Talk:Anat Schwartz

Breaking Points source

@Deblinis, where does this[1] state where she was born and that she served in the Israeli Air Force intelligence division? Also, never heard of Breaking Points, are they a WP:BLP-good source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Krystal Ball wrote articles for The Huffington Post, [2], [3]... and The Hill as well [4] [5] [6]... and The Atlantic [7], [8], [9].

Breaking Points is the program that she co-hosts with journalist Saagar Enjeti.[10]
The New Yorker wrote about Breaking Points: "The show, which stars Krystal Ball, a former MSNBC host, and Saagar Enjeti, a former White House correspondent for The Daily Caller, produces three full episodes a week, sometimes adding extra “mini” shows responding to current events".[11] Deblinis (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So "maybe" on Q2. And Q1? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Breaking Points is not a RS. It is a small media channel considered populistic [12]. The structure of the show and their business model is not relevant here GidiD (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The New Yorker doesn't share the same view.[13] The Spectator wrote an entire article about their previous program.
The professional experiences of Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti make Breaking Points a RS. Deblinis (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not an RS for a BLP, or probably for any fact. It's a commentary/opinion show. The presenters have backgrounds as columnists and commentators, and not as reporters. The New Yorker piece doesn't seem to give us reason to see it as reliable, just notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That aside, where does the source state where she was born and that she served in the Israeli Air Force intelligence division? If it doesn't, this is kind of moot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Added. Deblinis (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

At 6:50 Krystal Ball states that. But also, she seems to be crediting her coworker Ryan Grimm who also writes for The Intercept. The latest article is from here: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ According to reports prior to the upload from Breaking Points, the source of her birth seems to come back to a wiki-like page captured in a tweet: https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1761740292015767736

I did find this page with the following that corroborates that information, but I don't know it's source:

“

Anat Schwartz Director, Screenwriter. Born in Haifa in 1978. Anat graduated (with Honors) from The Sam Spiegel Film and Television School in Jerusalem and La Femis Universite Déte, in Paris, France. Anat received her BA (cum laude) in Philosophy and Literature from the Tel Aviv University. In 2018, Anat began studying for an MFA degree at the Tisch Film School in Tel Aviv University. “La Promise” (2017) Anat’s documentary series (3 episodes) ,which she directed, cinematograph and co-produce, was screen at Doc-Aviv Film Festival in 2017 and was screened on the YesDocu channel and received both critical and audience acclaim. "39" is Anat's first short fiction film.

”

https://tportmarket.com/students/anat-schwartz/ 76.147.146.144 (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Presumably this is SPS, so reliable for ABOUTSELF kind of non-controversial facts. I notice it doesn't mention Air Force service, which might be more controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that Ryan Grimm likely far exceeds the definition of a RS, but I don't know how to make that case as I'm just a passer-by. 76.147.146.144 (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

New article from the Intercept

"Between the Hammer and the Anvil" The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How this reporting gets included into this article is going to be a tightrope walk. The conclusions it reaches and claims it makes are incredibly contested, including claims of mistranslations and out of context quotes. I'm also not sure where Wikpedia classifies The Intercept in re reliability of sources. Most info from this piece, if included at all, should come with caveats of being the claims or opinions of the piece/publication/author(s).

Example: I just excised the line "Schwartz stated to the Israeli media that the "New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative"." I opened the cited article, this Intercept one. They were not quoting the author. They said, "The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative." In other words, the Intercept authors' interpretation of a translation of a Hebrew podcast interview was that they had a narrative they wanted to bolster. They even used the words "suggests that"! It was not a quote attributed to the subject of this article, yet the article read as if it was! I tried ways to rephrase this, like "According to The Intercept," but it's fundamentally awkward and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic work.

I'm not taking the time to go through this entire article and ensure it's not all twisted up in this fashion. But folks should take care with what they add to this encyclopedia and precisely how they phrase those inclusions. Jbbdude (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Corrected. Deblinis (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept piece also undermines its case for reliability by citing sources such as Grayzone. I think we want to be careful about this source for a BLP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept, while biased, is green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mini Edit War: Huh?

