Talk: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.

The original RFC was posted in October 2025 (RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business), but the discussion veered onto another topic and there was no consensus on this issue. Another section was posted in January, 2026 (National allegiance of Moroccanoil) and again failed to achieve consensus. Yet another section was posted in March, 2026, questioning the source for the phrase "An Israeli company" (Remaining tags and references to Israel).

It should be noted that the article describes the Israeli origins of two of the company's founders and the Moroccan ancestry of one of them, and there is no proposal to change that. There is also a surprisingly long discussion of where in Israel one of their factories is located, but that is an issue for another day. Julian in LA (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

An Israeli company should most definitely be described as Israeli since sources everywhere are clear it is Israeli. Please stop trying these shenanigans over and over again. You have disrupted the article enough. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Question: The current statement of it being an Israeli company has 4 sources (primary or not, they are sources). Do you have RS (beyond what was already mentioned and debated in the previous thread on this) that describe it differently? Right now I'm more convinced by @Ohnoitsjamie's point from the previous discussion and other comments from the RfC that point out that the parent/holding company is Israeli (independent of the nationality of any individuals or the location of the headquarters). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ll read all that when I have time. There are dozens of sources that call the company Israeli, it’s enough to go through the article but you will find many more on the internet. Not to mention the entire controversy related to the fact that an Israeli business is sponsoring a huge event like Eurovision while Israel is commiting all sorts of war crimes. A section that I had created and was accurately removed by users who thought it was too marginal. The company is factually Israeli no matter how much you guys try to twist it around. If anything, it’s an Israeli multinational company, but still verifiably Israeli as I widely argumented in multiple conversations above. I’m tired of repeating myself and I’m tired of you guys coming up with the same exact points I have already debunked on different occasions. You are ruining an article that used to be much more rooted in reality, and I can’t even try to improve back because somebody chose to block me from it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a policy similar to MOS:CITIZEN regarding how we describe multinational companies with or without parent holding companies. I personally think it makes the most sense to describe it as an American company (that's where it's headquartered) that is owned by an Israeli holding company. I looked for an example of a large company that moved it's incorporation out of the US for tax purposes; Accenture is described as a "multinational" company headquartered in Dublin. AMC Theaters is described as an American company, headquartered in American, owned (majority stake) by the Chinese multinational Wanda Group. 7-Eleven is described as an American company owned by a Japanese holding company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

But sources call it Israeli. We can’t make up as we go. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there are all sorts of similar primary sources that describe 7-11 as Japanese, since it technically is. I'll also note that the Guardian source describing Moroccanoil as Israeli is an opinion piece (see WP:GUARDIAN).OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You answered yourself. We have separate articles for the American chain and its Japanese parent company, while we have only one for Moroccanoil so the only option that makes sense is considering the parent company—i.e. Moroccanoil Israel, Ltd. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

While comments above say that the corporate parents of AMC Theaters, 7-Eleven and Accenture are described in their respective articles, all of these parents are described in WP:RS giving their other investments, head office address and chief executives. None of them are based on WP:OR in legal disclaimers on a website.

Wanda Group has its headquarters in Beijing's Chaoyang District, and includes Spanish soccer club Atletico Madrid among its other investments. Seven-Eleven Japan is headquartered in Chiyoda, Tokyo and operates convenience stores in Japan. Accenture has told the world that their headquarters is on Grand Canal Quay in Dublin, Ireland, but their chief executive lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and the Irish location is probably for tax purposes, so that identification is questionable. None of this information is available for Moroccanoil Israel.

A corporate parent need not be identified unless there are reliable sources explaining what other businesses they operate, where their office is located, and who their executives are. Julian in LA (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The head company, from which the entire business started, is Israeli, and sources almost exclusively call the whole company Israeli. Useless comparisons. The company is Israeli, period. This has become tired. Maybe start focusing on bringing additional info regarding the company and improving the article, instead of insisting on distorting and taking down the parts you dislike about its reality. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks since I read any sources, but from what I remember, the business' main operations and production facilities are in Israel. I therefore think that "an an Israeli cosmetics company" is a reasonable description, though not the only possible one. What do you think of this?

