Talk:Moroccanoil

Proposed deletion

Or-Shalem has proposed to delete the article, based on the following complaint:

"This article aggressively leads with it being an Israeli company based in Te Acuv, when the sources don't explicitly mention Tel Aviv. A basic web crawling search doesn't reveal that the company is Israeli, and all the sources cited were created within the past few weeks, despite Moroccanoil having sponsored Eurovision got over four years. It comes across as very sketchy and politically driven to me, given the nature of Eurovision this year. Frankly, I don't think there are enough sources for this article and I don't think the sources that do exist are provide enough information to directly trace the company to Israel, since the company itself isn't making this claim."

I am removing the deletion notice, since:

  • Most Wikipedia pages begin with the nationality of the entity described. As such, it is not problematic that Israel is mentioned, given that is where the company is located (according to all sources available)
  • The date of the sources does not appear to violate any Wikipedia policy.
  • If anything in the article is politically biased, we should remove it. However, if anything, the political debates around Eurovision this year increase the notability of the subject, rather than suggest deleting the article.
  • The company itself may not have publicly claimed to be Israeli, but the co-founder has given several interviews that establish this fact, including on CNN. If you find any information that draws this into question, users can add it to the article.

20WattSphere (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article with sources clearly mentioning that the company is Israeli. In any case, the full legal name as stated on their website is self-evident. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, the article looks much better now!
Regarding the headquarters being in NY - is there any solid information on that? There are at least 2 different companies that are part of the business - Moroccanoil Inc., which is US based, and Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. Is there actually any source describing the relationship between them?
20WattSphere (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the info’s a bit scattered around but as far as I can tell Moroccanoil Inc. is the US subsidiary of Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. See the link above and here for instance. I will see if I can find more explicit sources in this regard. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this document in German, Dutch and French among others (could not find in English) where it is explicitly stated that the parent company is Moroccanoil Israel, Ltd.: [1], [2], [3]. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! So I guess my next question is how can the HQ be in the US if the US branch is not the parent company? Maybe there's a way for that to happen, I'm not sure. 20WattSphere (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah unfortunately I’m not an expert either. I guess the general headquarters were moved there after the company expanded but the hierarchy was retained. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can say the company was founded in Israel in the opener if you want (that's what the sources say), but you can't call it an "Israeli" company given what the sources are saying. This is not a change I am going to make because it is redundant with the information below it (eg founded in Tel Aviv by Chilean-Israelim).
A company called "Moroccanoil Israel Ltd." is essentially meaningless in terms of geographic identification and I would consider this source to be dubious at best for Wikipedian standards, not in that it is doubtful but rather because it is not a secondary/tertiary source in the form of an article.
Sorry you don't like how it doesn't suit your narrative, but following the rhetoric of the sources is important. Or-Shalem (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or-Shalem - please refrain from making more changes before achieving consensus.
There are more sources that say it is Israeli than that its HQ is in the US. On the former claim, the media routinely refer to it as Israeli, a media source said production is mostly in Israel, the products themselves state "Made in Israel", a Jewish expression is included at the top right of all products, and the legal documentation Ivan found says Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. is the parent company. So, there's quite a bit there, and we would need some reasonable evidence to contradict this.
The sources making the NYC HQ claim include LinkedIn (which is not reliable as per Wikipedia:RS) and Craft.co, which appears to be a free company information aggregator. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if Craft.co got this information from LinkedIn. So, the evidence for HQ being in NYC is sketchy at best.
I would be more comfortable with removing the HQ info than the nationality, since there is less evidence for that. I'm certainly not comfortable using our limited evidence on HQ location to overrule everything else.
Side note - the Salon Magazine source suggests it was founded in Montreal, so that's probably another thing we should double check.
One option for the article would be to specify that many of these things are disputed and not disclosed. But I think we should continue googling and researching to find stronger evidence before resorting to that re-write.
Or-Shalem, please don't edit the article again unless it's constructive and you've engaged on the talk page first. 20WattSphere (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - I'm not a corporate lawyer but I'm sure there are also ways for a company to be HQed in a different country than it is incorporated. So I don't know that what the article currently states is necessarily wrong, but other users might. 20WattSphere (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out LinkedIn is not considered a reliable source, I will try to look into it. Even though that is the company’s official profile so I find this policy a bit weird, I have to be honest. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one defending a contentious edit. I don't think you understand that makes you the one who's warring by wikipedia policy.
We can resolve this here in the talk page, so you shouldn't make any more edits until we've resolved this here.
I'm telling you now, the article will NOT be opening with it being called an "Israei company." It's just not going to happen and you have to accept it. It's clearly politically motivated rhetoric, and if you don't like it, well that's just too bad. Or-Shalem (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Or-Shalem: there’s nothing contentious about sourced content. Please bring refs that claim a different nationality or stop edit warring. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I told you NOT to edit until we have a consensus here.
Just because it is "sourced" does not make it acceptable content such that someone is allowed to remove sourced contrnt if they don't feel it is a constructive edit. Ivan, you are edit warring. Stop. I will get an admin involved if you continue. You do not own this article and others are allowed to contribute to it. Or-Shalem (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? Sources say it’s Israeli. You are the one who doesn’t like it. I’ll be glad to have an admin solve this, bring it in! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get a admin to ip ban this fool, literally every source says it’s a Israeli company who does this imbecile think he’s fooling. AitMazigh (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh insulting me and calling me a fool? The admins will like that one for sure.
I'm not trying to fool anyone, buddy. Nothing here is personal. I am simply making the article's rhetoric match up with what the sources are saying. "Israeli-founded" is the correct terminology. You may use that if you want.
Honestly it seems you people are trying to make this personal. Give it a rest . Or-Shalem (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AitMazigh should not have insulted. That said, you seem the only one to have made the thing personal from the very beginning by assuming the bad faith of the creator. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about "consensus." There is no consensus. There are literally three editors here.
