Talk:Sabra

Definition

In www.dictionary.com the definition of a sabra is merely "a native-born israeli" - non necessarily a jew. Which site got it right? "sabra " in persian & arabic langugae means some one who is patient or impatient & also is the name of the plant that useful for comforting!

Most common usages

It is a general rule on dismbiguation pages that the most common usages should be stated first. This is not an absolute rule, as the overriding aim is to make it easy for our users to find the page they are looking for. So, depending on context, entries may be arranged typically in alphabetical or chronological order.

I have looked up the page hits on all of the entries on this page in the last 30 days (this can be done easily using the external link on each page's history). Sabra and Shatila massacre has far and away the highest number of hits, at 14,525. Nothing else even comes close. The next highest are:

• Sabra (tank) 5520
• Sabra (person) 4782
• Sabra (company) 3705 (but big spike of 1007 on 1 May and 488 on 30 April)
• Sabra refugee camp 255 via redirect + 904 on target article
• Sabra (comics) 1973

Accordingly, I have restored the three entries that were at the top, together with the tank.

Soosim's edit summary: Undid revision 552138893 by NSH001 (talk) reverted to regular format. last editor's comments don't meet wp:ptopic. maybe also wp:ddd

This edit summary is misleading, firstly as Soosim didn't only undo my edit but attempted to correct his edit by moving the massacre out of the "places" section and secondly, because Soosim hasn't bothered to read or understand about primary topics in disambiguation. I shouldn't have to do his work for him.

--NSH001 (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

can you please show me where it says that "common usages should bestated first"? i don't see that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Linking_to_a_primary_topic nor at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation_dos_and_don%27ts or anywhere else i checked. seems like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_pushing#POV_pushing to me. Soosim (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read further in the style guide, you would find the section Order of entries, which states, inter alia, that "the primary topic should be placed at the top. In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below... Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods." You have not offered any rationale for the order in which you are placing entries. Please do so, or refrain from reverting from the commonly accepted ordering. RolandR (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Roland is, as usual, correct. There is room for legitimate debate about the appropriate order of entries, but it is absolutely clear from the evidence above that the massacre should appear at the top. I should perhaps mention my own view that I dislike the clause in the guide suggesting "decreasing order of likelihood as user's target", as different users will have different priorities among the possible targets, so in general I prefer alphabetical or chronological (usually the former). However, if is clear that a particular usage is much more common than all the others, there is no problem in moving it to the top of a section, or top of the page, as appropriate. If Soosim had bothered to do his/her research more thoroughly, he/she would have realised, contrary to his/her edit summary, that (disambiguation) primary topic is not relevant to this particular discussion. --NSH001 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, it is getting tedious to keep having to correct your slapdash editing. Your latest edit and edit summary "sabra is sabra and not sabra and shatila (which no RS calls sabra). left it in, but really not applicable for this page. also changed car and person, as per RS" is incorrect in every respect:

1. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help our readers to find the articles they are looking for. That's the reason why the massacre should appear at the top, given the evidence I've already provided.
2. As far as I am aware, "Sabra", referring to people, means a Jew born in Israel. See comments below.
3. You aren't even consistent in your editing. If you believe the massacre doesn't belong at the top, then neither does the refugee camp (see the number of hits above).
4. If you had bothered to look at the relevant article for the sports car, you would have found that, while mostly manufactured in Israel, the car was based on a British design (as an aside, I'm old enough to remember these cars), and early versions were produced in the UK. To say "manufactured in Israel" is slightly misleading, but attempting to give a fully accurate description results in an entry of excessive length.

You have an opportunity now to correct the impression you give of slapdash editing, by improving the Sabra (person) article. The definition in the lead of that article says: "is the term used for a native-born Israeli". Could you please find sources describing the use of "Sabra" to describe non-Jewish Israelis, add them to that article, and copy edit it to reflect accurately what they say. Then I'll be happy to accept your description on this page. Regardless of whether or not "Sabra" includes non-Jewish Israelis, the source currently used for the definition is a poor one for this purpose—it's a "colour" piece, a personal diary which merely mentions "Sabra" in passing. Could you please find a better source, one whose subject is the use of the term "Sabra", preferably from a reputable academic publisher?

--NSH001 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

nsh001 - I do not appreciate the personal attacks. very unbecoming and doesn't do much to get me to respect you so that I would respect your opinion as well. in any case, to answer your points, not in any particular order:

• the word sabra, when googled (or put into any of 4 search engines I tried), refers mostly to the hummus and salad company. in fact the vast majority of the top 100 entries are about hummus. and since we know you can't use Wikipedia as a source for its own information, it doesn't seem accurate that you want to "prove" something with wiki stats, as per article page views. that only proves internally. it doesn't prove anything about what people are looking for, and what is most popular, most common, etc. - fyi, in fact, the massacre doesn't even appear at all.
• and speaking of the massacre, since it doesn't appear at all (when one searches for sabra) it has no business being on this page, but the refugee camp, which indeed is a location by itself, does.
• you claim that the relevant article is relevant for the car but not for the definition of a person born in Israel. please make up your mind so that either both are in or both are out.

so, I will revert accordingly, and you can please prove otherwise. Soosim (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, you are doomed to perpetual frustration on Wikipedia if you do not follow Wikipedia policies. This is a disambiguation page, so you need to familiarise yourself with disambiguation policies and guidelines. You can start at MOS:DAB. The rules are there to help editors produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and make it possible for editors with very different POVs to collaborate on any page. If you do this, you will find that:

1. While google may be very useful in finding sources or establishing notability for article pages, it is irrelevant to disambiguation pages, whose only purpose is help readers to find the right article. Descriptions in dab pages should be based on the articles the entries point to, but need to be kept short and restricted to the minimum necessary for the user to find the page he or she is looking for.
2. If you think a description is wrong, then either it does not reflect what the article says (in which case there is no problem altering it to do so) or the article may need to be changed. I have now done this for the person article, by providing an authoritative source there, and altered the entry here accordingly. Please also note that I have given you ample time to find such an authoritative source yourself.
3. If you think the massacre does not belong at the top, then you need to provide a disambiguation policy/guideline, and explain why it supports your view. Roland and I have already explained, at length, why we think the massacre belongs at the top.
4. I have also made a few other small improvements to this page.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

the massacre is about two places, and only one of them belongs on this page. you can see other disamb pages in wiki like: barnes (with no mention of barnes and noble), bonnie (with no mention of bonnie and clyde), jekyll (with a mention of jekyll and hyde at the bottom in see also), baskin (with baskin and robbins under other), zager (non-existent since it is only under zager and evans), etc. there is no reason for the inclusion of shatilla. so, again, you see i am trying to compromise with many different suggestions. you should try too. Soosim (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The user Soosim has been blocked for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soosim/Archive, so I have reverted his last edit here. Note, in addition, that the reasons given by Soosim immediately above do not apply, as the massacre is a single event; the examples he gives are a compound of two separate topics.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)