I just perused the edit history of this article a bit. A user with a Hebrew username translated over a bunch of accurate biographical info about the subject being a filmmaker, their films, etc. They also added some corrections and clarifications, like a lack of a supposed intelligence operation in Modi'in. And another editor of this article summarily reverted the changes, which took place over a couple of hours with detailed edit notes, with no comment here on the talk page and the only edit history comment being that it was restoring to the last "good" version, which lacked this additional information. What made the intervening edits not "good"? Was it that the user might be Israeli? Was it the removal of the NYT article info, a solution which could have been rectified by re-adding those sections without removing the valuable added biographical info or source-supported corrections of details? There are some truly wild NPV and BLP violations going on here with the choices made in this article, but braver souls than I are necessary to fix the myriad issues. Which is tragic, because this is a subject of current public affairs discussion and debate, so having a useful, informative article with good sourcing and without excessive POV issues would be valuable. Jbbdude (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to all of these points, but I can speak to the "accurate biographical info" bit. I think what made the intervening edits problematic was that most simply weren't sourced, as can be seen here: [14]. They really might be accurate, but without sourcing, there just isn't a way to verify them. That was the core issue of translating the entirety of text from the Hebrew language article (ענת שוורץ); the majority of the biographical information there just doesn't have any citations. Also, as to the statement regarding the user who reverted the edits: What made the intervening edits not "good"? Was it that the user might be Israeli?, I think a reminder of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS is very much needed here. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

איתמראשפר's been ECR-blocked for a week. See Cjhard's talk page, SFR's talk page, and BLPN. SWinxy (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Undermined?"

Why is this in quotes? It is a true statement, not just a word taken from the source. Mcdruid (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Deblinis (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Poorly sourced contentious material?

This is a BLP, and as such I am concerned about using sources such as MondoWeiss[15] and CounterPunch[16]. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mondo with attribution is fine and CP if an expert author Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a CNN source, as well as Intercept and New York Times sources, covering this passage. One thing I would advise for the person who rewrites it accordingly is to remove mentions of "the Abdush family"/"the relatives" as a monolith:

According to MondoWeiss, the "veracity" of the New York Times story was undermined by the relatives of one of the victims, Gal Abdush.^{[better source needed]} According to MondoWeiss, the Abdush family stated that there was no proof of rape and that the New York Times had interviewed them under "false pretenses".^{[better source needed]}

From CNN, "The New York Times stands by its reporting on the Hamas terror attack after questions are raised":

The authors [of the Times article] stated, “based largely on video evidence,” that unnamed Israeli “police officials said they believed” Abdush had been raped. No other evidence was provided by The Times to substantiate the claim. And, as The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, and Daniel Boguslaw pointed out in their story, “The Times report mentions WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but doesn’t mention that some family members believe that the crucial messages make the Israeli officials’ claims implausible.” In a subsequent story published a month later, The Times noted that some members of the Abdush family “have denied or cast doubt on that possibility, including another brother-in-law who said he spoke to Ms. Abdush’s husband before he was killed.”

The "subsequent story" mentioned by CNN is this NYT article (which was co-written by Schwartz). The article by The Intercept is "Between the Hammer and the Anvil". As you can see for yourself, the NYT and Intercept articles clash on parts of the story, like the notability of a deleted comment by Abdush's sister, so I would suggest sticking to CNN. WikiFouf (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. 1) Counterpunch is generally unreliable but usable for a relevant expert. This author seems to be a media studies academic so I can see the argument for her relevant expertise, but I'm still unconvinced its appropriate for a BLP. 2) If there are other sources, e.g. CNN, Nation, that are stronger than MondoWeiss, we should definitely swap them in. 3) WikiFouf's points about the contradictions are important. We need to act on that quickly and if we don't we should remove the text temporarily until we can put it on a secure footing, as this is a BLP. 4) Should this article be a BLP? Is Schwartz actually notable? Neither her one film nor her brief stint as a reporter would be enough alone. It feels kind of BLP1Eish. If this article refocused on the event rather than the reporter, it would be easier to source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's apparently originally just copied from Hebrew WP. Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but an event-article may fail WP:SUSTAINED. I'm not arguing either versions should necessarily be kept. The he-WP article has been around since 2018, so there may be GNG sources somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The unravelling of the New York Times’ ‘Hamas rape’ story AJ Listening Post video. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good source, I think. Again, though, it looks like most of the sources focus on the story, rather than the individual. Still not convinced the individual is notable in her own right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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) 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In regard of the potential move/merge, I think the new article title "Screams Without Words" alone would suffice. Article title is about common name over the "official full name". I think most people would have trouble to correctly recall the second part of the NYT article title. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No reason not to have both, is there? Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Technically we could, but I would prefer the shorter one as the main title. Also we can have How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7 as a redirect. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

