Talk:Ahava

Links to avoided

'Links to avoid', #11 makes it clear that links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), are to be avoided. It does appear dishonest when a link to a facebook page has been deleted to reinstate it with the name "Ahava website"

The Product section

I have sought advice from the Wikipedia Live chat help page regarding the inclusion of a rider regarding (1)the listing of products, (2)the use of material sourced from Facebook,(3)the inclusion of a rider such as "However no independent scientific evidence has been adduced in support of this belief." I was advised: (1)on the listing of products: When an article starts suggesting specific products for a random malady, warning. eg "sunscreen" is ok but not "Banana Boat Bronzing Sunscreen SPF 50 with a Hint of Lemon." (2)Facebook and other social networking sites are not reliable sources; neither are aggregators (3)the inclusion of a rider such as that given is acceptable unless such scientific evidence is cited.

Does anyone have any objection to these principles being used when compiling this section? Floccinauci (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lead The hypertheme (or lead as Gilabrand refers to it) currently tells us what Ahava does and where its "flagship" stores are. The infobox gives the location of the company administrative headquarters. We are not told where the company actually produces its products - this geographical information is for some reason in the history section mixed in with information about the shareholders. Far more consistent to place it upfront with the information about the locations of the admin HQ and the "flagship stores (although whether this latter snippet really warrants placement in the hypertheme is somewhat doubtful but not worth my energy contesting). If anyone moves/removes this information regarding the location in the first paragraph could they please give a substantive reason as to why it should not be there? ThanksFloccinauci (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

POV changes for West Bank

Gillebrand has described me as a "POV warrior who has been vandalizing this article since 2009". Emotive accusations like this are not helpful. Perhps Gillebrand, you could explain why you feel the need to hide the fact that the factory producing these cosmetics is not in Israel but in a settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Why did you re-write the article without consulting with other editors? Why do you feel the need to remove information, facts, which do not accord with your own view of the world? Please, no more name-calling, no more deletions of well-referenced material, no addition of material which is not supported by your citations - just proper, accurate well referenced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Flocci, the location of the plant is not concealed. It is clearly stated in the article. But this information is not the be all and end all of Ahava, which is what your edits are trying to convey. As I have said, we are writing an encyclopedia. Relevant facts will be included in a neutral way, without repetition, and in the sections where they belong. Weasel words, advocacy sites, repetition of the same information over and over - this is what has been deleted. Your repeated removal of a photo against consensus has been noted. You apparently have some kind of fixation with this company, as can be seen from your user contributions, a very sparse listing indeed, where Ahava is practically the only article you have edited since 2009. You are free to edit any article you like, of course, same as everyone else, but it is hard to see the edits you have made as being productive. They appear to be battle-minded and have added little to the reader's understanding of Ahava apart from the political aspect. I have no interest in fighting with you or anyone else. My interest is writing well-written, well-rounded, solidly referenced articles. I see you found an interesting article about Israeli import of raw materials from Jordan. That is a useful and interesting contribution to the article that could be further developed. Looking forward to more fruitful collaboration. Best,--Geewhiz (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Location of Mitspe Shalem can be clearly seen to be north of the Green Line in the Occupied Palestinian Territories http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Israel&aq=0&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=45.660664,87.539063&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Israel&ll=31.524703,35.772858&spn=0.687143,1.367798&z=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the user who just changed "occupied West Bank territories" for "liberated Judea and Samaria" will take care to discuss his or her viewpoint here, but if someone is willing, let me state that there is a consensus in Wikipedia to consider the term West Bank as the correct English neutral wording, as opposed to Palestine or to Judea and Samaria and that nobody doubts the fact that this territory is military occupied - it is not part of the State of Israel, not according to the UN and not according to Israel's law (the latter except for Jerusalem, but the Ahava plant is not located in Jerusalem). Besides, the source cited, The Guardian, uses the term "occupied territories", so keeping it is keeping the source's wording. Changing it could be considered as POV-vandalism.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shuki, I undid your revert because unless debated here, there is no reason not to label the placement of the settlement as "occupied West Bank territory". I don't know which POV case in arbitration you refer to, please explain here - I might have missed something. If you refer to the ArbCom case of West Bank vs Judea and Samaria, I think this case is about behaviour of editors of the Settlement page, and about the justification of the use of Judea and Samaria, not about NOT using the term West Bank, which you deleted here. But maybe I'm mistaken - listen to your arguments.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange feeling to be the only one to argue on the talkpage, when everybody feels free to change the text without giving any explanation. Remember: a reader must understand what the boycott is about and the word "settlement" might apply to any place people live. It's the question of territoriality which sparked the controversy. This is important context.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

This small page has received a lot of attention in the last few days, not all of what appears to be appropriate. Concerning the Code Pink boycott, my view is that the following points should be on the page, no matter what the exact wording:

1) the manufacturing plant is on occupied territory
2) Code Pink should be mentioned by name, not a (false) label such as "anti-Israel" (?)
3) the reasoning behind the boycott should be briefly described.