Moroccanoil is a cosmetics company specializing in hair care products containing argan oil. It is best known for its title sponsorship of the Eurovision Song Contest since 2020. The original business started when two Israeli brothers began selling the argan oil their Moroccan mother used to hair salons in Israel. Now a multinational company, the headquarters are in New York City and production facilities are in Israel, Italy, and Canada.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Moved the comment to the !vote below. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The Eurovision issue has sadly been scrapped off the page by users who didn’t like the idea of an Israeli company generating controversy. Now they’re working to get rid of the whole Israeli identity to complete the destruction of this article and scam readers into thinking this company is something it actually isn’t. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Israeli company the fact that it's an Israeli company is already sourced and more sources can be added if needed.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Without this crucial information, the Eurovision issue wouldn't make any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Obviously seconding this. This article has already been vandalized enough. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  The Eurovision "issue" isn't in the article, so there's nothing to make sense of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, because the article has been vandalized, as I said. But when order is restored, we’re gonna need to make sense of it. Because it makes sense that people are outraged about an Israeli company since it’s Israeli and it isn’t just a delirious fantasy of ours. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:NPOV, it should be mentioned in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. It’s enough to undo this disruptive edit from last month. I can’t do it myself because the vandals had me blocked from editing this article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Talk:Moroccanoil#Eurovision sponsorship does not show a consensus to do so, and the RFC above closed in support of removing that section. Implementing an RFC's result is not a "disruptive edit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I can see why some would object to "occupied territories", "cultural appropriation", "genocide", "apartheid", etc., but mentioning the Eurovision issue should and can be done reasonably. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just to make sure I've got the Eurovision thing straight in my head, does the story run approximately like this?

  • Some people believe that Israel should not be allowed to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest.
  • The Eurovision organizers refused (again) to kick Israeli out.
  • Some people speculate that the reason the organizers refused to kick Israeli out (this time) is because this company is an event sponsor.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Something along those lines (mentioned the sources), though the last point would be "because the Israeli company is the event's main sponsor". M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, the article said that very clearly when I had expanded it to include the story. Read the older revision. Why is everyone ignoring me even here since I’ve been blocked? Are you guys serious? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your "speculation" is more of a conconspiracy theory. I haven't seen any source saying that they can't it get any sponsor other than Moroccanoil, or that they threatened to pull out if Israeli performers were banned. Julian in LA (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Call it what you want, it still exists. They don’t need to threaten anyone, they could very well be paying more to keep them in as far as we know, this is unrelated to the fact that there is a huge conflict of interest. And you’re still the one who started the wholesale destruction of sourced content, which is why I find crazy you’re still here peddling the idea we should keep sourced and relevant content out. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "a huge conflict of interest"? Is it a conflict of interest for a company of ____ nationality to sponsor a contest in which people of ____ nationality are represented?

  I can see people thinking "Follow the money". I don't think most people would say "French companies can't sponsor a contest if French musicians are competing, and Italian companies can't sponsor a contest if Italian musicians are competing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  “Is it a conflict of interest for a company of ____ nationality to sponsor a contest in which people of ____ nationality are represented?”

  Uhh, yes?! And very much so too?! Flabbergasted I even need to say it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Who do you expect to sponsor the contest, if companies from all the participating countries would be banned under your rules?

  Do you similarly believe that only Russian and Belarussian companies should be allowed to sponsor the Olympics, since their countries are banned from participation but all the other countries are invited to participate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  What a nonsensical comparison. Russia and Belarus are also banned from the ESC, I never said they should sponsor it, if anything the opposite. If there’s people who want Israel banned and not only do you allow it but you also platform one of its companies, yes, there IS a conflict of interest. Learn the difference between being banned from something and just being external to it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think I am familiar with both real-world conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and I don't think that advertising on a televised program in which your compatriots are one of many contestants is a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, and you still haven’t apologized for your openly disruptive edits by the way. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is in one of the sources that I cited above:

  Along with some other countries, Slovenia will boycott the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 in Vienna, a decision made after Israel was allowed to compete. The country's public broadcaster cited Israel's human rights record in Gaza and the European Broadcasting Union's (EBU) intransigence on Israel's participation in explaining why it has made this decision.
  
  The importance of Moroccanoil's sponsorship of Eurovision - The decision to allow Israel to participate in the competition was expected, Slovenian Eurovision expert and Evrovizija portal editor Alesh Maatko told the Slovenian Press Agency as he welcomed RTV Slovenija's boycott of the contest. Maatko, who would like to see music become the competition's main point of focus again, believes that this is a typical case of "money ruling the world". There is a lot of money at stake here and "as long as the Israeli company Moroccanoil is the main sponsor of Eurovision, nothing major will change," he said.

