Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anat Schwartz: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:10, 6 March 2024

Anat Schwartz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and falls afoul of WP:BLP1E. As with another, similar BLP in the I/P area that was recently deleted, we have an anomaly among BLPs about journalists, an area rife with COI in which many if not most of which are self-promotional. This one has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. Like that other BLP, this is a WP:MILL individual who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm, an "individual [usually] receives negative attention from people who don't like her". That's kind of a fact; nothing incisive. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am actually okay if we instead create a new article specifically about the issues surrounding the NYT Screams without Words report instead of focusing on this woman. We have self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell focusing on his protest incident instead of just "Aaron Bushnell" as a person. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage of her in Hebrew beyond this single event, meets GNG by a mile and the coverage is not limited to a single event. The article may be overly focused on that, but the coverage is not. See for example coverage from 2017. nableezy - 15:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual in fact passes WP:JOURNALIST criterion 4(c): The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Also, does not fall under WP:BLP1E per Nableezy. starship .paint (RUN) 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nableezy and starship.paint this individual does not fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BLP1E is not applicable. Any problems with the article content can be solved by editing and discussion on the talk page, not by deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the nominator has called this page and WP:ATTACK page but I strongly believe that this is not an attack page. It might be WP:NEGATIVESPIN but at least some versions of this page are not a deliberate attack against the article subject. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised WP:ATTACK on another page so yes, that is correct, I think it falls within the four corners of that policy. I think the fact that the essence of her reporting was just confirmed today by the UN makes my concerns even more magnified than previous. So thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it falls within the four corners of that policy Nonsense. And the UN report has nothing to do with it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a fundamental misreading of WP:ATTACK. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore if this page were to be nominated for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}, I'm nearly 100% confident that would fail under any version in the revision history. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong pass of WP:JOURNALIST. I can not see received negative attention from people who don't like her as a serious summary of the article or of the public's interest in this topic. For WP:BLP1E see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event".—Alalch E. 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essential to understanding the misinformation that has spread during the Israel-Hamas war. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Especially while the story is playing out. This is raising issues about the credibility of several organizations, including the New York Times and at least two espionage organizations, often referred to as "intelligence" organizations, implying it's intelligent to keep secrets and provide war propaganda. Although if another article, as someone suggested, is created a merge is worth considering. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nableezy and others. Would support Sameboat's proposal for an article about the Screams Without Words controversy and then merge proposal as suggested by Zacherystaylor. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to Sameboat's suggestion, for what it's worth, but it's still worth consideration. I'm not aware that such an article has been created. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also support creating an article on "Screams Without Words", to which Anat Schwartz can subsequently be merged. The comment I wrote on the talk page : I would personally lean towards moving Anat Schwartz to a ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7 article. I agree that Schwartz isn't notable outside of her article, of which she isn't even the sole author. News coverage related to the NYT article, besides "Between the Hammer and the Anvil", doesn't really focus on Schwartz anyway, but I think that that coverage is becoming significant enough (The Intercept, CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, op-eds in The Nation and Jacobin, etc.) to warrant an article. I don't see why it would fail WP:SUSTAINED because A) the article in and of itself has had a big impact on public discourse since its publication, B) the controversial aspect of the article also dates to at least January (the "Daily" episode) and has had at least another development (Schwartz's Twitter likes) even before the recent Intercept article, and C) the Intercept story has already snowballed into another story, with the leak investigation by the NYT and related allegations of racial profiling. WikiFouf (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP: BEFORE, I can see passing WP: JOURNALIST as the sources about her were written by out general reliable sources. Then, also passed apart from WP: GNG, there is WP: CREATIVE...since she was noted of her journalistic skill by Al Jazeera. All the best. Otuọcha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:JOURNALIST, Anat Schwartz does not pass the notability bar for journalists. Actually, below WP:JOURNALIST bar by a substantial margin:

Anat Schwartz is a junior journalist. As the article shows, she started working as a journalist for the NYT on 2023 - too junior to be an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Anat Schwartz is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Even the NYT article provides an angle shared by many other journalists and journals.
Anat Schwartz did not create a significant or well-known work or collective body of work - no Pulitzer award or any other significant journalist achievement.
