Talk:Sabra (character)

Article doesn't seem very neutral

Article seems heavily biased with almost all negative reception regulated to a small paragraph purely from the perspective of Arab press. The article also seems to present poorly researched pop-culture articles that don't even reference the fact that Sabra was invented to be the villain of the story they're praising her over. One of the sourced quoted even calls her "most prominent international hero..." which is so untrue I don't even know why Wikipedia is presenting it. Alpha Flight, Storm and Black Panther are more prominent by orders of magnitude more prominent than Sabra, and countless others are just as or more prominent.--66.110.244.32 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody cares that the page was vandalized by antisemitic people?

Just look at it 217.132.79.151 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be locked down because there is absolutely vandalism going on. 82.46.144.4 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting protection on WP:RFPP Wiki-fan-editor-68568 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

We try to keep the page as neutral as possible and free from vandalism but sometimes it's not always possible. Especially when someone posts the article on platforms like X or Instagram, and more "fans" come and vandalise it. Thank you to @Jolielover: for requesting protection. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre

So, user @Maxwell Smart123321 disliked that I added the Sabra and Shatila massacre, even though Israeli sources acknowledge its existence and its relevance to the character's name. I don’t want to engage in edit wars, though my edits are supported by sources. Until then, don’t change my edits. Lililolol (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Their edits aren’t in good faith. For example, they removed the Sabra and Shatila massacre here, which makes Israel look bad, but added Palestinian attacks here, which clearly makes them look bad. What is this? double standard? (NPOV) I don’t mind the inclusion of Palestinian attacks, but for the sake of neutrality, the Sabra and Shatila massacre should remain. Lililolol (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So let me correct their summary The name 'Sabra' can have meaning for both parties, and not including it is, I don’t know, not very neutral? Also, why did Marvel change her name in the movie? Because her name is relevant to the massacre—like, you all are trying to avoid that fact Lililolol (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the rest of the article and what I reworked the part into. The character is not named after the attacks despite what you think and that's a fact. The mention of the negative association related to the attacks was reworked into the MCU section which is more relevant. The sources SAY that the character's name is now controversial hence why the MCU didn't utilise it. Your edits are biased and making the page less NPOV. The Massacre is mentioned in the section thats most relevant (See here). Also please utilise the edit summaries as you have been told multiple times, so we can see WHAT you are adding/removing.

Also why are you putting the photo scan of her older outfit in the publication history section? It clearly fits more with "Powers and abilities" section as its mentioned in there multiple times what her older outfit looks like. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwell Smart123321

Regarding the outfit, it makes more sense to include it in "Development," since the original design does not match her current one. The current one resembles the image in the infobox. Also, isn't the "Concept and Creation" section meant to focus on the character's concept (original name and design)? Meanwhile, the "Equipment" section is self-explanatory; it is not necessarily about the design.

Plus, the summer details are visible through the preview button:) Lililolol (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Like some other Marvel characters, their design and origins are discussed in the 'Publisher History,' while the 'Characteristics' section covers their powers. Honestly, the 'Equipment' section should be in the 'Concept and Creation' section—it makes more sense there. But that’s just my. Lililolol (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, shouldn't the origins of the name be included in one place? Instead of mentioning the 'Sland' meaning in Development and the massacre meaning in sections like 'In Other Media,' it feels a bit scattered. It would make more sense to consolidate it in one section Lililolol (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right in some aspects. I don't think the outfit being in "Development" works well because then we've got her costume/equipment/powers all scattered. Dictional aspects to the character should generally stay in one spot. "Development" works better as the actual character's development/creation rather than the fictional portrayal/depiction. And also just a heads up, having the photo on the left can sometimes sandwich the text which we want to avoid. Also, I forgot to add, that there is a source I found about her change of outfit overtime which I will find and add to the "equipment" section. I think that section could do with adding more about her costume as well.

As for the origins of the name, we are both right in some aspects. She is not named after the massacre and the name became controversial after the massacre can exist together. But the massacre has nothing to do with the development of the character. Therefore, it does not suit the section. However, it DOES suit the section about the MCU. The MCU deliberately chose to change her name due to the massacre, hence why its mentioned. Nothing is being consolidated because everything is going into a specific section.

Also, the reception part you added about her reception in the MCU is too long and can be shortened as most of the sources are saying the same thing. I'll go through and shorten it down but if there's anything you think should be mentioned let me know here. I'm glad we were able to discuss this civily. Just a reminder that we aren't trying to portray the character in a bad light as that would be go against NPOV, even if some of the sources are negative (which not all of them are).

Maybe, we want to start a subheading in the "other media" section where we talk about the negative and positive reactions to the MCU's choice to including Sabra. "Inclusion in the MCU" could be a sub-heading. Although, I think what we have already is suffice, although I think a few mentions of the negative public reception might be worth adding. What are your thoughts on this? Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 22:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwell Smart123321 Hi, sorry for the delayed response. I don't see any issues with the edit, except that the outfit image in the "Powers, Abilities, and Equipment" section looks a bit bulky. It might make more sense to start with the design, including the image and text, followed by the quote box, and then her powers below Lililolol (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding a Marvel Cinematic Universe inclusion subsection looks good. However, in my opinion, we shouldn't use acronyms. There's nothing wrong with them, but spelling out 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' makes it look better. Maybe we could also add it to the "main article" template? Lililolol (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right however, then I feel that the sections might be too small if we were to separate them. It would be easier to just combine them rather than have multiple smaller sections. I found "Costumes and equipment" to work better together because the equipment is directly about the costumes itself e.g., cape having gravity repulsers, etc.. Most "Characterization" sections for fictional characters often is quite 'bulky' its not something to really dispel of. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 21:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

As per MOS:ACROTITLE, having MCU inclusion as a heading is fine as per: "if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title". We have defined what "MCU" stands for in the lead for the page so its fine. Using the "Main article" template might be misleading because the section isn't about the MCU its about the inclusion of the character. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 21:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Trivial non-appearances

We typically do not include, and remove when they are spotted, all trivial non-appearances from character articles. These include, but are not limited to, the character's name appearing as part of a list on a computer screen or on someone's handwritten notes or on a printed-out paper, or if the character is only merely mentioned by name by another character, or any other time a character is only noted somewhere to exist but never actually appears on screen in any form. It's obviously not important to the overall narrative if a character is so far in the background that they never actually make an appearance in the media. If a list on one character's computer screen has 100 characters mentioned on it, we do not want to go around to 100 different articles about characters and say "so and so apparently exists in this universe but doesn't do anything else beyond (presumably) existing. We don't know what they look or sound like or any contributions of any significance they have made, but hey at least they exist." Does that make sense? A name in a list may be something worth noting on fandom or whatnot, but here it carries WP:UNDUE weight to even mention it at all because the mere notation of the existence of a character somewhere adjacent to the outer periphery of the narrative does nothing at all to advance the narrative. We might make an exception to include a non-appearance in a character article, but only if we have a WP:RS that makes an argument for the significance and impact that character made off-screen (they died in action, they helped another character somehow) but merely acknowledgement of existence is entirely trivial. Another exception would be if a character is name-dropped in a movie, and then actually appears in the sequel, we could consider that foreshadowing. BOZ (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay. Understood, that makes sense. I'll go ahead and remove it. Thanks for the clarification! Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 21:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)