This version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahava_(company)&oldid=315362164 for example would meet these, with the possible proviso that "West Bank" be modified to "occupied West Bank" since the legal status ties into the reasoning behind the boycott.

Also, the external link to the boycott page http://www.stolenbeauty.org/article.php?list=type&type=415 is IMO entirely appropriate in this context, much like the Ahava homepage. I wouldn't be in favour of removing the link to the company's homepage. --Dailycare (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning that the legal status ties into the reasoning behind the boycott, it is therefor very important to have "occupied". That is also the npov view that its occupied following npov Wikipedia rules due weight since all countries on earth (maybe even including Israel) say its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Noon has reverted this edit for a second time now. I don't want to get into an edit war, but their reasoning for reverting it - "selective and inaccurate presentation from a biased source" - sounds more like the user's own selective misrepresentation. A fact is a fact. The user has offered no good reason not to keep the information in the article, and has not given their own input. 'Selective' - how? 'Innacurate' - how? 'Biased' - how? To describe this:

"The Ahava factory is in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory on land that was a Palestinian village of Arab et Ta'amira."

as selective or inaccurate is disingenuous. The sentence could be edited for grammar, but that's pretty much it. It's also a shame that the spam link for the Australian store has been added back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.238.199 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Settlements, West Bank, etc.