MondoWeiss

MondoWeiss is a RS. They say: "we have developed a large group of regular contributors who are committed to high journalistic standards of documentable evidence and reliable sourcing" - [17] Deblinis (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Pending a close at RSN, in all likelihood a '2', ie use with care and attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it says it’s reliable. It must be reliable then? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• The question is whether it is usable to make potentially defamatory statements in a BLP. Same issue with Counterpunch only more so. I believe not for both. I', removing both from the article per WP:BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  "high journalistic standards of documentable evidence and reliable sourcing" and their work of research was fact checked; analysed and credited by The intercept. so wp:RS

  Removing content disqualified such claim what might be erceved as Hasbara, pro-israeli narrative. Deblinis (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on this question closed at the RSN by Chetsford. There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. On that basis, I will remove the content from this article, as there is no case that this is a less sensitive BLP than others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Counterpunch says, they have an Editorial Staff, Jeffrey St. Clair- editor, Joshua Frank – managing editor,[18]. So it is a RS. Deblinis (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Can only use CP if the author of the piece is a recognized expert in the subject area. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Deblinis - a source saying that it’s reliable is not the main criterion we normally use here for reliability. Please check out the perennial source list, which links to several discussions of this particular sauce, which has been considered generally unreliable by the community. On the reliable source noticeboard, you will find several archived discussions of MondoWeiss, on which no consensus has been reached about reliability.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

An essential criterion for a RS is "news professionalism", they adhere to it. They say : "Mondoweiss editors select content for the site on the basis of our shared commitment to news professionalism".[19].

The According to formula is also used in this page. Deblinis (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The "according to formula" is indeed used on this page, although for some reason you've removed a couple. On reliability, and news professionalism, this has been discussed by the community centrally, at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), with no conclusion (and a small majority of editors opting for a designation "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", and less than half opting for a designation as "generally reliable"). Here locally, as this is a BLP, we should not apply a lower bar. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Counterpunch is listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as "unreliable," so obviously it can't be used in a BLP. I think also that Mondoweiss fits the same category even though found to be a lesser grade of objectionable. For BLPs we need to use much better sourcing in dealing with potentially defamatory material. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Need consensus for contentious edits

Once again, this is a biography of a living person, which has the note at the top of this page reminds us requires very high standards. It is imperative that contentious elements get consensus, and that we use good sourcing. Can editors look out to this series of edits and edit summaries and see if they reflect the consensus here or a singe editor’s view? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anat_Schwartz&diff=1211356580&oldid=1211324799&title=Anat_Schwartz&diffonly=1 I don’t understand why we shouldn’t include the 4th of December article, make the section chronological, or attribute contentious claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Examples (where the edit and.or its summary is maybe a little problematic):

• this diff: if this is a BLP we need to clearly attribute and label weaker sources
• this diff: it's true that the raw URL is not as good as a proper ref, but surely a raw URL is better than no citation?
• this diff: why remove a citation?
• this diff: Surely a BLP doesn't have a "point"? Surely it should tell the story chronologically? Why is the 4 December article not worth mentioning?
• this diff: Wikipedia consensus is that CounterPunch is generally unreliable, so surely we need to use it with extreme caution, even if it calls itself reliable?
• this diff: Is there consensus that the Breaking Points YouTube show is a reliable source for a BLP?