The sources calling it "Israeli" are not Wikipedia acceptable and most are just speculating. The name "Morroccanoil Israel Ltd. does not necessarily mean the company is Israeli. The fact that it partially operates out of New York, and not all the members involved are even from Israel contests it being an "Israeli" company, depening on how you interpret what that means. That's the problem is that "Israeli company" is misleading because it van br interpreted in different ways that don't necessarily match what the sources are saying. Also, neither the Swedish nor the Spanish article are calling it "Israeli," despite translating it from English and that is likely intentional. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources. Please do. They call the company Israeli. It’s not something we editors claimed out of nowhere. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will read the sources, but please do not edit the article until we come up with an acceptable compromise here. If you edit before I read the sources, then I will not read them. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who edited before reading the sources. Please don’t keep twisting things around. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I have seen it is normal practice to state the nationality of companies when it is straightforward—and it is here, since no source claims it to be American or Canadian. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it doesn't matter what other articles do, as the information in each article is case-by-case. Secondly not all articles even do this. It is normal when it is indisputable, and when it can't be considered subjective. When it doubt, such as in this case, it is best to leave it out. From what I've seen, it was founded in Tel
Aviv, but that doesn't necessarily make it an "Israeli company," because again it can be interpretted the wrong way.
For example Carnival Cruise Line is headquarted in Florida and founded by an Israeli and Norwegian, but it called "international" and not "American."
Waze is called a "subsidiary of Google" and not an "Israeli" company, because while it was founded AND operates in Israel, at this point it is part of Google, so calling it "Israeli" is misleading. Morroccanoil is ina. similar situation. It was founded by people of multiple nationalities, and operates between multiple companies. They do not outright call the company Israeli, even though it started in Tel Aviv. When people are saying it is "Israeli," it is their interpretation of the company. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been telling you from the beginning that it is indisputable information, as per sources clearly stating “Israeli company”. It has nothing to do with who founded it and where. The company is referred to as Israeli. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are interpreting it as "indisputable." It is objectively NOT supported by the sources. Give it a rest man. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m done. You either did not read the sources or you are ignoring the point, which is that you can’t call its nationality disputed when nowhere is it claimed that the company is Canadian, American, or whatever. I sadly have nothing else to bring to this conversation. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the opener lead with it being founded in Tel Aviv, since you so desperately want this to paint this as an Israeli company per your agenda.
Can we put this to rest now, please? The article fits your narrative in a way that actually is supported by the sources. Since you don't want to actually discuss and just say "Look at the sources," as if it's actually changing my mind on the matter, I did my own resolution. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources actually claim the company was founded in Montreal and I had misread them. I will restore the revision per sourcing. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan any way you can get this page protected so shalem doesn’t delete half the page and sources because his feelings are hurt. AitMazigh (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. You're the ones whom's feelings appear to be hurt since you refuse to discuss with me on the talk page which I am offering to do. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not see that there is limited information on the company's origin? That's why I requested the deletion in the first place. It's hardly sourceable. And the information that does exist from the sources are dubious. On the one hand you're calling out Israeli, and on the other you're saying it was founded in Montreal. It is owned by Israelis and does some manufacturing in Jerusalem. It is headquarted in New York. This does not point to it being an "Israei company." It is owned by Israelis, but that's about all you can say about and the Spanish and Swedish wikipedias don't call it Israeli for a reason (and I had nothing to do with that). Or-Shalem (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really disappointing turn of events, Or-Shalem. To be a good WP editor you need a pretty calm and collected approach. At best, you need an enquiring mind - to be proactively searching for the truth, the most faithful way to frame it in an article, and the most efficient way to collaborate with the other editors here. At the very least you need to make sure you understand WP policies before invoking them against users whom you disagree with. In all these respects, I think you have a long way to go. 20WattSphere (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified admins about the user’s misbehavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Or-Shalem. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. They will remind you how to acceptably source an article.
Your are editing to suit a narrative which goes against wikipedia guidelines Or-Shalem (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will not lead with "Israeli company." Whether you want it to or not, that's just how it is. Accept it. Or-Shalem (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an employee for this company? Not only are you removing legitimate sources that state it is an Israeli company you are also moving down unrelated sources that are critical of this company. AitMazigh (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it’s clear they won’t listen. Let the admins do their job. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Let the admins do their job. Wait for them to look at the discussion you won't have with me before you make contentious changes to the article. At this point it doesn't matter how many articles claim the company is "Israeli," there are enough other sources that state the company is headquartered in New York, or that the company was founded in Montreal, and that one of the founders is Chilean-Canadian for it to be contentious to solely call it an "Israeli company" in the opener. It would be better to say it was founded by Israelis as that is objective and not interpreted. Why don't you wait for someone else to contribute to the discussion instead of warring? Or-Shalem (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't work for the company. And I'm not Israeli, either, as your "friend" here speculated on my talk page.
I am keeping the article neutral until there's a consensus on how to address national identity for the company, if any, which you won't seem to accept. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the mere fact that WP:REFBOMB is being utilized in the lead sentence indicates to me that there is an attempt to add sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. If it really is that noteworthy that they are indeed an Israeli company, then REFBOMB shouldn't have to be used in the lead sentence, that is citation overkill. Is the topic of this article notable for being an Israeli company or notable for being a cosmetics company? My guess is that its notability derives from being a cosmetics company. Pick one good reliable source to support Israeli company and get rid of the citation overkill. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was in response to the repeated deletions of the above user, who claimed that the company can’t be called Israeli. So I reworked to make it clear that the company is indeed referred to as Israeli by multiple sources. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same could be said about other brands (Head and Shoulders, Pantene, etc.) which are described as American companies. As to whether the company is Israeli, the official sources that IvanScrooge98 provided above say that it is:

    Moroccanoil Israel Ltd. is the parent company of the Moroccanoil group of companies. It is a company registered in Israel with the correspondence address 16 Moshe Levi St, Kennedy House Industrial Area, Rishon Lezion, Israel, 75658 and the Registration number 514031053. If you have any questions about the processing of personal data or would like to exercise your rights regarding your data, please send us an email to privacy@moroccanoil.com.[4]