Replacing any location like "Deas Sea shore" with "West Bank" and so on makes the article less informative. The controversy is covered in body, no need to push it into lead and share holder parts. Also, please keep close to sources, if source says that the company is from Holon, keep the infobox that way. After all the article is about the company, not about the I-P conflict. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and trying to add the "summary of 3 sentences" is pointless and repetitive. People can just go read the 3 sentences instead of needing a summary and then the sentences. It's an encyclopedia so keep it like one. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added this summary to concentrate the whole occupation-illegal-settlement-palestinian-israeli narrative in a single place, in short and clear wording, for the sake of article stability. Otherwise this theme is going to spread over the whole article again as it did in the past. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Good intentions but I still think it is repetitive. The references say everything needed, and the sentences about the specific cases explain it good enough. If someone wants more information they can easily go to Israeli settlement or West Bank article for politics. It doesn't seem like we should have so much focus on this article about an Israeli company about political situation. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Will see how to handle it if and when the next I-P edit war starts. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A truly NPOV description of the area either known as the West Bank or as Judea and Samaria would be to call it "disputed territories." 'Occupied West Bank' or 'Occupied territories' gives the impression that Israel has no right to be there, which is highly debatable. The area also happens to be "occupied" by many more Arabs than Jews, so if you say it with the right intonation someone could think that you mean "occupied" as opposed to "empty" as in, "You cant sit there, that seat is occupied." Almost all of the land in which Jewish communities were built were not previously "occupied." Almost all of the communities were built on previously empty land. Whatever source was used to show that Mitzpeh Shalem was built on Arab land should be checked and rechecked, because it was a general policy (although not universal) to build on land not previously owned by Arabs. Land that was owned by Arabs was purchased by Jews that wanted to build there. If an Arab owner did not want to sell, he was not forced. Just take a look at communities like Efrat, which has several swatches of Arab land within their community which to this day is still cultivated as grape vineyards by local Arabs. Nationalized land which Jordan "occupied" as a state after '48 and before '67 was converted to Nationalized land by Israel after the '67 war. This is most likely the provenance of Mitzpeh Shalem. So this community was either built on land purchased from private Arabs, or converted from Jordanian land to Israeli land. Yes it is disputed, but as long as Israel has authority over the area it should be considered part of Israel, although it isn't strictly speaking. To get into a tizzy because Ahava makes their cosmetics in Mitzpeh Shalem, a place that did not displace Arabs or oppress Arabs, is saying that Jews do not have a right to live there. But isn't that strange? Jews have a right to live anywhere they want in France, the US, even China if they wanted to but not in land that was won in a defensive war and that is mentioned in the Bible as part of the Jewish inheritance during the time of the Jewish kings. Kind of weird, don't you think? A true peace settlement with the Palestinians will mean that just as Arabs can live in Israel (20% or the population of Israel) Jews should be allowed to live in "Palestine." Why do the Jews need to evacuate from any future additional Arab state (I believe Palestine would be the 23rd Arab state in the world)but the Arabs that live in the only Jewish state in the world will continue to live within Israel's borders? Just as I do not advocate "transfer" of Arabs out of Israel I do not advocate "transfer" of Jews out of the future Palestine. Anyone who is truly interested in peace, a true peace, should buy Ahava products by the cartload. Kicking the Jews out of their homes is not the way to peace. Liberals should be supporting the only democratic state in the Middle East. The only state that permits freedom of speech, protest against government leaders and policies, free and fair elections, women's rights, gay rights, basically everything most western societies hold dear. And yet there is BDS trying to cripple Israel's economy, if only they could. This is why even the most leftist citizens in Israel believe boycotts and other intense pressure to evacuate Jewish communities is a manifestation of antisemitism, and not a sign of a true desire for peace. Wikipedia has the power to shape attitudes. Repeating over and over again "Occupied Palestinian Territories" with an upper case 'O' as if "occupied" is part of the name of this new country, is infuriating because it can only lead to more hatred, not less. You are right, it is too late to change "West Bank" to "Judah and Samaria" but "West Bank" makes no sense as a place name. the west bank of the Jordan River? That is miles and miles away from most of the "West Bank." The true geographic names of the areas in question are Judah and Samaria. That is what these places are called in the bible, and that is what they were called until either 1948 or 1967, I am not sure which, but certainly not over the hundreds of years of history before the 20th century. Take a look at some old maps and see what these areas are called. Not the West Bank, that's for sure. But it is not too late to change "occupied territories" to "disputed territories." there is a dispute going on, which the parties are trying to resolve. Boycotts, finger-pointing and self-righteousness do not help the situation.Simplysavvy (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting the language used by published reliable sources. It doesn't mean 'what do I think is neutral'. If you can understand that simple but important difference you will understand why Wikipedia articles tend to use the standard terms used by reliable sources, terms that you find non-neutral, rather than terms that reflect the minority views of the Israeli government and advocacy organizations like CAMERA, NGO Monitor, JCPA etc. Regarding the term Occupied Palestinian Territories, it is a term used by the United Nations, WHO, the Red Cross, various governments, all sorts of organizations actually, sometimes with occupied in uppercase, sometimes lower e.g.[1] [2][3][4]. It was also the ISO 3166-1 standard country code until last year ISO changed Occupied Palestinian Territory to State of Palestine, see ISO 3166-2:PS and [5]. My advice, don't edit topics where your personal views could impact on your content decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:WESTBANK resolves this issue. --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Ahava (company) → Ahava — This is the only actual article on something with the name Ahava. Presently, the page called "Ahava" has two other listings, one that simply says that Ahava is Hebrew for love (and should probably not be there, since disambiguation pages are not supposed to list dictionary definitions), and the other that is a red link. If need be, these can be listed on the top of the page with one or more hatnotes. Linda Olive (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to disambiguate. A hatnote pointing to Kiryat Bialik, the location of Mossad Ahava youth village, might be worth adding after the move; Deal with that then. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Love the idea. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chesdovis edit

Chesdovi, you claimed that the text is already covered by the quote, but it isn't, the text by Code Pink is Code Pinks statement/pov, while the text you removed gives evidence of the IC view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the controversy and both views have been given. Chesdovi (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The IC view has not been given. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the IC has not given a view on Ahava or it's location controversey. Chesdovi (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They have about IS and Mitzpe Shalem is an IS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So mention it as MS, not here! Chesdovi (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mitzpe Shalems illegality is brought up here, so it can be here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a place to go into the legality issue in great details, as SD did. Remember what the article is about, make sure it is balanced, but keep it on topic, that's all. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Once we bring up the IC opinion about MS, maybe we can also add more about bias at the UN. Chesdovi (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

<- Here's a BBC report, Concern over Israel settlement exports. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a one from South Africa, Lobbyists challenge ‘made in Israel’ moniker. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Legality under international law of Israeli settlements

It is OK to have a brief mention of international opinion on the legality of Israeli settlements. However, it is not OK to attribute a viewpoint to the United Nations as a whole when the opinion is actually that of the Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of image

< this was in response to this post at User talk:Floccinauci >

Dear Mr Wasted Time, You have accused me of edit warring. Now I am a relatively new user so I checked the information available on edit- warring and it indicates that this involves a situation where an edit is reversed without sufficient reason 3 or more times in a 24 hour period. I have not done that. I have, over a period of about 4 months, removed it 3 or 4 times. I have serious concerns about the inclusion of this picture as it is no more than a promotion for the company.