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I think this article is not salvageable no matter what, and have nominated it for deletion. Yes, the sourcing is a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It was probably OK before and now famous as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And why Deblinis, does it "work better" to remove all the secondary sources apart from the critical one? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The article received coverage in every country, not only through press articles but prominently on radio and television.
A general sentence mentioning that the NYTimes was reported worldwide, works better than an arbitrary choice of websites (an user mentioned that one of these ones didn't work).
The NYTimes also got a prize for a package of Schwartz's articles last December - according to the Scahill's article. Deblinis (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Prize definitely relevant. The choice of websites wasn't arbitrary. It was all the reliable sources on Google News that mentioned the name of the subject of this BLP. Surely that's the kind of secondary coverage you'd want included to show notability, as well as to add depth? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia article

To help with expansion, here's the Hebrew Wikipedia article, translated. The information is non-contentious and can be verified using a regular internet search so this is not a BLP problem. I will look for a suitable source for most the claims here and then the content should be added to our article. I've struck the parts which are mostly already included in our article (there may be some extra detail).

Anat Schwartz was born in Haifa and grew up in Ramat Ef'al. She is a graduate of the Talmi Yellin High School of Arts, majoring in theater. She also served in the Israeli Air Force’s Intelligence Unit. Anat holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in General Literature and Philosophy from Tel Aviv University.

She is also a distinguished graduate of the Film Studies program at the Sam Spiegel School of Film and Television in Jerusalem.

She has won numerous scholarships, including the NDF Award for Outstanding Student, the IDFA Documentary Film Festival Scholarship, and the Michaela Foundation Scholarship. Anat is an alumna of the International Filmmakers Program at La Femis (National Film School) in Paris. Currently, she is pursuing an MFA degree at the Tel Aviv University Film School.

In 2005, she produced the film Ha'chavera shell Emile by director Nadav Lapid, which was selected for the competition of Cinéfondation at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and was sold for distribution in France.

In 2008, she served as an assistant director to Ari Folman in the film Waltz with Bashir. The film was screened in the official competition at the Cannes Film Festival, winning the Golden Globe and the César Award.

The documentary series La Promesse, directed and filmed by Anat Schwartz (in collaboration with Ronen Ben Tal), premiered in 2017 on the Yes Docu channel and received critical acclaim. The 84-minute documentary film "La Promesse," based on the series, was screened at the 2017 DocAviv Film Festival in the official competition and in cinemas across Israel.

In 2020, Anat directed and wrote the short film 39, which participated in the official competition at the Torino Film Festival in Italy.

In 2022, she directed, wrote, and produced the film Soviet Life - Zoya Cherkassky about the artist Zoya Cherkassky-Nnadi. The film was broadcast on Kan 11 and received the 2022 Israeli Documentary Forum award, as well as the Short Film Award at the Master of Art Film Festival. It was also screened at film festivals worldwide.

References

—Alalch E. 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect from Screams Without Words

@Alalch E.: I am not sure if Anat Schwartz is the right redirect destination of Screams Without Words. The report was apparently penned by Jeffrey Gettleman. Whatever the outcome of the deletion nomination, I think it's still better to have Screams Without Words as a separate article instead of a redirect. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It can be a redirect pending article creation although I don't see why it would necessarily be a redirect to here, maybe to NYT article? (or to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it should definitely be redirected to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel or to a separate article if there is one. I'll fix it, and since there's the possibility of edit-warring over it I imagine its talk page should get an ECP template. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of you. Targeting this article was a mistake caused by some error or omission on my part in my search for articles containing the term, and I simply missed the current target which is certainly much better. —Alalch E. 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your new target is even better. Frankly I hadn't noticed that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Screams Without Words should only lead here at Anat Schwartz.

There isn't any criticism @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel#New_York_Times_%22Screams_without_Words%22

... like the false story of the girl. The claims by the Abdush family are not present there at the moment either. Deblinis (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't claim that I fully understand your points, but we can't imply that Anat Schwartz is solely responsible for all the criticisms, unless the article is about the controversial report itself, e.g. Nayirah testimony which is about the whole false testimony event and all the involved parties, instead of focusing on the false witness herself. In any case I prefer draft:Screams Without Words to be created as soon as possible. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the redirect to Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel#New_York_Times_"Screams_without_Words" and the current content on that other article.

I also support the creation of draft:Screams Without Words: I haven't decided yet between a shortest version of the title or the complete version of the title including How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7. Deblinis (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Counterpunch and Mondoweiss

This being a BLP, I think we need much better sourcing than these two organs. They are used to source content that is contentious and potentially defamatory. Now we have The Intercept for the bulk of this. We don't need the other two due to the fact that one is listed as "generally unreliable" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and Mondoweiss's political agenda I think makes it unsuitable for contentious material on BLPs that are contrary to its agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources about the crap NYT article:

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation.

