Talk:Anat Schwartz

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)[reply]

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: [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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" - [2] Deblinis (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending a close at RSN, in all likelihood a '2', ie use with care and attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it says it’s reliable. It must be reliable then? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
CNN too Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am describing a NYT article as crap, which it is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How so? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Did it. Deblinis (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is extraordinary inflammatory. Putting it in its place is not. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Attribution is the standing advice for Mondoweiss at WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree, follow RFC Softlem (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah. What is the article? No one has even linked it. (Relevant.) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Intercept is an RS. GiDiD is not. Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Please elaborate GidiD (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable compromise: accurate per source but not excessive in length. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The EU making a pointed and biased political show of things doesn't confirm anything. You appear to be confusing politics with objectivity. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors' dislike of EU actions doesn't favor into their relevance to articles. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. I said it doesn't confirm anything. You stated EU actions somehow confirm a story – an inference that is pure make believe. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Confirm" does not mean "adjudicate." It means "substantiate," which it certainly does. Since it appears that everything except the kitchen sink has been thrown into this article by way of discrediting it, in fairness the EU sanctions, which confirm the point of the article, belong as well. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just march onto talk, make some glib responses and overturn the consensus that has been established. Everyone here was in agreement on that wording, and your reasons for altering it seem weak at best. "Unreliable" is probably the mildest way imaginable that one could describe Zaka, which has been caught red-handed proliferating outright lies for propaganda purposes and being praised by the prime minister, who pays the organisation's bills, for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "consensus" to overturn. There was a brief discussion and a result, which you reinstated, which is problematic for the reasons that I outlined. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, re-reading the Intercept article, I'm not even sure ANY mention of Zaka is due in this article, which is a biography of a journalist not an article about one of her reports. As Ïvana notes, Schwartz herself said that Zaka members did not make any specific allegations of rape, and the Intercept story makes it clear that Zaka were in fact not the source for Schwartz's reporting. The Intercept: Schwartz said that in her initial interviews, Zaka members did not make any specific allegations of rape, but described the general condition of bodies they said they saw... Schwartz continued to look for evidence at various sites of attack and found no witnesses to corroborate stories of rape. “And so I searched a lot in the kibbutzim, and apart from this testimony of [the Israeli military paramedic] and additionally, here and there, Zaka people — the stories, like, didn’t emerge from there,” she said. In other words, it's part of the telling of the whole story of her investigation that she spoke to Zaka, but - because they didn't give her anything she could use - she then went in other directions.
So while this should be included in the Screams Without Words WP article, it is far too trivial to take up half a paragraph in her biography. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree. We currently have six paras on this one article (which has its own WP article anyway) vs two for the whole rest of her career. AfD consensus was that she's notable for other things and it's not a WP:BLP1E case. But the bio still reads like a BLP1E piece. I'll see if there's anything obvious to trim, but I think a collective trim is necessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the para beginning "In a Keshet 12 interview," should just be deleted, as it is not about the subject of this BLP but undue details about the article (which has its own WP article anyway). But there was a process above to reach consensus for the phrasing of one of the sentences so I don't want to unanimously delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoretheApple, for important context here, has been trying to downplay, or get deleted, this page and the page about Anat's article for months now by weaponizing Wikipedia's rules. The fact is that no one had an absolute slightest clue who Schwartz was before this incident. THAT's why the page mainly focuses on the incident. Just like the main thing anyone knows about Monica Lewinsky is that she had an affair with Bill Clinton, that's because it's the most prominent, news-worthy thing that happened relating to her. It would be 'undue emphasis' to focus on other parts of her life when by FAR the most noteworthy thing Schwartz has been involved in in her life is this controversy. Letdown101 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how long her career is, this is what she is clearly notable for. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anat_Schwartz&oldid=1227895653"