It is sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AhavaPromotion.JPG where the file name is File:AhavaPromotion.JPG and the description states:"Models promoting Ahava's skin care products... at the Spring 2009 New York Fashion Week" The author of the image is "Wasted Time"

Here is a second cause for concern - the person who is pushing for the inclusion of the image is none other than the author of the image, hardly a disinterested party.

You have suggested that the support of 3 other editors is evidence that the image is not promotional. Do these people have any expertise in multimodal text analysis? I could find 5 mates to support my point of view that it is promotional but that would not make me correct. I rely on the information given at the source of the image where you, its creator have labelled it promotional.

Nor does the fact you have 3 people agreeing with you mean you have consensus - you still need to convince me, and probably others, of your point of view.

Further, the analogy with the Corvette could be considered specious, as that is not a model in current production. Any advertising images there are historical ephemera of interest to car enthusiasts. The AHAVA cosmetics are currently in production, the company stands to benefit from the use of promotional materials in a supposedly neutral environment.

I will not reverse your reversal of my edit for a few days to give you time to provide a substantive reason for its inclusion. Failing that I will delete it again.

Regards

Floccinauci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one has made any objection, I am now deleting the promotional image from the main page. I note that, reference to the page history will show that, on 01:17, 12 September 2008, when Wasted Time R added this image to the page, he described his edit as:(add promotion image) Will add my Floccinauci (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)and hope I have properly signed this edit, if not, my apologies to all

No policy-based reason for removal is given by Floccinauci. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for discussing this here and sorry for the delayed response, I was busy for a couple of days.

Yes, of course the subject of the image in question (models wearing Ahava products outside a fashion show) is a promotional activity for those products. So the description in the image file is accurate. But you seem to think that this forbids Wikipedia from using the image in an article about the company. This could not be further from the truth. Articles about commercial products and companies frequently include images of the products and of the promotional campaigns around those products. After all, making products and advertising and marketing them is what companies do. If we want to illustrate the article, most of the images about a company or product are going to fall into that category.

Consider for example the Coca-Cola article. There are plenty of images there of the products themselves (whose packaging design itself is intended to help sell the product) as well as giant Coke billboards in cities, brightly lit Coke delivery trucks, advertising signs in the middle of nowhere, etc.

Or look at the article for Burger King. Pictures of products, pictures of stores, pictures of someone wearing a Burger King hat. And look at the articles for Wonder Bread, Krispy Kreme, and similar products. Look at the article for Calvin Klein – pictures of products, pictures of models too. Chevrolet Corvette too, as I previously pointed out (the mystique still applies to current Corvettes). The article on Apple Inc. is filled with pictures of products, buildings and stores, and marketing campaigns.

How about movies? Take a look at The Adjustment Bureau or Arthur (2011 film) or Jane Eyre (2011 film) or 2012 (film) or virtually any other Wikipedia article about a film. What do you always see right at the top? The promotional poster for the movie. How is this justified? Because such posters show a bit of what the movie is about, and a lot about how the movie is targeted and marketed towards an audience. Again, that's why all of these images are in these articles, because they show the products and they show how the companies market those products.

So obviously it is appropriate to include images into Wikipedia articles whose original purpose is to promote companies or products. Your concern seems to be that this will mean the Wikipedia article is itself promoting them. Well, that may be a side effect, but that depends upon the reader (I imagine as many are put off by the Ahava models-in-mud as are appealed to by it). And for what it's worth, I have no WP:Conflict of interest here; I had never even heard of Ahava until I took that picture. So by now it should be clear to you by now that the Wikipedia rule that you think exists against removing an image because the original subject is promotional, does not exist. I don't see how you can say that Ahava is a separate case from Coca-Cola or any of these other examples.

Do all images about a company or product have to be like this? Not necessarily. The article for McDonald's, for instance, has many images of the golden arches but also has one of a PETA protester. And if you can locate a freely available image of people protesting against Ahava, then you could certainly add that to this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The image was fine and the text was supported by references. Version restored to the one that preceded the deletions of a biased editor who has been erasing sourced information and properly licensed images for a long time now. --Geewhiz (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries about the delay - I understand busy and thank you for a detailed and reasoned reply. It may well be that other Wikipedia pages contain promotions for current products - I don't have time to check them all. I accept you have no interest in promoting AHAVA as such. You have suggested a reasonable compromise in that an image of an Ahava protest could also be inserted. However your mate Gillibrand has just completely re-written the article without consultation. How long would such an image be allowed to remain in the face of a consensus that seems to want to give free advertising to this company and its products? By the way, you suggested I disliked this company. I do dislike this wiki about AHAVA because there is too much uncritical acceptance of company marketing. Much of the research is unscholarly. Media quotations from biased sources are given as references without critique or even re-written as fact. For example in the latest version (1 May 2011), the citation is to http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/09/smallbusiness/ahava_dead_sea.fsb/index.htm where it states:

"Ahava credits some of its recent success to the trend toward more natural ingredients in cosmetics. It purifies its own water at its Dead Sea factory and says it employs minimally invasive techniques to harvest the mud and minerals used in its products. In addition, the company refrains from testing ingredients on animals, and it packages its lotions in recyclable tubes, bottles and jars."

