Talk:Hobby Lobby

• The back story: For anyone who is not aware, Hobby Lobby is an American arts and crafts retail chain based in Oklahoma which is known for a corporate culture rooted in Christian values (The Oklahoman, Ragan's PR Daily). Since last week, the company has been in the news for complaints that it did not or would not stock Jewish holiday-themed merchandise; an employee of a New Jersey location was quoted by a blogger saying: "We don't cater to you people." Hobby Lobby subsequently issued an apology for the remarks, which was accepted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL.org), and the company president said it has before and will again offer Jewish-related items in some stores (Entrepreneur, Associated Press/HuffPost).

• What I'd suggest: Although I believe a case could be made that this is
  WP:LABEL
  is especially applicable here.

Currently, this section reads as follows:

Allegations of anti-Semitism

Hobby Lobby has come under fire recently because the company does not carry Hanukkah or Passover items and has been accused of being anti-Semitic. An employee told a Jewish customer that Hobby Lobby refuses to carry merchandise related to Hanukkah and Passover because of owner David Green’s “Christian values,”^[1][2]

I think the following would be a more appropriate:

Holiday merchandise controversy

Hobby Lobby was criticized in fall 2013 after a New Jersey resident reported being told by a store employee that it did not carry merchandise Jewish holiday because of the owner's Christian values.^[3][4] In response, Hobby Lobby apologized for the employee's comments, stating that it has carried Jewish holiday items in the past, and would do so in test areas beginning in November 2013.^[5]

In my version, I've retained the two original sources (Religion News Service via HuffPo and Entrepreneur), while cleaning up the references a bit, then adding a third (The Oklahoman). Because I have a

The new version certainly is much more in line with

WP:DUE. Two sources don't merit the tone it's written in right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As a previous editor of the page I have no objections to changing the heading to "Holiday merchandise controversy", or the wording of the section. It seems adequately neutral. ... discospinster _talk 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for weighing in, and I'm glad you both seem to agree. I understand wanting to be cautious and not implement any suggestion too quickly, but since it seems we have an emerging consensus per guidelines, I wonder if either of you would consider implementing the change soon? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everybody. User:DragonflySixtyseven, to whom I'd also reached out, made the change today and added some more sourced detail, and I'm satisfied with those changes. One minor issue, and one problem with this new version, however—first, a typo: "cane" should be "came". Second, it was not Berwitz himself who was told "We don't cater to you people." From the RNS/HuffPo story used in the article now:

The Hobby Lobby Hanukkah controversy began when Berwitz learned that on a recent shopping trip his wife’s friends could not find anything related to Hanukkah at their local Hobby Lobby store in Marlboro, N.J., though it was stocked with Christmas items. According to Berwitz, one of the women asked about bar mitzvah cards, and a Hobby Lobby salesperson replied: “We don’t cater to you people.” That story prompted Berwitz ... to call the Marlboro store and ask why it seemed to be ignoring Hanukkah.... He wrote that he received the following response: “Because Mr. Green is the owner of the company, he’s a Christian, and those are his values.”

I'd be happy to suggest another way to write this, if others would like. Otherwise, any fix to correct this point (while maintaining the proper distance required considering both of these quotes are claimed, not verified) should settle it for now. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made the changes as requested, while also removing the content about the apology being accepted by the Anti-Defamation League, since there was no indication why it was included and it was sourced only to a press release. If clarity can be offered for the content, i.e., the involvement of the ADL beyond accepting an apology, supported by an independent and reliable source, feel free to restore the sentence yourself. I have also removed defamatory content about the statement reportedly made by the store employee, since this statement is only supplied by a third party on a blog. While other organizations and press outlets may consider this a reliable source, Wikipedia does not, so I have not repeated the undue claim here. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 09:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy, all that looks great. Regarding ADL, their acceptance of the apology was in fact picked up in the news media, in case you'd like to replace it. (Because of my financial COI, I would strongly prefer not to edit the article directly.) Here's one story from the NY Daily News, and here's one from JTA. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great that you have citations to add to the article, but we need context for restoring the notation that the ADL accepted an apology from Hobby Lobby. Yes, I understand the ADL's involvement in all things appearing or known to be anti-Semite. That said, the encyclopedia is a global project and the nature of the ADL's involvement may not be readily apparent globally, so it requires clarification. I would recommend drafting an expansion of the involvement of the ADL beyond a seemingly errant apology. Lacking context and cohesion, the sentence doesn't belong. Cindy(talk) 22:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, here. It's not a big deal. I'm quite satisfied at the outcome regardless, so thanks very much for your consideration! Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading this right the Supreme court just handed down a ruling (5/4) violating the constitution stating the Hobby Lobby can force their employees to be excluded from certain health care coverage mandated by the federal government because it "violates" an aspect of their specific brand of mythology. The article probably should have a much more in depth report on this issue as they are depriving their female employees from treatments. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) You're right. b) Please discuss this on