  M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wow, I had no idea about that. The controversy section must be restored immediately. And the vandals banned in my place. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, the consensus formed in the RFC should be respected until it has been changed.

  This source says that a journalist "believes" that this company's sponsorship affected the contest organizer's decision – just "believes", with no effort to provide any evidence. And it doesn't tell you anything about the subject of this article. This article, remember, is not Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest. He doesn't say anything like "I believe the company puts pressure on the organizers" or "I once heard a rumor that the company would cancel their sponsorship" or anything like that. This is a statement from someone expressing his beliefs about the contest. He doesn't say a single word about what the company did or said, except that they're the main sponsor, which we already have in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The RFC is invalid because it was started by the same vandal who is still around thinking they have the prerogative to intervene in the article and distort reality. If everyone pretended not to see that the user who started the RFC was disruptive and vandalic it’s none of my problems. The article must return pristine. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Accusing editors of vandalism without evidence is probably a personal attack, particularly as a form of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Please stop posting such accusations. Actual vandalism can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  And btw the fact that there are people believing something is in itself worth mentioning if it has been reported on. Also, we were not talking about the journalist but about public statements by an ESC participating broadcaster. Kindly STOP DISTORTING REALITY. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that I'm the one distorting reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  An essential part of the theory is that "Israel" failed to create their own song contest that they could control. I am interested in knowing why. Julian in LA (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Are you aware everyone can read the vocabulary you used in this comment before you edited it? You are showing your true colors by the day. You’re here to distort reality and cover up the fact that a very openly ISRAELI company is the subject of controversy, so much that you want to pretend it isn’t Israeli even after getting away with removing the part of the article that made you and other Zionists uncomfortable. Please get a grip and start acting in the interests of the project, which is to describe REALITY. And reality is Moroccanoil is an Israeli company generating controversy due the kind of economy they are linked to as Israelis. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Calling editors "Zionists" is generally considered a Wikipedia:Personal attack at the English Wikipedia. Please stop doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also, you might actually be referring to the very basic fact (yes, a fact, not a conspiracy theory) that an entity claiming to be a Middle Eastern country only participates in European competitions. This does naturally arise questions if you pay enough attention. And people like you are more concerned about the fact that not everyone agrees to ignore the reality and asks such questions, than you are about dealing with the reasons behind the situation. Israel commits gross human rights violations by the day, some people are interested in it especially when it’s being done with their country’s support and hiding behind a pretense of democracy or civility, or mixing religious and political identities to create justifications. None of this story is a conspiracy theory arising from nothing. It’s very much rooted in the documented reality so stop being disingenuous about it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The European Broadcasting Union has had non-European members since day one. It's about as interesting and notable as darkly commenting on how NATO seems to have a lot of members who do not have coastlines on the Atlantic Ocean at all, let alone the North Atlantic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Israeli the consensus of the sources (not the ones in the article, which aside from the first are WP:PRIMARY and weak, but the ones above) seems clear—Moroccanoil is an Israeli company headquartered in New York. I don't see a reason to argue otherwise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29, doesn't "an A company headquartered in B" sound like a self-contradiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, companies frequently do stuff like this for legal/tax/perception reasons. See Tencent, a Chinese company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, Swedish Spotify’s headquarters is in Luxembourg, etc. You can mention that Moroccanoil’s headquarters is in NYC later in the lead, and add “multinational” in the first sentence if you want, but the fourth word in the article should be “Israeli”. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd suggest putting that later in the lead, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Israeli multinational per WP:V and WP:RS, the description in the lead should follow how reliable sources most commonly characterize the company. In this case, numerous independent sources explicitly describe Moroccanoil as Israeli. That characterization is undoubtedly DUE.

At the same time, the company operates internationally, with headquarters and operations spanning multiple countries. Per WP:NPOV, the lead should reflect this without oversimplification.