In the re-write at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahava the words "Ahava credits.. " and "says" have disappeared changing the meaning from an opinion of the company to an attempt to cite as a fact. This sort of editing discredits the whole wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 07:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The merits of the images involved has little or nothing to do with the ongoing battles over the article text. Gilabrand (who is not as you allege my mate, I have never run across him or her before) has added a photo of an Ahava factory and I have added a photo of a Code Pink protest against Ahava. But this is not a 'compromise' as you suggest; the models-in-mud image would deserve to be in the article whether or not these other images were there. The consensus for inclusion of that image is now five-to-one against you. You have given no policy-based reason to remove it, and you seem to say you do not have time to learn or understand the relevant policies. Please do not attempt to take that image out again. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Political manifesto

This is an article about a company that manufactures skin products. It is not a political manifesto. Attempts to commandeer the article for political purposes, rephrasing and reorganizing material to convey the POV of certain editors will be reverted. There is a section on controversy that deals the location & boycotts, but this information is secondary. The subject of the article is, and will remain, the company and its products. --Geewhiz (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is about the company. However, per WP:WEIGHT we'll devote space to the controversy in proportion to the weight it gets in sources. I'm not sure I agree that most of the article should be about the creams because this is a "company article". The weights come from sources. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you are a long term editor, that statement is pretty bizarre. The topic of an article is what gets the weight, not the input of politically motivated boycott groups.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's bizarre. An article is just a policy consistent rendering of the set of (notable, reliable, attributed etc) things reliable sources have said about the topic of the article. It comes from the sources and has to reflect the sources. It can't be predefined. I don't see any difference between information that comes from commercially motivated businesses and politically motivated boycott groups (assuming notable, reliable etc etc) if they are both about the topic. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

<- I reverted Soosim's removal of the location from the lead and made some other copyedits. I don't think the edit is in any way controversial, political or inconsistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

There appears to be persistent disagreement as to how to word the first couple of sentences in the Controversy section. The edit here makes use of both the sources currently being cited, furnishing the reader with an adequate context to understand specifically what (viz. who) the source of the controversy is. That is important, since neither the UNHRC nor B'Tselem themselves determine what the law is but rather function as interpreters – and as anyone editing this article ought to know, their interpretations as well as their motives are often called into question. At this point, any further edits should be accompanied by an explanation here so consensus can be reached in a collaborative spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing rewording, finding better/more sources etc is fine but my concern in this case was with an editor removing information with an edit summary that said "Removed "International law prohibits the establishment of settlements in occupied territory and the exploitation of the resources of occupied territory." from Controversey section. This is a highly disputed issue, but it is presented as fact." That is misinformed nonsense. It is a fact and can be presented as a fact to provide context. Whether it needs to be is another issue. It's obviously separate from the issue of whether the West Bank is occupied. That is also a non-issue from a NPOV perspective since even the State of Israel officially recognise that the West Bank is under belligerent occupation. Frankly, these "This is a highly disputed issue" kind of edits for things that are simple factual statements are the kind of things that should result in an editor being immediately removed from the topic area as far as I'm concerned because they cause no end of problems. I tend to revert those things on sight. A fact is a fact and we need to be careful not to water factual statements down to make them look like mere opinions of a random NGO or UN council. Having had that rant, which won't change anything, I don't have a problem with your rewording. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And actually, my edit summary wasn't really accurate. It wasn't so much a POV problem as it was a problem of the passage being formulated in a way that didn't highlight what the controversy was. Controversy, in this case, was created when organizations criticized Israel. The legal stuff, while true, didn't adequately convey to the reader, per the name of the section, who made Ahava and its products controversial.—Biosketch (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sean and Biosketch - I have replaced first sentence this time with a reference to the primary source the Hague Conventions on the ICRC website - reason is for replacement is to provide the context in international law for the rewording - as Sean says "It is a fact and can be presented as a fact to provide context.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording is all right, but the phrase "The United Nations Human Rights Council ... have criticized the presence of Israeli commercial ventures in the West Bank" is not supported by the given sources (or I missed it). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism is only implied by the UNHRC but think that the wording "Expresses its grave concern at:(a) The continuing Israeli settlement and related activities, in violation of international law,..." constitutes criticism of commercial activity especially "and related activities". However I think the B'tselem report is quite clear in its criticism first on p.35 "Since the beginning of the occupation, Israel has utilized the resources of the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea it took control of – the fertile land, the water sources, mineral resources, tourist sites, as well as the cheap labor of the local population. It has done this despite its declaration, which conforms with the interpretation given in 1983 by the High Court of Justice to the laws of occupation, that “area held in belligerent occupation is not an open field for economic exploitation" then later "Despite international law’s prohibition on exploiting the natural resources of occupied territory, for decades Israel has allowed Israeli private entrepreneurs to profit from the resources at two main sites in the area."(p. 42 introducing section on AHAVA. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of synthesis of sources and should be avoided. Please see WP:SYNTH policy. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the paragraph refuting the company's claim that they do not use mud mined in Palestine. I regard Code Pink as a reliable source - not liking their politics does not make them unreliable. However I am happy to discuss any concerns about this with Soosim or others. Perhaps some evidence as to why Code Pink is unreliable? Thanks everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On reliability: please take a look on WP:IRS and WP:SOURCES. My impression is that Code Pink web site is not a high quality source, but also not completely unreliable. I'd take facts from there, but not their analysis. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