    Israel is where the parent company and the company's headquarters are. You'll also find "Moroccanoil Israel Ltd" mentioned in their material safety data sheet, which also gives their plant's address (Koren Industrial Zone, P.O.B 17, Maalot Tarshiha, 24952, Israel). It is also mentioned in the 2021 trademarks journal (Canadian intellectual properly). M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot, finding the location of the plant explains the “two hours north of Jerusalem” found in other articles. Pointing out where the company is registered should settle at least in part the nationality issue, even if the headquarters (where the management works) are actually located in New York. The problem of Or-Shalem’s conduct remains though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the issue of citation overkill remains. Content disputes are meant to be resolved through discussion on the talk page, not through refbombing the lead sentence. You and M.Bitton have aptly demonstrated through RS that it is an Israeli company. As is stands right now, 57% of the refs used in this article are in the lead paragraph, that is ridiculous. One inline citation, two at the most, is all that is needed in the lead sentence for material that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged. The behavioral issues of another editor don't justify refbombing the lead and is a misuse of refs to prove an obvious point. Like I said, get rid of the citation overkill. Deal with the behavioral issues at the appropriate venue. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the citation overkill in the opening with two reliable sources. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we both posted at exactly the same time, so ignore the parts of my comment about citation overkill. It looks much better. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I totally understand the problem and as I said I had only placed those in response to content removal. Some more work needs to be done for the second sentence I believe, but we’ll get to it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision sponsorship

This sentence appears to be UNDUE and an attempt to make a connection to EBU's decision when there is no solid connection:

The repeated refusal of the EBU to discuss the legitimacy of Israel's participation attracted scrutiny, with some outlets and social media users suggesting that the choice might be linked to Moroccanoil being the main sponsor of the event.

Yes it attracted scrutiny, but some outlets and non-notable anonymous social media users suggestions do not make this content DUE for inclusion. There is an implication here that their sponsorshp is the reason for EBU's decision, and the sources don't support that definitive conclusion. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources making that direct connection, not suggestions from some outlets and non-notable anonymous social media users. And per WP:METRO, the reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids, so that is a crappy source as well that shouldn't be used anywhere in this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I’m not sure if I got your point. I tried from the beginning not to word the section as implying that their sponsorship “is the reason”, but simply that there has been a bit of controversy over the sponsor’s nationality. The sources I provided report the existence of the controversy and/or make claims about a possible link themselves. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone went out of their way to apply a CT Topics editnotice to this article. This section is obviously what the editnotice applies to. Vague assertions and suggestions that EBU's Israel decision is somehow related to $$$$ from Moroccanoil's sponsorship is a contentious claim. Therefore, an exceptional and contentious claim of this nature, requires exceptional sourcing, not vague assertions and suggestions. As far as we know, Moroccanoil's sponsorship of the Eurovision Song Contest has absolutely nothing to do with the A-I Conflict and there is no direct connection that reliable sources have reported that indicate the EBU's decision is directly related to Moroccanoil's $$$$. This content is UNDUE and should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me stubborn, but I still don’t get it, and I mean it without hard feelings. We are not claiming anything in the article, we are reporting the existence of the controversy, which has drawn some attention to the company in the context of Israel’s war on Gaza. What would be an exceptional source, I mean, what would be a statement about the controversy that makes it worth of inclusion? You may argue that the scrutiny has been marginal, and I give this might be a reason not to include it, but what else are sources supposed to say other than “there have been allegations”? Do you mean that it is undue weight unless someone comes with actual proof or outright accusations towards Moroccanoil? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources reporting that Moroccanoil directly and explicitly told the EBU that if Israel was not allowed to participate in the contest, they would pull their sponsorship? If the answer is no, then this content does not belong in this article. This content has to do with the EBU and allegations surrounding them. It is UNDUE for this article to report on allegations about the EBU, when Moroccanoil had nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations do not seem to be in either direction as far as I could see (i.e. they could imply either that Moroccanoil holds the EBU on a chokehold or that the EBU does not want to lose funding, or both), but now I get where you’re coming from. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the allegations are clearly directed at the EBU. And this subsection Eurovision sponsorship is listed under Controversies. So what exactly is controversial about this company sponsoring Eurovision Song Contest? There is nothing in those two paragraphs in that subsection to show our readers their mere sponsorship of a song contest is controversial. And there is this see also listed right under the heading:
See also: Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 § Calls for exclusion
So when I click through to that article, it doesn't say Moroccanoil's sponsorship is controversial, or even mention Moroccanoil at all. That 'See also' is inappropriate for this article, when there is no relation between this company and Eurovision Song Contest 2024#Calls for exclusion. And like I previously stated, that last paragraph in that subsection is wildly UNDUE when there are no allegations being made against this company as having done anything wrong or controversial. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not pretend that the reason isn’t obvious: the problem was not their sponsorship per se, but their nationality in a time of harsh controversy involving Israel and with calls for the country’s exclusion being ignored. I added the “see also” section to inform readers that this does not come out of thin air. At the same time, this seems to me the only place where to include the info for the reason you mentioned, i.e. that there aren’t specific allegations, so dealing with Moroccanoil in an article about the Israeli participation is out of place. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could open an WP:ARBPIA as was suggested at Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Or-Shalem. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is for conduct disputes, not content disputes. I'm removing the content per UNDUE. You acknowledge that there is no problem with their sponsorship, and there are no specific allegations against this company. Readers can get the info they need about Israel and with calls for the country’s exclusion being ignored and the EBU at the appropriate articles. Isaidnoway (talk) Isaidnoway (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, inclusion is both not sufficiently supported by RS and undue, even ignoring Coatrack concerns. FortunateSons (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that the controversy has continued into this year's edition, I partly reinstated some of the contents (plus a recent source), simply mentioning scrutiny over Moroccanoil's sponsorship without directly stating any allegations of conflict of interest from a fringe of critics. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crit section and it’s sourcing

I don’t love the sourcing in that section, WP:CRIT notwithstanding.

Ignoring the secondary due/coatrack/extraordinary claim question, what are the thoughts on the reliability of those? FortunateSons (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to History Section

Hello. This page is out of date and I have some ideas for adding more current information to the History section, as requested by the box. I’ll leave these suggestions to be considered by other editors because I have a conflict of interest as an employee of the company this page is about. Thank you.

1. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add a paragraph to become the new third paragraph:

As of 2016, the company’s products were available in over 65 countries and it had expanded its product line to include body care products.[1]

Why I think it should be changed:

As written, the History section is missing any information about the company past 2008. The suggested paragraph adds more recent developments in the company’s history based on reporting in a prominent news source.

2. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add a paragraph to become the new fourth paragraph:

In 2020, the company opened a 8,500-square-foot salon academy in Manhattan to train entry-level stylists and provide continuing education in styling and business management.[2]

Why I think it should be changed:

The suggested paragraph adds information about the company’s activity based on reporting in a prominent reputable source.

3. What I think should be changed:

In the History section, please add a paragraph to become the new fifth paragraph:

Moroccanoil expanded into the fragrance market in 2021, releasing a line called Brumes du Maroc, which includes the brand’s primary ingredient, argan oil.[3]

Why I think it should be changed:

The suggested paragraph adds information about the company’s expansion based on reporting in a prominent source.

Thank you for reviewing! Cece2018! (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Cece2018! (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why did you remove this? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sieracki, Jill (29 August 2016). "Moroccanoil Cofounder Is A Force Of Nature". CBS News. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
  2. ^ Sandler, Emma (17 January 2020). "Moroccanoil opens styling and business school amid changing salon landscape". Glossy. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
  3. ^ Burns, Emily (13 July 2021). "Moroccanoil Launches First Fragrance". Women's Wear Daily. Retrieved 15 September 2024.

Request to add a "Products" section

Hello. This page is missing a section about what this packaged goods company actually sells. I’ve suggested a way to add that information for editors to consider. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of the company this page is about. Thank you.

1. What I think should be changed:

Please create a “Products” section directly beneath the “History” section and add the following as the first paragraph:.

“Products”

The company’s first product was the original Moroccanoil Treatment, a hair product containing argan oil.[1] Moroccanoil expanded its argan oil-based formula to include other hair care products, including shampoo and conditioner, hair spray,[2] and a unisex styling product called Texture Clay.[1] The company sells a shampoo formulated for blonde hair called Blonde Perfecting Purple Shampoo.[3] The company expanded into body care with the Moroccan Body collection, which comprises moisturizers, exfoliating scrubs, and soap.[1] “Airy Moisture” is a Moroccanoil product line sold in Asia that the company markets as specially formulated for hair needs in the region.[4] Moroccanoil sells a perfume called L’Originale.[5]

Why I think it should be changed:

The page is missing all but superficial information about the products this company makes. A “Products” section will follow the example of Good Articles about companies like Friskies, Guthy-Renker, and Proactiv. I looked at WP:STYLE and it’s recommended that editors look at similar articles for structure. Thanks for reviewing. Cece2018! (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cece2018! That seems to fall under promotional. If you can rewrite this to be more about company history instead of simply what the company sells, I should be able to make the edit. WP:NOTPROMO
Thank you for finding those other pages. After looking at their edit history, many of those edits would imply a non disclosed COI and are of a promotional nature. WP:OTHERSTUFF
RCSCott91 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RCSCott91:Thanks for your comment. I can understand your logic - gathering all products in one section, at first glance, might seem promotional from one perspective. But these are all Good Articles WP:GA that have made it through the rigorous Good Article nomination process, so in the view of the GA reviewers, they not only did not contain unacceptable promotional content, but in fact are exemplars of the highest-possible NPOV, content, layout and structural standards on Wikipedia. Please see here, here, and here for the versions the day they were approved as GAs. I could cite many other GAs that have Products sections - this is just a sample. The repeated use of “Products” sections in GAs is why I chose to follow this structure in order to comply with MOS:AT: “A title should be … consistent with those of related articles.” and MOS:HEADINGS: “Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles (above).”
The implicit logic of the many GAs with Products sections seems to be that the products of companies are of special interest to readers of the encyclopedia and they should not have to pick through the History section to find this information. A Products section also encourages completeness and removing products no longer offered. All this is to the benefit of the encyclopedia, which seems to trump legitimate promo concerns so long as the product descriptions follow NPOV.
Does any of this convince you to reconsider? Cece2018! (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the consensus of a good article that I wasn't a part of but that doesn't change what policy says WP:NOTPROMO and my comfort in the matter, we are all individuals and can only do so much. I recommend RFC for this change, if consensus agrees that the changes wouldn't fall under WP:NOTPROMO, I will be the first person to make the change for you. Place the template with your proposal and approximately 7 days from now, I will return to see if consensus formed.{{subst:DNAU|5|weeks}}
RCSCott91 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:RCSCott91. I sought a Third Opinion WP:3O from a neutral editor to see if we could come to a resolution within the bounds of this discussion. Given that I’ve cited multiple Good Articles WP:GA that include Products sections, and an uninvolved third editor has offered the opinion that the suggested section cites reliable secondary sources WP:RS and is not WP: PROMO, are you willing to reconsider? Cece2018! (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no point in seeking a 3O in a discussion that involves more than two editors. For what it's worth, I agree with IvanScrooge98 and RCSCott91. M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedic article. Not the Moroccanoil catalogue. The list of products can be found on their website and is only relevant for commercial purposes, so it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: This is not an indiscriminate list of products, and is backed by reliable third-party sources. Rather, the products listed above are mere highlights of the company's many products. Furthermore, the section doesn't endorse the products or puff them up, it's merely a list based on third-party sources. Closetside (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I suggest including the products section with the first paragraph as proposed above. Closetside (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton@Cece2018!@Closetside@IvanScrooge98 Sound like there is disagreement, RFC would probably be the most appropriate venue to come to consensus. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it’s probably best. Tbh I have kinda softened my position and I’d be fine with mentioning the types of different products the company manufactures, but I still disagree that a section like the one originally proposed belongs here. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Sieracki, Jill (29 August 2016). "Moroccanoil Cofounder Is A Force Of Nature". CBS News. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
  2. ^ Intner, Kate (29 September 2021). "This liquid-gold oil has been used by hair experts for years". Harpers Bazaar. Retrieved 28 February 2025.
  3. ^ Quinn, Jessie (7 November 2024). "The 13 Best Purple Shampoos, Tested by PEOPLE". People. Retrieved 3 March 2025.
  4. ^ Shirk, Laura (20 May 2023). "Moroccanoil launches "Airy Moisture" campaign and enters the Chinese market". Global Retail Travel Magazine. Retrieved 28 February 2025.
  5. ^ Masno, James (12 February 2025). "Moroccanoil Taps Adria Arjona to Front First Fragrance". Women's Wear Daily. Retrieved 25 February 2025.

