Jump to content

Talk:Screams Without Words

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This seems odd

[edit]

If the article is notable enough to have a controversy surround it, it seems to me there should be an article on the Times article, with the controversy being a part thereof. This article should either be expanded in scope or deleted, lest it create an NPOV issue by focusing only on the criticism of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I will do that. The section is getting too long to fit into the current article, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel Keizers (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: Done. Please see if it is neutral enough. Tbh, it is notable because of the controversy Keizers (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that "Screams Without Words" should be an article, not a redirect. The article is notable for its own sake. It is not notable because people don't like it. This controversy can be part of that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable for both reasons! But even given that, I'll put the content into the body of the Screams page and have this one redirect to there. Keizers (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me! Thanks. Now the article needs to reflect both the contents and the controversy. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

[edit]

I've tagged for neutrality and lack of significant viewpoints---that is, viewpoints in favor of the subject. While I appreciate that the article is now framed as on the entirety of the subject and the controversy surrounding it, it is far too unbalanced, lacking in sufficient description of what the article contains. Surely the amount of hate directed at it was caused by something, no? And all those "allegedlys" that were there in the version I saw intially, which I removed, just compound matters. And obviously, if the article in question was framed as weasely all those "allegedlys" implied, even talking about "purported" rapes, there would have been no controversy as all the critics of the article would have been happy. Like most Times investigations it was hard-hitting. Also the large amount of text attacking Schwartz creates a significant BLP issue, so we need to be careful. I'm not saying it is a BLP violation mind you, simply that BLP applies to all articles, not just articles that are biographies. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of witness accounts in the table is a pretty good place to get an idea of the substance of what "hit hard". Rape on Oct 7 was one of the major topics re the Israel-Hamas conflict, for the past few months, and this article was kind of the pinnacle of it summarizing everything there was out there. Of course, we can bring some of those eyewitness accounts to the top of the article, but I personally didn't as it would require mentioning each one twice, because of 10 sets of witness accounts, only 3 are from parties that have not changed their stories or otherwise shown unreliable. The mere fact that this was front page lengthy months-long investigation by one of the US 3 newspapers of record, which apparently cited what appeared to be a solid 10 witnesses, means that yes it "hit hard", but it's equally shocking that 7/10 witnessed cited were unreliable, and that one of the co-authors was pushing witnesses to "do their national duty" and come up with accounts. And on top of it all, it was not "just" to prove that rape happened, but that it was systematic and weaponized. You or other people can of course try to beef up the "hit hard" part, I don't really find it necessary or even unbalanced as it is. Keizers (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course a lot of the rape victims were murdered as I understand it. Anyway I'll read through the article and see what may be worth adding. Right now it's far over-weighted against the article and raises BLP concerns as I mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there were many more rape victims they would have been among the murdered. Yet there is zero forensic evidence that has come to light of that. ZAKA volunteers do not have forensic training, did not document the bodies, and disposed of them quickly as per Jewish custom. All of which results in zero forensic evidence, if there were mass rapes, and zero forensic evidence, if there was incidental rape "as happens in war". None of this was even remotely hinted at or acknowledged in one of the 3 US papers of record, yet there is a tendency among US and Western Europeans to believe the Israeli narrative at face value, perhaps without stopping to think as we might if the message came from one of our own Western governments.Keizers (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UN confirmed mass rape and likely hostages are currently being raped. This should be added to the article. The statement there was no forensic evidence is false. Most of the horribly raped people are dead, which makes it harder for forensic testing. Overwhelming evidence in any case of mass, weaponized rape, per the UN and Israeli Rape Crisis Center. Both reports from both organizations ought to be here. UN also reports what many of us already knew - Hamas & co filmed their sex crimes and uploade it online.SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna need a source for that claim. As far as I could find, the UN did not, in fact, confirm "mass, weaponized rape".