New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair.

The unravelling of the New York Times’ ‘Hamas rape’ story AJ Listening Post video

Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

CNN too Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think we might be able to converse about this living person without describing what they do as "crap"? Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am describing a NYT article as crap, which it is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that, but just thought that maybe that kind of language might be a tad inflammatory. Coretheapple (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

How so? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And actually, credit should be given to Mondo for being the first to establish the crappy nature of the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Did it. Deblinis (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is extraordinary inflammatory. Putting it in its place is not. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple. These sources should never be used for BLPs, especially in a contentious topic area. The other sources Selfstudier mentions are examples of why we don't need to. If other RSs give credit to Mondo for instigating investigations, we can do that too via those secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mondo is OK with attribution imo, the only reason there is a "problem" here is because of the AI/IP background which does not by itself, justify exclusion. CP only works if an expert in the subject matter, that was the RSN consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is the standing advice for Mondoweiss at WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The CounterPunch RfC close that established red "generally unreliable" status also said we should consider it as essentially equivalent to a collection of self-published sources for all intents and purposes. The opinions (unless published by subject-matter experts in their domain of expertise) should not establish notability. WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

In short, no this should not even remotely be a BLP source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, follow RFC Softlem (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say it depends, if I thought it ought to be used for some reason, I would go ahead and do it, ready to argue that as necessary. Consensus may determine that it is possible in certain cases. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. What is the article? No one has even linked it. (Relevant.) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Intecept's claim about the interview is false

The Intercept in his article “BETWEEN THE HAMMER AND THE ANVIL” has some false claims. I will not go to all of them, but among them are some references to Anat Schwartz's interview to Channel 12.

"The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative."

This is a BLP and the standard on sources reliabilty is higher. WP:BLP clearly says contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The Intercept in itself is not a RS and there are significant concerns about the said claim about the interview. GidiD (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Intercept is an RS. GiDiD is not. Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please elaborate GidiD (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

GidiD, The consensus is that The Intercept is a biased but reliable source which should be used with attribution (see WP:RSP). Have other reliable sources reported false claims in the Intercept article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, even if in general Intercept is reliable, in this case it is outright misleading: In a Keshet 12 interview, Schwartz described the research she did for the story and said that "she found no direct evidence of rapes or sexual violence". Anat refereed several times to adhering to a high journalistic standard of cross checking and validating evidence and testimonies. Here is just one excerpt from Anat Schwartz's interview to Channel 12, that is totally different to Intercepts claim about her Channel 12 interview:

27:15 Interviewer: The investigation indicates a figure. You say there were at least 30 victims. According to what you describe, the hard work of obtaining the testimonies and validating them, and not publishing it until it is impossible to say in 110 percent that you stand behind the testimony. According to this, I also understand what you are not saying: that you have information about more, perhaps many more victims, but they were not included in the article.

27:43 Anat Schwartz

The answer is yes.

But it's not just about tallying more. Because we felt that our obligation was to tell a story that we could confidently support. This applies to the numbers as well. There are figures and there are testimonies for which I could not provide another source, and I do not refer to them. If we managed to uncover 30, I'm sure there are additional cases. GidiD (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a shocking interview for the interviewer to be using terms like 110% when asking technical questions. Other than this, and the OR of this comment, there does appear to be no confirmation of direct evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What direct evidence are you looking for from a reporter? Anat interviewed Shari Mendes, an army officer at Shura camp, who identified raped female soldiers and recorded clear forensic evidence of rape: semen, broken pelvises from forced penetration, bloodied underwear... the whole lot of it. GidiD (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this the Shari Mendes who is actually an architect with no forensic expertise, but who has since been doing the rounds making media claims? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Zaka

Re this edit: bearing in mind this is a biography of a living person, why is it necessary to include all this information about a party other than that living person, which makes the lean towards a particular point of view? If this material is noteworthy, it's noteworthy in the article about Zaka, or possibly in the article about "Screams without words", but not in this biography.