A balanced and policy-compliant formulation would be to describe it as an Israeli multinational company. This 1. Preserves the dominant sourcing (Israeli), 2. Acknowledges the company’s global structure (multinational), and 3. Avoids WP:OR by not substituting “American” or other descriptors not consistently supported by sources. More detailed discussion of headquarters, operations, and corporate structure can be included in the body, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

This approach aligns with both verifiability and neutral presentation, and avoids continued circular debate over a binary framing that sources themselves do not require. Pistongrinder (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Multinational then go into detail. The information provided in the collapsed section above is convincing to me. Founded in Montreal, strong ties to Israel, headquartered in New York, production globally. The first sentence can simply state multinational and then go into detail. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  “Moroccanoil Israel Ltd.” has more than just “strong ties” to Israel. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Multinational – The current list of primary sources showing that Moroccanoil Israel is registered in Israel does not speak for Moroccanoil as a whole. From my understanding, Moroccanoil Israel owns Moroccanoil, but is not Moroccanoil itself. As pointed out above, other subsidiaries exist (e.g., Moroccanoil Canada). To me, only The Guardian article currently in the article carries weight, but it is an opinion piece; none of the other sources provided above appear on WP:PRS so I am uncertain about their reliability. Also note that a 2018 interview with co-founder Carmen Tal also emphasizes the company's Canadian origins. To reiterate, Founded in Montreal, strong ties to Israel, headquartered in New York, production globally. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please note that I have removed the primary sources (failed verification) and attributed the claim that the company is Israeli to Chris West, per WP:RSOPINION. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reverted by M.Bitton, though I believe the disputed and failed verification tags are sufficient for the time being. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Any input on the proposal below (which has different sources)? Also note that interviews are not independent sources. The Euronews source which is secondary and independent is pretty clear. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was hesitant on Euronews because its reliability hasn't been assessed at WP:PRS (though I know this doesn't mean it can't be used). I believe The Guardian opinion should be properly attributed as an opinion as well. Other sources seem relatively obscure (other than Toronto Star, which seemingly can't be used either). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC); edited 17:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC).

  What you did (removing what you !voted against in the middle of RfC) is extremely disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  M.Bitton, what did I remove that I !voted against? I kept the attribution that the company is Israeli, and did not insert my preference for multinational. I did remove the primary sources, but you did the same. I will continue using the RfC and not edit war, so you have nothing to worry about 🙂 Have a nice day. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  You clearly pushed your POV into the sentence that is the subject of RfC. I replaced the primary sources to stop the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  M.Bitton, you might not be aware of this, but there is no rule against editing an article during an RFC. Wikipedia:Reverting (specifically the WP:QUO section) discourages people from reverting/edit warring to put The Right™ Version on the page during any discussion, but there are no rules anywhere that prevent editors from trying to improve an article during a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a discussion, this is a RfC (the last step of a dispute resolution), so the only reason to fiddle with the disputed content would be to force one's POV or provoke a reaction. Also, we don't improve articles by attributing what is found in multiple RS to a single person (as if that was their opinion). M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I quote from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What an RfC is: "an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal talk page guidelines and procedures". What's different about an RFC is the "request for" part, not the "comment" part. An RFC is an advertising mechanism, rather than a style of discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:RFCRESPOND. M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Editors should always "Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful", not just during RFCs. But that doesn't mean that editing the article is disruptive, or even that editing the parts of the article under discussion is disruptive. WP:RSOPINION is a valid and relevant rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, it appears that M.Bitton has been banned, and so won't be replying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  The only reason to fiddle with the disputed content would be to force one's POV or provoke a reaction. M.Bitton, I can say for certain that I was only applying WP:RSOPINION and not pushing a POV, nor was I trying to solicit a reaction from you or anyone else. I know we have had our disagreements elsewhere on Wikipedia, but please assume good faith and avoid accusing me of misbehavior. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  The Guardian article being an opinion piece is why I left it out of the sources in the proposal. I think Euronews meets out requirements for independence and reliability (most mentions at RS/PS look positive). I couldn't find a good evaluation of the Toronto Star from the time of publication at RS/PS but from the archived site (linked in the proposal below) I think it looks like it was a reputable local paper at the time (it was a acquired by someone in 2020 per our article on the paper, I didn't look too closely at the current status) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  And noting that the script Meta:Cite Unseen has the Toronto Star marked as a generally reliable source (not sure where that is coming from, but I also don't see a reason to doubt that evaluation) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  You really need to know where Cite Unseen is getting it's evaluation, and what the exact details are. The fact it puts a label and colour on something is useful for giving a general insight into the source but is a poor argument in a discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  It wasn't an argument in favor of the source so much as a note pointing out that the evaluation that the Toronto Star, which seemingly can't be used either
  doesn't necessarily reflect broader input on the reliability of the source outside of this discussion. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  And my point was does it? The different scripts that highlight sources pull information from all over the place. Cite Unseen even pulls from sources that are not enwiki, and so have no form of consensus here. The use of such scripts is only to give a quick heads up when your looking at sources in the article, their use beyond that is dubious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have no idea why @Nice4What said that https://www.thestar.com/business/moroccanoil-founders-back-with-saryna-key-hair-care-line/article_d3deca24-3c0d-50c6-acd6-3ef51118fe26.html "seemingly can't be used". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I misunderstood and thought that source was an interview. I will strike my earlier comment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for clearing that up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Israeli / Multinational Israeli: per the reliable and independent sources and per my proposal in in the discussion section below. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Israeli per RS and WP:SPADE. Paprikaiser (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  If there is a split in the reliable sources, it should be described in the article. Julian in LA (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Israeli. I don't understand why the factual description of the company as Israeli is being proposed for removal from the lead. What policy basis has been proposed for the removal? Reliable independent sources describe the company as Israeli, and it's not some anti-Israel secret either. The company is owned by Moroccanoil Israel, Ltd. According to the Jerusalem Post, 80% of their production is in Israel . It is commonly referred to as an Israeli company in reliable sources. See e.g. Moroccanoil, one of the competition’s main sponsors, is an Israeli company, Moroccanoil — a hair treatment whose bright turquoise publicity material seems to grace half the beauty salons in Britain — is actually Israeli., Others point to the sponsorship of the event by Moroccanoil, which despite its name is Israeli, Eurovision’s “presenting partner” Moroccanoil is an Israeli beauty company headquartered in New York which has sponsored the competition since 2020.. I weakly oppose "multinational Israeli" because I couldn't find any reliable sources that describe the company as multinational, so I think that descriptive adjective would be UNDUE for the lead sentence.Katzrockso (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  MoroccanOil is an Israeli company that produces hair care products based on argan oil, despite the name’s deceptiveness Popular in the lucrative North American market is the Israeli company MoroccanOil, known (controversially since the war in Gaza) for its sponsorship of the Eurovision Song Contest. It is worth noting that one of the central sponsors of the festival is the Israeli company Moroccanoil, a New York-based cosmetics brand founded in 2007, which has invested in the European contest in 2020, 2021, 2023 and 2025. The ruling had echoes of the case of Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, which sells hair care products in distinctive orange and turquoise packaging, which sued Aldi over its line of Moroccan Argan Oil hair care products in May 2015., Popular US snack brand Frito Lay and Israeli beauty company Moroccanoil sued Aldi for trademark infringements in 2001 and 2015 respectively, for releasing products akin to their own, only to lose the fight to the German retailer., Speculations on whether Israel was permitted to participate due to economic motives are not unreasonable to make as Moroccanoil is an Israeli brand.