"A team of United Nations experts reported on Monday that there were "reasonable grounds to believe" sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, occurred at several locations during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas militants.
[...]
"Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered," read the 24-page U.N. report.
[...]
"The mission team found clear and convincing information that some hostages taken to Gaza have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence and has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing," the U.N. report said."
Things to note from the above: "rape and gang rape occurred at several locations", and "some hostages have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence". Also, we can note the repeated use of "may". One thing, however, that one would be unable to note, because of its absence from the above, is the claim that these acts were weaponized by Hamas, as part of a war strategy.
No one - no one - including those who have criticized the "Screams Without Words" article, has disputed the idea that some victims of Hamas were raped by Hamas fighters. The contention is whether this is a weaponized strategy.
No evidence has been provided for that claim, despite the NYT's accusations; and it's a problem, because it's very much part of the Israeli government's justification for the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza (claimed to be a mere "war against Hamas").
As a side-note, the Reuters article above also includes the following:
"The U.N. team said it also received information from institutional and civil society sources and direct interviews, about "sexual violence against Palestinian men and women in detention settings, during house raids and at checkpoints" after Oct. 7. The detention centers were in Israel.
The U.N. team said it raised the allegations with the Israeli Ministry of Justice and Military Advocate General, which said no complaints of sexual violence against members of the Israeli Defense Forces had been received." 90.92.45.140 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actually main conclusion of the UN report was that all of the evidence fell below the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold – namely because Israel refused to cooperate with the UN and let it investigate properly. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For there to be a neutrality issues, there have to be sources that have analysed the article and provided a positive assessment. What are these sources? I looked briefly and spotted another one that questions the methods and the framing of the NYT article: How the Times stumbled on a sensitive Israel story, from Semafor. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct, and I think we need more from Smith. His critique was nuanced and from a journalistic standpoint, whereas Al Jazeera was just being Al Jazeera, with the usual Al Jazeera agenda. Smith's point was that the Times went over its skis. He doesn't use that phrase but that's the gist of what he is saying. Also he critiqued some of the criticism. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: - since you tagged for neutrality and lack of significant viewpoints---that is, viewpoints in favor of the subject, I suppose you surely must be aware of independent reliable sources that provide viewpoints in favour of the subject. Could you provide these reliable sources? starship.paint (RUN) 11:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well one very good way of providing balance is to provide more on what the article says, in equal proportions to the attacks on the article and the integrity of the writers. More than just the brief "content" section. This I will do when I have the time. Right now the article is just a hit piece on the (subject) article, a "criticism of" article in everything but name (though the change in name is certainly a good first step). Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for independent sources and you provided none, alright. So, I take it that we simply can provide more on what the article says and remove the tags. Now, the Screams Without Words article discusses more than our brief "Content" section. Much of what the Screams Without Words article is also in the "Table of witnesses cited" section. Not so little after all. starship.paint (RUN) 05:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the "Content" section, specifically looking out for what was missed from the "Table of witnesses" section. Much of Screams Without Words is narrative from the witnesses, so I am quite sure I have covered most if not all of it. In that case I think I have successfully done what you said, Coretheapple, provide more on what the article says. In that case I am going to remove both tags. starship.paint (RUN) 06:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