I am aware that the editing of this article has been discussed on social media (including harassment and doxxing of editors) so that there is likely to be increased interest here, but I would request editors follow the advice at WP:BLP and avoid letting this become a WP:COATRACK article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The original paragraph provides context about Zaka's credibility issues, which sheds light on potential biases or misinformation that may have influenced Schwartz's research. Tweaking the direct quote to imply that Zaka's reporting has simply been "questioned" downplays the severity of the situation because it leaves room for interpretation that the inaccuracies could be minor or insignificant. While it is true that this is a BLP, I think it's necessary to include information about external parties when it is relevant to understanding the individual's work and research process, which is the focus of that particular section. - Ïvana (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"whose testimony has subsequently been scrutinized and found to be unreliable" - would probably provide the appropriate measure of doubt without going into excessive detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable compromise: accurate per source but not excessive in length. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the source does not say that ZAKA is "unreliable," it makes no such broad, overarching comment, and for Wikipedia to say that in Wikipedia's voice is synthesis. (Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.) So I'm afraid we're going to have to consider something else. Meanwhile, this is a BLP, and that must go until and unless we can think of something that's appropriate Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I've subbed "severely criticized" as a kind of placeholder. That summarizes the statements in the source without synthesizing a conclusion not made in the source article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Another point that needs to be made, and I regret not noticing this discussion earlier or I'd have done so, is that Schwartz is not a public figure and is subject to WP:NPF: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. Basically in dealing with ZAKA we're in danger of coatracking and then synthesizing, a kind of multi-front assault on this person's reputation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Severely criticized" downplays what the Intercept article says. It is well documented that Zaka is not a trustworthy source. Including the direct quote from the article should make everyone happy since that is not failing WP:SYNTH. If you don't wanna explicitly mention the beheading babies hoax then the following trimmed sentence should work: Schwartz said she then began a series of extensive conversations with Israeli officials from ZAKA, a private ultra-Orthodox rescue organization that has been documented to have mishandled evidence and spread multiple false stories about the events of October 7. That is neither reaching a conclusion nor distorting what the source says. - Ïvana (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wording it that way makes it seem as if Schwartz knowingly went to a tainted source for information. It's not-neutral and completely unacceptable in a BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And to address your other point, no I "don't wanna" mention beheaded babies unless she did in her article. As it is, this article is essentially little more than an extended assault on her reputation, painting her in sum and substance as an unprofessional boob, with little about her career except for the criticism of the "Screams Without Words" piece, in which she was one of multiple authors and so far as I know the Times stands by the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That is how the Intercept worded it, those are not my words. Schwartz herself said that Zaka members did not make any specific allegations of rape even though that was the focus of her article. In early December (weeks before the NYT article came out) an investigation by Haaretz uncovered several lies propagated by Zaka's members regarding the events that happened in October 7. That's plenty of time to pull the plug and at least remove their testimonies from the NYT article but nothing happened. How is it acceptable to tweak what a source says just because it might paint her in a bad light? Zaka has been the subject of criticism (to put it lightly) for years. It is known for being an untrustworthy source.

Regarding your second point, to be fair, at least in the english-speaking world, she became a public figure/widely known because of her involvement in that article, so obviously it's going to be mentioned. Should we also remove the well deserved criticism she got because it might paint her as unprofessional? You're free to add more about her career so her page doesn't focus solely on the NYT piece. - Ïvana (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the task is simple, which is to give Screams Without Words proper weight. And given the fact that the conclusion of the article was just confirmed by EU sanctions of three millitant groups for precisely the "systematic" and "weaponized" nature of the attacks alleged in the article, I think we have an obligation to include that in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of Mondoweiss Part 2

As we now have a close, I would like to remove the relevant citations. Is someone opposed? FortunateSons (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see this when I made the same point in the discussion above. Clearly it should be removed, so have done so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on Screams Without Words

Tagging due to undue emphasis. The majority of this article is devoted to a lengthy attack on the subject's work on the New York Times article "Screams Without Words," in which she was one of multiple authors and the Times has stood by the article. Schwartz is filmmaker approx. 45 years old and has a career spanning two decades, yet we hear virtually nothing about her filmmaking. The volume of verbiage devoted to Screams Without Words needs to be dialed down. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)