RfC on adding a Products section for Moroccanoil

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to add a neutrally-worded product section based on reliable, independent sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should a “Products” section be added to the article?

  • Yes
  • No
  • No, but add the products elsewhere

Cece2018! (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No
WP:NOTPROMO applies here. Two of the examples listed are companies that literally are inseparable from their branded products. Proactiv being an over-the-counter acne product and Friskies being cat food. Moroccanoil, if I hadn't read the article, would appear to be an oil company with ties to the Moroccan area based on its name but the lede fixes that immediately.
More importantly, simply because "someone else did it" doesn't mean it is right. WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Finally, although using GA articles as a model is a good practice when you first start building an article, WP:cherrypicking GA that fit your desired outcome just leads to a numbers match of finding GA that more closely confirm to policy. GA's are not the gold standard to make decisions off of, they are simply decent.WP:GACRNOT
I took the liberty of adding an RFC user talk template inviting those in the relevant, 'Request to add a "Products" section' request, for those who haven't yet commented. Sometimes people overlook mentions.
RCSCott91 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes This is not an indiscriminate list of products, and is backed by reliable third-party sources. Rather, the products listed above are mere highlights of the company's many products. Furthermore, the section doesn't endorse the products or puff them up, it's merely a list based on third-party sources. Closetside (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ofer Tal a Moroccan Israeli?

If Ofer Tal is Moroccan Israeli, as many are, this could add some context to claims about the product having no connection to Morocco. Dussault (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit, October 2025

I have a suggestion for improving this page. I have a WP:COI as an employee of Moroccanoil. What I think should be changed:

In the “Marketing and public image” section, please replace the third paragraph: Change from:

Moroccanoil has been accused of lacking transparency over the exact location of its production facilities other than labelling its products as "made in Israel" or "made in Canada", with activists, including from the BDS movement and CJPME, calling to boycott the company over the possibility that it operates in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories while "distracting" consumers through a "glamourous" portrayal of its products. The "Moroccan" branding has also drawn criticism due to the company's lack of ties with Morocco, with accusations of deliberate cultural appropriation to pose as non-Israeli and avert boycotts.[1][2][3][4][5]

To:

In 2024, an article in Hespress noted that the brand’s name evoked Morocco, but not its connection to Israel, which critics saw as appropriation of Moroccan heritage.[1]

Why:

As written, all of the citations are at the end of the paragraph, creating a WP:SYNTH. Four of these sources also fail WP:RS, (The Electronic Intifada, Better Goods, CJPME and Yabiladi).

  • WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA (source 41), is considered generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction, per WP:RSP. This source is a personal opinion piece and should not be used to support statements of fact.
  • Better Goods purports to rate toxic chemicals in brands, with most of the website devoted to guides with affiliate links for them to earn money on products they recommend. It is thus iffy as a RS, except perhaps in some circumstances for independent evaluations within its expertise. The article in question simply repeats claims from CJPME, pulling out a quote from their website, without any of their own independent reporting. A new source repeating claims verbatim from a disallowed source does not verify those claims. WP:RS.

Finally, the piece entitled “How Beauty Brand MoroccanOil Is Making Israel Rich to the Shame of Morocco” in Yabiladi is a highly biased article (starting with the headline), and should not be used to verify claims of fact. The author advocates against the company in several places. For example, the article begins “Unfortunately, the Israeli company that manufactures them labels the product bottles "made in Israel," right in front of Moroccan authorities, who aren't lifting a finger to prevent a foreign company from diverting one of the kingdom's riches for its own benefit.

I have suggested a neutrally-phrased rewrite paragraph based on what can be supported by the remaining source, Hespress.