I've tagged the article for undue weight, in the sense that it dwells excessively on Schwartz, one of three authors of the article principally written by Gettleman, comprising nearly half of the "criticism" aspect of the article. My initial thought wat this was a BLP issue, as it had that smell, but I think at bottom it is WP:UNDUE. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony verbiage

[edit]

@Beccaynr: I agree with you that using the word testimony is wrong. Not the right word. Does not mean what it should mean. @Keizers: Would you kindly give up on using this word? Do you understand why it's simply not the correct word? —Alalch E. 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the right word? Keizers (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account, statement, report, story. —Alalch E. 23:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view policy says to be careful about words or expressions that may introduce bias or seem to endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources). In my removals from a related article, I mentioned sources in edit summaries [1]. If a witness said something, then e.g. "said", "stated/statement", "described/description", and "commented/comment" tend to be appropriate per MOS:SAID. Beccaynr (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the wording. —Alalch E. 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't endorse this removal

[edit]

FYI: I have edited after Special:Diff/1213102468, but I do not support this removal as-is. I opted not to revert that edit in order to make life easier for myself in the course of the edits which I wanted to make (a dispute around that edit alone might have made it more difficult to make those other needed edits). Just declaring. Pinging @Deblinis and Coretheapple:: Thanks for any input on this. —Alalch E. 06:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one directly relates to Schwartz, who is one of the "stars" of this unbalanced article, but both sentences relate to the credibility of the Intercept article that is quoted copiously here. We bang away at the credibility of the Times article, so for reasons of WP:NPOV we are required to include counterbalancing text, contained in another article on the controversy, questioning the credibility of the Intercept piece. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated publications

[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "these are unrelated publications -- NBC, CBS, i24 News, etc", as opposed to statements coming from "Screams Without Words". -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, accounts of Cohen and Gueta are discussed in the Intercept article [2] and should be covered in the same manner as the others in the table, i.e. w/o the need to include NBC etc. citations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E.'s edit about Mondoweiss

[edit]

@Alalch E.: "anonymous group of Palestinian journalists in Israel". What is the source for this claim ? Deblinis (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas Alalch E.received the ping above earlier and has edited many times on wikipeda since, they didn't reply to this important question that has been asked them.
Where did their claim come that the Mondoweiss source was written by an "anonymous group of Palestinian journalists in Israel" ? @Alalch E.: entered that text on the article on 11 March 2024 [3]. --- Deblinis (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous ping was broken so I never got it (when the template markup is not correct when the comment with the ping is published, it's necessary to make a new ping in a new comment, as fixing an error in the username will not make ping work). Those words were located below the text of the Mondoweiss article if I remember correctly, in a note about who the anonymous author is. Edit: It's there, to the right, when I open the page on my computer.—Alalch E. 07:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of Raz Cohena and Shoam Gueta testimony

[edit]

Why is the formatting of Raz Cohen and Shoam Gueta's testimonies formatted differently? It's stating the of the channel as the NYT article makes it seems like it was copy and pasted from somewhere else and nobody bothered it to fit it to the format of the table. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and NPOV

[edit]

@MagicatthemovieS I think the addition of Category:False allegations of sex crimes runs afoul of WP:NPOV. There have been plenty of concerns raised about the report, but nothing that proves any of its allegations false. As the article notes, "The Times stood by its story, saying that it was 'rigorously reported, sourced and edited.'".

Similar concern with Category:Propaganda in the United States. I'll remove both for now pending further discussion. XDanielx (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

[edit]

The "Other accounts" section in the table subheaded "Rows highlighted in pink indicate inconsistent reports and/or witnesses accused of fabrication" includes some original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. While it is very legitimate and sensible to include subsequent critiques of the article that is the topic of this WP article, it is not legitimate to include material that does not mention it and in many cases was published before it. It is not normal for a WP article to devote so much space to inconsistencies found by WP editors and not mentioned in any published source in connection to the topic of this article. I'll flag some of the instances. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge table into prose?

[edit]

I think tables are better for short bits of data, not so much for nuanced discussions. It's unusual and feels unencyclopedic to try to fit such content into a table format. The pink highlighting also seems questionable; in prose we can add more appropriate nuances based on MOS:DOUBT and other guidelines.