True and your wording is much better - more concise. However the existance of the permit is a matter of fact and as you say we can take facts from this source. I have also checked back with Who Profits, the people who did the research, and they have written to confirm that Code Pink reported this accurately. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not seem to support reliable research which is not reported while sources such as tabloid newspapers are acceptable.

Pity they have not published the official Civil Administration response to their inquiry (which, I guess, is the original source) on their website. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

code pink is reliable for what they do, but they are not experts on int'l law, etc. - anyway, i think the paragraph is much better, and with the simple change of 'says' to 'claims', it more accurately reflects code pink's stance. Soosim (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Says" or "states" is always the best. Please read WP:CLAIM. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

hi ecc - i did read it carefully and mulled over carefully what to do with it. code pink doesn't 'know' anymore than you or i do what is actually happening and where it is happening there. they indeed 'claim' that 'x' is taking place. again, if they can show research and facts, and present a document that is verifiable, etc., i would agree with 'says'. but i am having a hard time representing it as fact. Soosim (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi :), "X says Y" does not mean "Y is a fact". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Too right. That is why I have replaced the disclaimer after the paragraph about the apparently miraculous effects of dead sea mud. Soosim, Code Pink is the subject of the report. YNet is telling us what Code Pink has said. We are not claiming that it is true just that Code Pink have made the statement. "Says" and "states" are neutral terms and to be preferred. Or as ElComandanteChe has said "X says Y" does not mean "Y is a fact" However it remains true that X has said it.

-> Floccinauci, please remember to sign your posts everytime. The bot will stop signing them for you eventually. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Israeli organisation "Who Profits" has done this research and located these documents. As ElCommandante said "I'd take facts from there, but not their analysis." Their analysis is definitely PoV but this is a statement of fact, something that happened. If you have evidence that CodePink are an unreliable source of facts please say so - you have been given this opportunity before and failed to present any evidence that they were an unreliable source. As El Commandante said, maybe not high quality, but reliable as to facts. Please do not delete this section again without presenting evidence that it is unfactual. Thank you And Sean, sorry about the forgetfulness, I do most editing late at night. mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Floccinauci, your recent revert violates 1RR ARBPIA restriction. I've asked EdJohnston to formally warn you on the matter. Please don't forget to sign your comments. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Floccinauci, since these groups are directly involved in a boycott against the company, "Who Profits" and "CodePink" have a clear agenda, and therefore are not considered to be reliable sources for facts. Everything presented as a fact should be verifiable by a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

not sure why everywhere else on wikipedia sources have to both reliable and secondary without original research. the who profits and code pink documents are original research, and not secondary. i can't speak if they are reliable since i am not qualified to do that - which is the exact reason why we require no OR and no primary sources. Soosim (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite everywhere e.g. NGO Monitor. Someone needs to kill most of that article with fire. Soosim, obviously you have strong views on this issue so thanks for volunteering. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