Thanks for reviewing. Cece2018! (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: While I agree that some primary sources should be replaced with secondary ones, I think you'll find that a lot of what you're identifying as bias just doesn't track across WP guidelines, generally—and the suggested edit itself feels quite overzealous to me Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I’ve searched for independent, editorially credible secondary sources to support the information in the paragraph but could find none.
So we are left with evaluating the content using the citations provided. This is difficult because the paragraph is a WP:SYNTH that does not attribute sources to each sentence. I’ve gone through the paragraph and broken it into chunks, identifying any source that might be used to support that chunk.
1. The following is included as the first half of the first sentence of the paragraph on Wikipedia:
“Moroccanoil has been accused of lacking transparency over the exact location of its production facilities …”
Here are the sentences in WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA that it’s based on:
“But the product called Moroccanoil — and some other argan-oil based hair treatments — is actually manufactured in Israel ...Moroccanoil’s Israeli links, however, take a back seat on the company’s website.”
The Electronic Intifada is considered by Wikipedia to be generally unreliable per the perennial sources list, WP:RSP. In addition, the article in question is undeniably a first-person opinion piece. Titled Moroccanoil — Israeli hair products that glamorize apartheid, its author writes: “I wanted to flag up three particular reasons why I feel that Moroccanoil deserves a higher place on boycott campaign lists.”
The sentence on Wikipedia is also based on the following content from the website of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East:
“Moroccan oil is an Israeli beauty products company that has listed products as “Made in Israel” but refuses to disclose the location of its production facilities…. While the company has started labeling some of its products as “Made in Canada,” the company provides no details about the location of manufacturing facilities in Canada.”
CPJME.com is a primary source - the website of a “Pro-Palestine advocacy organization,” per its Wikipedia page. Using this source to make statements of fact on Wikipedia is not allowable.
Furthermore, combining the views of the author of the Electronic Intifada article with the views of an advocacy group to make the broad claim that “Moroccanoil has been accused of lacking transparency” is WP:OR without a reliable source. It should be removed absent a reliable secondary source, which I could not find.
2. The following is included as the second half of the first sentence of the paragraph on Wikipedia:
“...while "distracting" consumers through a "glamourous" portrayal of its products.”
Here’s the sentence in the WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA that this is based on:
“In the lifestyle and careers sections of magazines, the company, its products and its owner are portrayed as a glamorous (sic), associating Israel with beauty and luxury instead of discrimination and occupation.”
As stated in item 1, The Electronic Intifada is considered by Wikipedia to be generally unreliable per the perennial sources list, WP:RSP. In addition, the article in question is undeniably a first-person opinion piece.
3. The following is also included in first sentence of the paragraph on Wikipedia:
“...with activists, including from the BDS movement and CJPME, calling to boycott the company over the possibility that it operates in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.”
There are two sources that apply.
There is language on [the website of the group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East :
“Therefore, by manufacturing some of its products in Israel – and even possibly in the occupied Palestinian territories – Moroccan Oil is a legitimate target under the terms of the call for boycott.”
CPJME.com is a primary source - the website of an advocacy group. Using this source to make statements of fact on Wikipedia is not allowable. The question is whether it can be used to make a statement of opinion about itself.
It certainly can’t be used to justify the Wikipedia article’s broad assertion that there “activists, including the BDS Movement and CJPM” have called for a boycott. The source does not even make claims for anyone but itself, and one reported instance can’t be broadly generalized by Wikipedia WP: WEASEL.
More fundamentally, in order to have some indication that this call for a boycott is noteworthy enough to appear in an encyclopedia article even as a statement of opinion, there needs to be an editorially credible, independent secondary source that has reported on it.
CJPME calls for the boycott of thousands of companies and products. It’s simply WP:NOTNEWS that their website includes Moroccanoil on their lists unless this has become the subject of credible secondary source reporting.
The only secondary source reporting on this call for boycott appears in Better Goods, a website that rates toxic chemicals in brands, with most of the site devoted to guides with affiliate links to earn money on products they recommend.
In the context of a long article reviewing hair care products, at the bottom of the article, the writer says that found information on the CJPME website about the call for a boycott. The writer repeats the claims from the website.
The author did not do original reporting; they did not try to contact either CJPME or Moroccanoil. Essentially this is WP:CHURNALISM inside a publication with expertise in identifying toxic or non-toxic products, not covering politics or international affairs. This is copy/paste rather than independent reporting from a source that is editorially credible in this context.
I’ve searched for any other secondary sources that report on the CJPME call for a boycott and could find none.
4. The second sentence is based on the news site Hespress, with another cited article from Yibliadi saying the exact opposite of the Wikipedia conclusion. This is what Wikipedia says:
”The "Moroccan" branding has also drawn criticism due to the company's lack of ties with Morocco, with accusations of deliberate cultural appropriation to pose as non-Israeli and avert boycotts.”
First, this is WP:WEASEL. The writer of the Hespress article makes this criticism. There are not multiple critics I could find making “accusations.” As a statement of opinion from one source, it should be attributed. Then, since Yibaldi says exactly the opposite - that the company is obscuring that its argan oil comes from Morocco by stamping “Made in Israel” on the product - that viewpoints should be represented. Here is a requested edit:
In 2024, an article in Hespress noted that the brand’s name evoked Morocco, but not its connection to Israel, which the author saw as appropriation of Moroccan heritage;[1] while a 2013 article in Yabiladi criticized the company for obscuring that the Moroccan origins of its argan oil by labeling products “Made in Israel.”[6]
Thank you. Cece2018! (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that there are currently a number of primary sources also in use in the operations section—perhaps you could suggest replacements for those as well? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still an open issue? Is anyone considering it? Julian in LA (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the content related to Boycotts of Israel. It is already fully discussed on that page. These two paragraphs have nothing to do with the quality of the company's products or the ethnic identity of its stockholders, executives or employees. The reference to cultural appropriation has nothing to do with that topic, and is simply a part of the discussion of boycotts. Julian in LA (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Haskouri, Khouloud (2024-05-10). El Masaiti, Amira (ed.). "How Morocco's Argan fuels a $62 million Israeli business and became a scientific experiment". Hespress. Retrieved 2024-05-24. Cite error: The named reference "hespress" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference cjpme was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cappolla was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Irving, Sarah (2015-06-26). "Moroccanoil — Israeli hair products that glamorize apartheid". The Electronic Intifada. Retrieved 2024-05-24.
  5. ^ Jazouani, Hanane (2013-04-16). "Comment la marque de beauté MoroccanOil fait la richesse d'Israël et la honte du Maroc". Yabiladi.com (in French). Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  6. ^ Jazouani, Hanane (2013-04-16). "Comment la marque de beauté MoroccanOil fait la richesse d'Israël et la honte du Maroc". Yabiladi.com (in French). Retrieved 2024-06-05.