talk:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. DS (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The tone of this disqualifies you from any expectation of being NPOV. 71.51.135.225 (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on tone come with their own tone. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed some words to the paragraph about their employees' 401(k) plan. The relevance of it to the health insurance issue is marginal, in my opinion, because the investments do not belong to Hobby Lobby, but to their employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petronivs (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 401(k) plans controlled by Hobby Lobby, or by representatives of employees? The April 1, 2014 Mother Jones article doesn't appear to clear that up. --Closeapple (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like all 401(k) plans, the employee decides where the funds are invested, not the employer. The employer sometimes decides which funds are available, but that decision is usually outsourced for fiduciary reasons. Bahooka (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the addition removed? It was properly referenced with citations? OneHandClap (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted to
  Electric Wombat, User:Tutelary, and Bahooka directly. I think the information is relevant, factual, and written in a NPOV. I would like to know if there are any further concerns so I may address them. I would request that the post be reinstated by the last person who removed it or I would like to see more reasons why you think it is inaccurate, not NPOV, or incorrectly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHandClap (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It is sad that some group of people are willing to continue to hide the facts about Hobby Lobby in relation to something they made a central issue to their business operation. Clearly Hobby Lobby and others removing significant information are doing so for political reasons not reasons of consistency with their religion. It seems like it would be very much in alignment with the argument that Hobby Lobby made in the Supreme Court for them to want people to know when the money they spend is funding abortion. If this is about abortion, as Hobby Lobby professes, then let the facts stand at face value. Hiding them is not what Wikipedia is about. And using masses to circumvent Wikipedia's edit war policy is an indication cowardice in my book. If the people doing this where on the level, brave, and willing to back their actions they would be dissing the post here before they removed it. OneHandClap (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to know
  talk why you do not consider this important information about their business operation when they have considered this an important enough of an aspect of their business operation that they have taken it to the Supreme Court? I would request you do not alter the content again unless you can present a reason why a topic they have taken the to Supreme Court is not relevant. OneHandClap (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is starting to be an edit war. WP:EW I am issuing a warning at this point.OneHandClap (talk)

Yes it is becoming an edit war, and you have violated

WP:BRD. Care to self-revert your last edit? Bahooka (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• It seems to me that it has a lot to do with their business and legal choices. It is also not one opinion page it is 18000+ people on FaceBook, a TV news article about a "Boycott Rally", and 86% of another 7000. I was not the one that made abortion a business topic for Hobby Lobby - they did that. Since they opened the door I think it is reasonable to have full disclosure about a business topic they brought to the forefront. If they had not make the topic of abortion a significant aspect of their business operation than I would totally agree this is not relevant. They created the relevance they need to live with that truth.OneHandClap (talk)
• Because it really has little to do with Hobby Lobby as a company. The source is to an Opinion page, which is not an encyclopedic source. That section goes into the numbers of abortions performed, and so on, but that's not really relevant to the company. Obviously a section on controversy surrounding them (provided it is not the
  talk) 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hobby Lobby is not actively supporting abortion, they are purchasing merchandise like thousands of other businesses. The topic does not belong in this article per
    WP:SOAPBOX. Bahooka (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I don't think hours of operation are on any other company wikipedia page. Why do they need to be in this article?. ReginaldTQ (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Now I think I understand what you meant in your edit summary. Thanks. --

talk) 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is now January, 2015, and this statement is OLD: "it (HL) has carried Jewish holiday items in the past, and would do so in test areas beginning in November 2013." It is over a YEAR since November 2013. Did they do it? Wikipedia editors need to step up to the plate and find a way out of this sort of furture-tense waffling. What happened? Please do tell ... or rewrite the pragrapgh to say, "We have no idea what happened next." 70.36.137.221 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now nearly the end of 2016. It looks like there's no follow-up. Certainly in the absence of evidence either way it's best to remove this assertion.Gymnophoria (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a 2017 evaluation by Snopes. RobP (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going to do a re-write with up to date information and an attempt to make this more objective.LibraryLady623 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this content is going to stay, it needs some real

@zchrykng you are right. Thanks for notifying. Sorry (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Robby Hobby. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty interesting, thanks. I will also note this at Talk:Hobby Lobby smuggling scandal. Our section on Smuggling and collections management controversies I think should be made more up-to-date and concise, with most of the detail left out in favor of Hobby Lobby smuggling scandal. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part about Green donating to NCF. This could be re-added, but there are problems with the sourcing. You can trace it back to a report by Sludge, which may not be RS; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258#Sludge. If this goes back in it should be attributed to Sludge.[1] As for NCF being anti-LGBTQ, that could be sourced to Newsweek.[2] GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On March 4, 2019, Hobby Lobby announced that Hobby Lobby will open the Orland Park Store. 2601:246:5600:193:10CC:A8E5:D8B:23D1 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On August 10, 2021, Hobby Lobby announced that Hobby Lobby will open the Norridge Store. 2600:1008:B129:177C:D82:2D02:3883:D398 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements like this are not important enough to put in the article. Even actual store openings are not important enough. And please don't make a separate talk page section every time Hobby Lobby announces a new store opening. We can have a single discussion as to whether these should be included. We don't need multiple discussions. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hobby Lobby is owned by Christians and incorporates American conservative values and Christian media.

I think this is an important part of the article, but I wonder if this maybe can't be re-worked for the lede.

If, the

When a business makes the religion of its founders a key part of the business, it's important to mention, but I agree that the wording was a bit jarring. I've tweaked it, see what you think. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revisions look fair. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I might add, the idea that "The Green family founded Hobby Lobby to express their Christian beliefs ", while I don't doubt that's the case, I think should be sited. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]