well, sean - decide, so it can be one ruling throughout. in your example of ngo monitor - what they publish: is it OR or not? does it need secondary sources or not? Soosim (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear. You have to distinguish between statements of opinion, and facts. For statements of their own opinion and goals, primary and self-published sources by organizations with inherent bias are reliable. For statements on facts, they are not. Still, we generally try to base the vast majority of articles on reliable secondary sources, since secondary sources add credibility. Marokwitz (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree but to respond to Soosim's specific OR question, I don't think it's OR in either case. I think it's just information for which there's no evidence that anyone other than the source cares about it. Some organizations are highly notable by themselves, e.g. ICRC, HRW, Communist Party of China etc etc but thankfully we don't fill their articles with their views on any of the hundreds of countries and issues they have a position on. In this case for these small, relatively non-notable orgs, I agree that secondary sources are necessary to show that a) someone reliable cares (and that someone can't just be us) and b) someone reliable believes them or is at least willing to publish and be damned. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to the content in question. Code Pink says Who Profits says there is a document that says that the Ahava mud is coming from a location in PT. Can we put it into the article in WP narrative voice, or as attributed opinion, or not at all. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think not at all. For me it's like statements by CAMERA, translations by MEMRI, Al Haq, Christian Peacemaker Teams and the vast majority of the hundreds of groups directly involved in the I-P conflict. If secondary sources don't care what they are saying why should an encyclopedia ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

note the date - august 5, 2011. i agree wholeheartedly with sean. left or right, arab or israeli, all of these voices should be left out unless found in secondary sources. Soosim (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I agree. what's special about august 5? Is it The Day Soosim Agreed With Sean? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

yep - soo and sean, together again! Soosim (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When I was a small boy, a horse bit my sister's arm. I remember finding it hilarious at the time. Finding common ground and shared values with horses is therefore not without precedent. Let peace prevail throughout these fields. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits 2

I restored most of the material removed recently, with addition of sources and some rewording. I'm concerned with the fact that a series of edits deals with single (though, important) aspect of the article, while ignoring WP:PRESERVE policy regarding all the rest. Please treat all article aspects and points of view equally, or, if you are not interested - mark problems and let other editors fix them. Mark dead links, tag sections and request citations instead of deleting material. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead sea cosmetics and scientific proof (I can't believe I'm writing this), but...

...but the question has caused too many reverts back and forward. Let's solve the mystery once and forever. After extensive research querying Google for 5 minutes I found enough links, for example:

1. Are the Curative Properties of ‘Black Mud’ from the Dead Sea Due to the Presence of Bitumen (Asphalt) or Other Types of Organic Matter? Arie Nissenbaum, Jürgen Rullkötter and Yoseph Yechieli, ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND HEALTH, Volume 24, Number 4, 327-335, DOI: 10.1023/A:1020559717754
2. Skin smoothing effects of Dead Sea minerals: comparative profilometric evaluation of skin surface, Z. MA'OR, S. YEHUDA, W. VOSS, International Journal of Cosmetic Science, Volume 19, Issue 3, pages 105–110, 1997

and some historical perspective:

1. Roots, Remedies and Properties of Stones: The Essenes, Qumran and Dead Sea Pharmacology Joan Taylor, Journal of Jewish Studies, 60/2 Autumn 2009, pp.226-244

which left me with an impression that some therapeutic effect of Dead Sea mud and minerals is an established fact. Of course it is abused by businesses for promotion, but this is another question. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Great research but the fact that something is being written about is not evidence of its veracity. I have read only the first paper in its entirety and it provides no strong evidence for therepeutic effectiveness - not a criticism as it in fact does not aim to do this although it does review some of the literature. Apart from historical sources, the most recent medical study cited was 1960. The section on Dead Sea mud as medication concludes "Thus, the medical applications of Dead Sea asphalt extended over 2000 years, and it is no wonder that its repute for healing, and in particular for dermatological diseases, continues as of today and that this reputation is being utilised for commercial endeavours." As you can see this talks of reputation rather than proven effectiveness, which is quite a different thing. Basically they are saying that people believe in this stuff, not that there is evidence of its efficacy. Did you read any of the other papers? Is the cosmetics journal peer-reviewed? I will look at them when I have time.

not sure who wrote the above, but anyway, here are scientific articles "proving" all sorts of benefits for all sorts of ailments: scientific research Soosim (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That page doesn't establish whether any of that is peer-reviewed and published in reliable academic journals. One of the research pieces implies that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer at the Dead Sea ;) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why none of these is gonna make its way into the article. The purpose of this link collection is to justify this removal of OR'ish content. --ElComandanteChe (talk)

Soosim, scientific articles do not prove things. Science provides evidence and good science also gives an assessment of the reliability of the evidence. The article by Nissenbaum et al.is a reliable source but is not about the efficacy of the alleged therapeutic properties of dead sea mud as it reports on the analysis of certain constituents of the mud. It is really much more relevant to an article about dead sea mud than an article about Ahava. The second article does not mention Ahava either. The study described was undertaken some time ago, comparing ΔRz(b-a) for three different gels one of which contained dead sea minerals. The third article is a fascinating historical account of the ways the various resources of the Palestinian shores of the dead sea have been used through the ages, with particular emphasis on the Essenes. Again not very relevant here.

