paper encyclopedia.

You haven't addressed any of those points, while I'd say they do a pretty-good job of explaining why the sentence and its citations do not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to express this point in the article, you have to (1) get rid of non-WP:NPOV phrasings like "a great example" and instead show what Sabra has done to make it a "great" example of cultural appropriation, (2) replace opinionated assertion with "citizens of the Arab world have criticized Sabra for...", and (3) find reputable, non-editorial sources that explain this criticism. M. I. Wright (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Statistically speaking, you are 50% wrong as Strauss is Israeli company headquartered in Israel. Fact.
2. "Hummus simply means “chickpea” in Arabic". Fact. It is a typical Middle Eastern dish first recorded in 13th century Arabic cookbook. Fact. Hummus was adopted by Jewish immigrants coming to Palestine and became very popular in Israel. Fact. Sabra Hummus is extension of this practice to US market.
3. Feel free to reword the sentence rather than anonymously revert it.

PetrKlíč (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

On top of the wildly biased tone and weak sources, this is a classic WP:COATRACK: there might be room for a discussion of cultural appropriation on the article hummus (with better sources and an encyclopedic tone), but the attachment to this particular company is extremely shaky. It doesn't belong here at all, far less in the lead. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Israeli-based Strauss owns 50% of Sabra. Take care. PetrKlíč (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the language can be improved, eg "great example" does not belong in the article. However, a paragraph about the Cultural appropriation definitely belongs here. It has been at the centre of the complaint agains Sabra (in addition to their support of the Golani Brigade), Huldra (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If the appropriation complaints are really specific to Sabra's particular practices (as opposed to naming the company as an example of a wider phenomenon), then a sentence in the "Boycott campaigns" section would be justified. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)