  I can't find any sources that describe it as multinational. We should let the reliable sources guide our description of the company, not concoct our own description. Katzrockso (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Odd that you would cite the Jerusalem Post without quoting the first sentence of the article, "It all started in Israel." That would be a funny thing to say about a company if it was still headquartered there. The Jerusalem Post is known for running "hometown girl makes good" articles about successful Jews anywhere in the world.

Other statements in the article:

"[It was challenging] to buy the Israeli company that owns it, re-launching it as Moroccanoil and building a global brand from there" "Tal’s first challenge was ... to convince him to bring the product back to Montreal." "as they continue to open offices around the world, they employ over 250 people" "most of the argan oil that is produced today comes from the many women’s co-operatives that have sprung in the Moroccan countryside" Julian in LA (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any of that as contradicting a description of the company as Israeli, even less so when the article does not say anything like "Moroccanoil is not an Israeli company". Absent any statements to this effect, NPOV mandates that we describe the company as reliable sources do, which is as Israeli. To suggest that the statements you quoted there mean that Moroccanoil is not Israeli is either ^{[failed verification]} or WP:SYNTH. Katzrockso (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the fundamental question is how you (i.e., people, not you particularly) decide which national identity(ies) to affix to a multinational group. With a person, we might go with self-identification or legal citizenship rather than birth place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV the answer here is simple in that we just report what reliable sources do.

MOS:NATIONALITY offers useful advice for people, but nothing about companies. Katzrockso (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Getting back to the Jerusalem Post article, it should be noted that their statement that 80% of the company's production is in Israel is not attributed, not even to their one and only source, the woman who was being interviewed. Carmen Tal is no longer one of their key people, so she probably doesn't know how their production is distributed today. That figure has not been echoed by any other source. The suggestion that Moroccanoil went to the expense of opening facilities in Italy and Canada to do 15% of their production is hardly credible. Julian in LA (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a 2013 article. The situation could have changed since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)