But I am not sure what is being put forward regarding research? Are you saying that no scientific papers can be cited? Should we delete the information which has been sourced from Ben Gurion University of the Negev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floccinauci (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

Could people please be a little more scholarly when citing references? Title, or Title and author are not sufficient; it is usual to give at least date and publisher as well. Thanks peeps. 220.239.169.163 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

the controversy section

The controversy section, though was already discussed in length over this page, is still a very problematic one and I afraid that it defy the WP:NPOV policy. First, the section take almost or even more than half of the whole article. Second, the controversy over Ahava products is simply because they are manufactured in Israel. Organisations that call to boycott Israeli products usually do not distinguish between one Israeli product to another, so this issue is not unique to Ahava products even if the calls to boycott them sounds louder (the same way that the calls to boycott Israeli agricultural product in Europe are in very high profile and etc). As it appears here, it seem to serve only a political purpose and to promote the notion that these products are just bad, because they may serve apartheid regime..There is nothing within the products themselves, aside for they being Israeli, that is controversial. So, the article in its present version also violate WP:UNDUE policy. If not removing this section at all, which is the only genuinely decent solution, cut it short to no more than one or two lines, no image needed.--Gilisa (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The notable controversy reported by RS is not because the products are manufactured in Israel. There probably are BDS organizations that would boycott simply on that basis but the section in this article doesn't mention them. The section is related to the controversy over the products produced outside of Israel. It could probably benefit from being summarized but removing it altogether would be inconsistant with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

creating controversy to further a political agenda

The non-NPOV used in the previous version of the introduction section and the controversy section which is some 43% of the article is a base example of how pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel individuals are willing to hijack neutral information and media, twist it into controversy and damage Wikipedia as a neutral source of information to further a narrow political agenda. Editors of all persuasions should reject such attempts to twist language and knowledge. YSchary (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Or it could be a reflection of what reliable sources have said about the topic of this article presented in a way that complies with the WP:NPOV policy that requires editors to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. When you measure the amount of content in an article to assess whether any particular aspect of a topic is being given due weight, you need to do that with respect to the total amount of information in reliable sources, not in relation to the existing content of the Wikipedia article. What reliable sources say about the topic, what aspects they regard as most notable, the number of articles they publish about the each aspect of the topic, so on and so forth, are all things that are out of Wikipedia's hands. If the sources tend to focus of certain aspects of the topic much more than others, so be it. "Editors of all persuasions" should just follow policy whether they like the outcome or not. If you want to expand the article by adding reliably sourced information you can do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wafa

Regarding this revert, I think Wafa, as an official agency, is okay as a source but it probably requires attribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be reported by more prominent news outlets and especially the claim that it indeed happened because of "illegal practices".I did a little search in the interned and found only pro-Palestinian blogs report it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

the controversy section

it is way too long, for this article. i will try in the next few days to edit it. and yes, specifics will be deleted. no need for coatrack and as is, it is undue. any help and suggestions are welcome. Soosim (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the snippets, but that is all that should be removed. There are about five points being mentioned in the controversy section, of which 3 have rebuttals. Noteworthy information deserves a right to be included as the popularity of this tiny cosmetics companies hinges a lot on the fact it is operating in occupied territory. -asad (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall that earlier the controversy was mentioned in the lead, but now I don't see a mention. What happened? WP:LEAD says that any "prominent controversies" should be mentioned in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahava. 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/20110908001450/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/lifestyle/consumerhealth/news/article_1508792.php/AHAVA-skincare-products-mine-the-Dead-Sea-for-efficacy-product-review to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/consumerhealth/news/article_1508792.php/AHAVA-skincare-products-mine-the-Dead-Sea-for-efficacy-product-review

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahava. 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/20110816132015/http://fohs.bgu.ac.il/homes/shlomi/articles/mud_kneeOA_JClinRHeum.pdf to http://fohs.bgu.ac.il/homes/shlomi/articles/mud_kneeOA_JClinRHeum.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Product enriched with Dead Sea Minerals

With Aroma Dead Sea there’s no one size that fits all when it comes to shampoo & conditioner. Choosing the best shampoo & conditioner is kind of like dating – you cannot settle for the one that’s in front of you. We will help you pick out the best solution with the best ingredients that best suits your hair.

• Enriched with Dead Sea Minerals
• Cruelty-free
• Paraben-free
• Eco-friendly.

https://www.aromadeadsea.com/collections/shampoo-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal0 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)