Her work never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GidiD (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you combine the Delete voters arguments above, way above, and below, her work is claimed to have not won significant critical attention, but also this is an ATTACK page and has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. You can't have it both ways, in totality the arguments are contradictory. starship .paint (RUN) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not have to be a senior journalist or a good journalist to be a journalist or to or only or predominantly be a journalist to be subjectable to WP:NJOURNALIST. The "junior journalist" argument is special pleading. Anat Schwartz is indeed not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and her work has indeed never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. But it has (c) won significant critical attention. Because she did create a significant or well-known work. A work that was the primary subject of coverage in various other works. The NYT article is a significant and well-known work, and it received widespread attention and highly substantive critique. If we were to construe "significant" to be limited to "good works", "celebrated works", "Pulitzer-prize-winning works", that would not be good. It would be systemically non-neutral. It is not about awarding someone an article for their good work, about giving them recognition on the grounds of their praiseworthy journalistic work, it's not about celebrating good things, it's about having an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers equally the good, the bad, and the in-between. —Alalch E. 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is a pass of CREATIVE, the article is an ATTACK page. Schwartz, who is a very rounded media professional, with a well-balanced article on Hewiki, seems to have become a cause célèbre in conspiracy theories. I believe that AFDISNOTCLEANUP and articles should be corrected and improved. That said, I do not see people succeeding in balancing this article and this is a BLP that cannot be kept as an attack page. There are some comments on the talk page, there is the nomination, a brief discussion on my talk page, GidiD's opinion in edit conflict with my own (we are alike in more than just our names...), and now there also is my opinion on this AfD. I hope that this will be sufficient to protect this living person from attacks on Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fair point of labeling all the disadvantageous points against Schwartz as attack, IOW defamatory. We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies, but the new article about the controversial NYT report will retain all the "attacking" details so long as all those points are backed by reliable sources. Your goal of "protecting this living person from attacks" would not work by deleting this article. Her journalistic integrity is being questioned justly, and this is something should be documented with our best ability. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn't relate so much to my opinion, set aside one central piece of it that it is spot on: We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies. I'll try to refer to the rest, have given it some thought, just not very related to my points. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article created via Hebrew WP so arguably notable even prior to the latest developments on the notability front, easy GNG pass and the NYT story is already sustained.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that the subject's reporting was confirmed today by the United Nations, therefore effectively discrediting the thrust of this article (i.e. the effort to discredit her work) my concerns about this article are magnified. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235824305/israel-sexual-assault-rape-hamas-attack-un-report This article serves no useful purpose but to focus attention on a fringe theory of the Oct. 7 attacks, namely that the widely reported, indeed, self-reported (by the rapists) sexual violence in Israel did not take place. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has always been about which things are fact and which are allegation, the UN report will help in that regard. It certainly did not confirm the subject's reporting over which there is and will remain controversy. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but how is this relevant to the discussion about whether or not to keep the article? The existence of an article about the subject is not intended to discredit her work. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the actual report. Go to 55 and 86. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate and information gathered by the mission team was in large part sourced to Israeli national institutions. starship .paint (RUN) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and/or redirect to Screams Without Words per WP:BLP1E. She is only notable for having written one controversial (and, allegedly, discredited) article. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2024
BLP1E does not apply. Please see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event". There is coverage of her prior to the reaction to the NYT article; she is the director of a noteworthy 2017 documentary film, for example. ... In the language of policy: Reliable sources do not cover the person only in the context of a single event, she has received coverage for other things as well, she is not a low-profile individual and was not a low-profile individual even prior to the latest event, which is a significant event, and the individual’s role in it is substantial and is well documented. Fails on every count. Colossal BLP1E fail.—Alalch E. 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per starship.paint and nableezy, meets the criteria defined by WP:JOURNALIST. BLP1E does not apply for reasons articulated by several editors above, but if the page is not kept as a biographical article, I am also not opposed to repurposing/restructuring the page to be focused on the controversial article she authored. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this subject is, in fact, notable for reasons other than this NYT article. However, this article needs a total top-to-bottom rewrite and some sort of arbitration remedies because the mini edit wars going on are incredibly detrimental to this article. Articles are being misquoted and selectively quoted to include incorrect information. It very much would fall under WP:ATTACK. The sourcing is almost entirely to a collection of marginally reliable sources. Efforts to include accurate information about the subject, about her filmmaking history, for example, are repeatedly erased; no efforts are made to source or clean up such info, just wiping. As evidenced above, editors currently fixated on the page have clear biases and agendas with the "purpose" or "point" of this page, many of which spill into the conspiratorial. Some of the delete votes above are on the very basis of the inability to clean up this BLP, a reasonable concern. And if there isn't any concerted will to actually fix this article wholesale, then I actually would flip my vote to a Delete since, even if a subject is a reliable, this encyclopedia should not be hosting malicious, baseless, or potentially defamatory claims, certainly not as facts (rather than for the substance of allegations made by certain parties or conspiratorial groups). Jbbdude (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the arguments starship.paint and nableezy have advanced, that it meets WP:JOURNALIST. One thing to add for notability - the NYT won George Polk Awards this year, one of them in "Foreign Reporting", its coverage of the award explicitly mentions the "Screams without Words" article. Anair13 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Keep''' per starship.paint and nableezy, meets the criteria defined by [[WP:JOURNALIST]]. BLP1E does not apply for reasons articulated by several editors above, but if the page is not kept as a biographical article, I am also not opposed to repurposing/restructuring the page to be focused on the controversial article she authored. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF">&nbsp;Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' because this subject is, in fact, notable for reasons other than this NYT article. However, this article needs a total top-to-bottom rewrite and some sort of arbitration remedies because the mini edit wars going on are incredibly detrimental to this article. Articles are being misquoted and selectively quoted to include incorrect information. It very much would fall under WP:ATTACK. The sourcing is almost entirely to a collection of marginally reliable sources. Efforts to include accurate information about the subject, about her filmmaking history, for example, are repeatedly erased; no efforts are made to source or clean up such info, just wiping. As evidenced above, editors currently fixated on the page have clear biases and agendas with the "purpose" or "point" of this page, many of which spill into the conspiratorial. Some of the delete votes above are on the very basis of the inability to clean up this BLP, a reasonable concern. And if there isn't any concerted will to actually fix this article wholesale, then I actually would flip my vote to a '''Delete''' since, even if a subject is a reliable, this encyclopedia should not be hosting malicious, baseless, or potentially defamatory claims, certainly not as facts (rather than for the substance of allegations made by certain parties or conspiratorial groups). [[User:Jbbdude|Jbbdude]] ([[User talk:Jbbdude|talk]]) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' for the arguments starship.paint and nableezy have advanced, that it meets [[WP:JOURNALIST]]. One thing to add for notability - the NYT won [[George Polk Awards]] this year, one of them in "Foreign Reporting", its [https://www.nytco.com/press/times-wins-three-polk-awards/ coverage of the award] explicitly mentions the "Screams without Words" article. [[User:Anair13|Anair13]] ([[User talk:Anair13|talk]]) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)