National allegiance of Moroccanoil

I have been informed on my talk page that the nationality of this company has been an issue for a long time. I once worked for a patriotic American company that had been publicly praised by elected officials. We were later told that our company had been bought by the Dutch publisher Wolters Kluewer. We made jokes about having to wear wooden shoes, toasted our new management with Heineken, and got back to work. After a few months, nobody asked any more what was Dutch about our employer. I doubt that it's any different with this company. Julian in LA (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes your company Dutch-owned but still American. So yes, not different from this case. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moroccan Oil's terms and conditions page states that moroccanoil.com "is owned and operated by Moroccanoil Israel, Ltd or its affiliates or subsidiaries." OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen several references to this. It says that the web site belongs to one of three companies. It was written by a lawyer, not an executive of this business. Why is it WP:RS? This is an article about a business, not a web site.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with IvanScrooge98? Julian in LA (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The website states that it belongs to the company, which is named “Moroccanoil Israel Ltd” and has a number of subsidiaries, thus making the Israeli branch the parent company. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that. It implies that there is a parent with Israel in its name. It does not come from an executive of the business or any government. It can't be that hard to find a RS. Julian in LA (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a multinational company or an Israeli company? Does the nationality of its employees, executives or stockholders matter? Julian in LA (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest edits and judge for yourself. You’re making a fuss about obvious facts. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The edit does not use the word "multinational." Why? Julian in LA (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because apparently you didn’t bother to read the sources. The company is Israeli. Bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the two sources which could already be found in the lead when you raised your non-doubts already confirmed that the company is legally registered in Israel. It had been so long since I placed I had even forgotten about it. So why did you start questioning the article content before reading the sources? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I replace your RS with this RS?
Moroccanoil is a New York-based cosmetics company that manufactures and retailes oil-infused hair and body care products for individuals.
Moroccanoil's headquarters is located in New York, New York.
CEO: Jay Elarar
https://www.owler.com/company/moroccanoil Julian in LA (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can’t replace a reliably sourced lead with a lead that removes part of the sourced information and doesn’t add anything else to it. The company is headquartered in New York and is Israeli, as already said and sourced in the lead. End of question. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if you prefer to believe anything a lawyer says, try this one:
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Moroccanoil Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 91436.
Blejewski v. MoroccanOil Inc.
page 7
Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.ctd.138515
Julian in LA (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to believe the UK GOVERNMENT as cited in the lead for a long time. Next time you want to complain about the contents of a page, please attempt to read it first. Which you still haven’t done in spite of my repeated explanations and invitations to read and get your stuff together. If the company turns out to have lied or to have benefited from some legal loophole allowing it to pay taxes in a different country than theirs—which wouldn’t even surprise me considering the country involved—, that nonetheless belongs in article only when it’s been proven. Please stop wasting other editors’ time. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain this. Which country are you referring to?
"wouldn’t even surprise me considering the country involved" Julian in LA (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

The final section of this article was changed from Controversy to anti-Zionist attacks and back again. The reverting user, User:Ohnoitsjamie explained that Wikipedia has a policy called "neutrality" which requires all sections describing conflict to have this title. There is, of course, no such policy. There is WP:NPOV, which this section ignores. The section consists of a anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and HAMAS initiated attack which is carefully phrased to sound as if it is a majority view. It is directed at a multinational company whose 600-some employees live in many countries and have never been accused of genocide. Since this is a private company, its corporate structure has never been published. Its ultimate owners could just as easily be in the Andromeda Galaxy, using an Israeli company is a front, as they could be genocidal Jews. Julian in LA (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business

Should an article about a multinational business include references to "occupied territories", "cultural appropriation", genocide, apartheid and political boycotts when the references are based only on the possible location of one of several manufacturing plants and the name of the shell company that owns the operating company that runs the business? There is no suggestion that any executives or employees are engaged in these things.

This began with a request from a COI editor to remove non-WP:RS sources and asking for an addition to the "cultural appropriation" discussion. After three months of discussion, I posted that I would remove the content rather than changing the sources. There was no response. Talk:Moroccanoil#Request edit, October 2025

Eight hours after I made the change, it was reverted by an editor who had not participated in the earlier discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccanoil&diff=1331076528&oldid=1331032687

I added another section to the talk page, Talk:Moroccanoil#National allegiance of Moroccanoil. This produced a long and un-WP:CIVIL discussion. It revealed, among other things, that the editor's opinion is based on WP:OR from interpreting the legal disclaimers on the company's websites.

The editor who made the reversion has been involved in this issue before, and engaged in edit wars.

Addition of a tag in 2024 was reverted 19 minutes later. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccanoil&diff=next&oldid=1226760728

Elimination of the supposed national identity was altered in 1:24 and an edit war followed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccanoil&diff=1226475555&oldid=1226463207 Julian in LA (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing two different issues together. The company is undeniably Israeli per sources. Its original business was in Israel and it is still legally registered there. Whether to include its human rights record, which also per sources doesn’t seem to be bright anyway, is a different story. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let me point out that Julian’s two latest edits to the page ([5] and [6]) were openly disruptive, possibly in protest against me, who knows, but certainly vandalizing. How credible do you think you can be after inserting Jupiter and Andromeda as the nationality of the firm? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that the company's identity belongs to the Andromeda Galaxy was not vandalism. For those of us who believe in alien visitation, intergalactic travel isn't cheap and they don't come here as tourists. It's well known that they launder their funds through shell companies. Julian in LA (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful information. Bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the other parts, but oppose cultural appropriation accusations, as they seem to be WP:UNDUE, that is, not significant enough to be within the article. Also, as pointed out (however with COI), the phrase doesn't state who it is that is making the accusations, which is treading on WP:WEASEL grounds. Other problems are also present, as was earlier argued. Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:WEASEL is a problem, you fix the wording like I just did, you don’t remove accurately source content. Which by the way perfectly fits among other accusations. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We now have consensus to remove the references to cultural appropriation. Wikipedia has no policy against removing "accurately sourced" content that violates its policies. I will make the change. Julian in LA (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two users vs one is no consensus. The discussion has barely been participated so you and your disruptive editing are going to have to wait. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually four, plus the other editors you have reverted over the past three years. COI editors may participate in a consensus. Julian in LA (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only see you around here. List the diffs and the users or stop trolling. I’ll remind you, you’re the only one who vandalized the article not just once but twice by changing the nationality to Andromedan and Jovian. And you’re also the only one who implied the section was created out of antisemitism or out of my alleged allegiance to Hamas (LOL!). You’re the one who’s showing who’s acting more impartially and for the sake of the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards removing the Cultural appropriation claim, because I think that it's the wrong word.
Looking at the sources, the main product is Argan oil, which is made from a plant that is indigenous to Morocco. Originally – again, according to the sources cited in this article, particularly this one – the company was importing their key ingredient from Morocco for years. It is therefore not entirely untruthful to say that the company has some connection to Morocco. "We depend on a plant that originated in your region and give credit to its origin in our name" is not exactly what's meant by the term cultural appropriation. The first and last sources, for example, are mostly complaining about economic competition. The last source focuses on the representative of a trade organization that wishes to ban export of pure argan oil, in the hope that this will force all the cosmetics companies to build their factories in Morocco, or to stop using argan oil. They also complain that the World Intellectual Property Organization doesn't ban people from registering trademarks that include the name of a country (e.g., Deutsche Bank, American Airlines, Bank of Italy (United States); they dislike Foreign branding – at least when non-Morrocan companies do it). This Israeli company is merely used as an example of everything that's wrong with the world, rather than the real point of the article.
The CJPME source is just a case of recommending a boycott of any company doing business in Israeli. If we don't mention this group's POV in articles like Starbucks [7] or Hewlett-Packard [8] or Canadian Tire [9] or SodaStream [10], then I'm not sure why we should mention their POV here. CJPME also complains that they couldn't get a street address for every single workplace, so they're concerned that some of them might be in Palestinian cities (however unlikely that actually is), which would be evil (because then maybe some Palestinian people living in the West Bank could get a manufacturing job? I know there are smart people who put a lot of effort into these things, but I think maybe the balance between "Deprive The Man of a tiny bit of tax revenue" and "Let people suffer in poverty" needs a little more thought).
So what do we have left? Well, there's the WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA source, which has been declared WP:GUNREL and biased and therefore probably shouldn't be used at all. And then there's the "Better Goods" product review website, whose expertise is in environmental chemistry, and which therefore isn't an appropriate source for information about political criticisms. (All they do is say that CJPME is boycotting; they make no statements suggesting that they have fact-checked any of this or that they share that POV.)
And... that adds up to nothing. So I suggest removing the whole paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using the name of another country to imitate a product from that country without their permission qualifies as either cultural appropriation or as plain scam. There’s no escaping that: we can reword it, but the core issue of the criticism remains, so no, we can’t remove it. And the company is not merely “doing business in Israel”, the company is Israeli. No matter how much Julian the troll tried to deny that. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're "imitating" a product from Morocco. It appears to be a real product with real argan oil, not an imitation one. And who would give "their permission"? The Moroccan farmers and businesses that shipped barrels of argan oil to the Israeli factories for many years? Or someone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They’re not imititating it when they’ve literally called the company “Moroccan oil”? Be for real! And maybe try to read how and to what results Israelis imported that argan from Morocco, I’ve put it in the article for a reason. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Imitating a product", for a native English speaker, means that you're making a counterfeit or fake product. For example, imitating coffee means making a dark beverage that has no (or few) coffee beans. I see no sources alleging a fake product. I only see sources complaining about the Moroccan equivalent of the brand being Italian Sounding: it's a real, non-fake, non-counterfeit product, but it was developed in Israel, it is mostly manufactured in Israel, and yet the bottle names the place where the key ingredient originated instead of the place where the product was developed and most of the jobs are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your issues with the wording may be, the fact that it was developed by non-Moroccans to resemble a traditional Moroccan product is obviously problematic and it is worth mentioning that it is. The same way the question is raised on that very Italian Sounding article you linked. Thanks for proving my point is valid. Adieu. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a shameful example of cultural appropriation. A tale that shows Spanish-speakers in a bad light, set to music by a Frenchman and arranged for Italian instruments by a German-American in Hollywood. The performers, by the looks of them, have no right to any of this. {https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=GfrW8vfwah4&list=RDAMVMpPsQzljJVl4} Julian in LA (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing it all by yourself with this ridiculous comparison between a work of art and a business company. And for showing you don’t know the difference between making fun of someone and culturally appropriating them. I could say a lot more about that but I think none of it would get close to what you’ve achieved by your own attitude. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's maintain civility please, thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I’ve been much more civil than I could have. The other user, on the contrary, is deliberately provoking. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Bad RfC. However, I generally agree with @WhatamIdoing, the Controversy section reads less like an encyclopedic and more like an activist's positions. It should be cut (which is what guidelines advise). It is also an American company based on headquarters location. Avgeekamfot (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an Israeli company because it is based on an Israeli business and it is still incorporated there as of 2026. Did you guys even read this article or are you just trying to make me mad? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that @Wikieditor662, @WhatamIdoing, and @Julian in LA largely agree, then I came as a neutral party from a RfC notification and agreed with them. When it's you with four editors disagreeing, maybe it's time for you to accept that consensus is not with you and move on.
Also, if we exclusively used incorporation, British Airways would be a Spanish company (despite its physical headquarters being in London). Avianca, the flag carrier of Colombia, is incorporated in London. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree to disrupt the page and act against sources, it is not consensus, it is disruption. The conversation is not over and you need to stop vandalizing the page to please Julian. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And if you guys had actually ready the article, it is not exclusively on incorporation that I based the obvious reality that the company is Israeli. Bring SOURCES that claim otherwise or stop vandalizing. Thank you. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to get drawn into an edit war or incivility here. I have left a request for a neutral party to determine consensus at WP:Closure requests. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you intervene in the first place? The nationality of the company shouldn’t even be a matter of debate, it is Israeli per every source and piece of evidence. Being headquartered elsewhere won’t change that, no matter how much you people are denying it without bringing a single proof. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I "intervened" because I was notified on my talk page. But I have no interest in being drawn into an extended discussion just because you're unable to accept an obvious consensus and immediate show incivility to anyone who disagrees with you, even a neutral brought here by a bot. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you intervened about something you couldn’t care less about and you knew nothing about instead of declining. I’m sorry but this is not incivility, this is stating what I see. There is nothing to agree upon regarding the nationality of the company, which is self-evident for the reasons I underscored a million times. We can open a separate thread to discuss trimming down the controversy section, and that’s absolutely fine and something I have nothing against; unless of course someone comes and cuts off a whole part of the article without thorough confrontation. Bye. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moroccanoil is an Israeli company (this much we know for sure). No comment on the rest of this non-neutral RfC that should be procedurally closed. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton, please see the first item in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ:
    The RFC question isn't neutral!
    Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not usually grounds to halt or re-start the RFC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RFC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
    RFCs exist to solve problems, and procedural closes rarely solve problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was to debate a factual indisputed nationality, and it was made by a disruptive editor who had purposely vandalized the article several times, out of spite, precisely with regard to the nationality. So yeah, the question is anything but neutral. I'm tired to have to repeat the points you guys have been ignoring the entire time, which would nullify the whole issue. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moroccanoil