Any objection to removing the table and incrementally merging it into the text? — xDanielx T/C\R 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tables do not necessarily have to be short and concise; they are simply a tool to organize data more effectively. Converting the table to prose could lead to a loss of specificity, especially if done incrementally. It should either be fully converted at once or left as it is. If there is a consensus to remove the table (which has not been reached yet), it's crucial that the conversion process is thoroughly reviewed to ensure it accurately represents the detailed information originally contained in the table. Keeping it in a table format can be more accessible and clear to read. Also MOS:DOUBT might not be applicable here since we are merely reporting proven inconsistencies. Failing to highlight these as such could be seen as editorializing. - Ïvana (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very unusual for a WP article to have significant amounts of prose in a table, no? MOS:TABLE doesn't mention that option - it mentions prose as an alternative to tables, seemingly with an implicit assumption that prose wouldn't be placed in a table.
If there isn't a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here, we can seek more clarification about the broader consensus at MOS:TABLE, though there was already one (small) discussion suggesting significant prose in tables is discouraged, and I think the rarity of it also suggests a broader consensus against it.
Fair point that changing this incrementally may not be the best approach though. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table should absolutely be turned into prose. Right now its ultimate function is to synthesize a viewpoint not directly found in the cited sources (complete with red coloring to suggest that the testimony is empirically false.) This is absolutely a neutrality issue on top of a summary style issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t feel strongly about the tables but the pink shading is problematic, and currently shades much more than it should. (I couldn’t work out how to limit it to relevant parts of table cells.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ivana. The table should absolutely not be turned into prose, as it thereby makes it an incoherent jumble of names and claims and disputes of their veracity. The whole purpose of the table is to clarify all this and make it accessible, which it does very well, and given the length of the article the page is about it is justified to have somewhat more text there.
Regarding the neutrality issue, it's actually the opposite: The improper synthesis requests should be removed, as the texts do clearly and accurately state what is disputed by the referenced sources. I just checked them all again to make sure they do. If someone has a clear case to make for why a specific synthesis is improper, do it here, get consensus, and then it can be changed accordingly. But right now there is nothing established to be inaccurate or improper there. Lf8u2 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue wasn't that the content was unsourced, but that the sources made no connection to Screams Without Words. It's synthesis because these bits of information are used to imply things about the veracity of Screams Without Words, even the sources made no such connections. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notes matched by the sources are directly and explicitly concerning the testimonies in the SWW piece. There is no vague secondary implication involved, they are directly referencing the same things, so any tags added for improper synthesizing or summarizing is just a way for you to imply that that is not the case, which violates NPOV.
The tags shouldn't have been added in the first place, and if you want them to stay, get consensus for it here first.
I for one think it's absurd to include them unless you can demonstrate that they refer to something else than what the SWW piece is referring to. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question are certainly related, but it's still synthesis. We can't include content which implicitly calls into question the veracity of SWW when the source doesn't make any connection to SWW. It seems like you and Lf8u2 simply disagree with WP:SYNTH itself, or certain aspects/applications of it. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s obviously synthesis when citations don’t mention the subject of the article. The long-standing tags should be restored. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or actually the SYNTH content should be removed so the tags can go, given nobody had managed to fix it since the tagging BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we are approaching four months now since the issue was raised — xDanielx T/C\R 05:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yura Karol

[edit]

@Ïvana: re your change, could you clarify the source for later confirmed to be Karol? I don't see Karol named in either source. The Haaretz source also doesn't seem to mention SWW? — xDanielx T/C\R 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: Added some sources for the identity confirmation. Karol is mentioned in the Hareetz article, just not by name: Another witness who has recounted the incident to police was a man who was hiding behind the eyewitness and didn't see the rape. He said she told him at the time what she saw. That unequivocally refers to him. Same in the new source I added: Since both Sapir and Cohen's accounts surfaced, a different companion who hid with each one has since come forward. The Times interviewed both, and their accounts don't back up those of Sapir or Cohen. The Haaretz source doesn't mention SWW but it is directly addressing a testimony quoted in SWW. - Ïvana (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so the only explicit mention of Karol is in the video reference you added? Could you give a timestamp? I'm also not sure the video is a suitable source, given EI's status on WP:RSP, but want to see what Abunimah says before objecting. (Conceivably Abunimah's credentials might make it a passable source, although we have to keep in mind this is BLP territory...) — xDanielx T/C\R 20:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the link to include the timestamp (19:48). Also I disagree, this is not a violation of WP:RSP because it's attributed (as the EI entry says in WP:RSPSS, "their statements should be attributed") and it doesn't deal with a contentious issue, it's just an observation of fact that this unnamed second witness quoted in Haaretz is the same person as Karol. It would be a different matter if this were a controversial question that's part of an active debate, but it plainly isn't. Karol is the same person as the unnamed source in Haaretz, as there was only one other person with Sapir at that time. - Ïvana (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: I'm not going to revert you, but see my explanation above justifying the usage of EI. - Ïvana (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an unreliable source dealing with a highly contentious issue. It’s absolutely not usable for this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timestamp, Ali Abunimah's explanation certainly seems plausible, though it doesn't seem entirely clear that this is the same witness and that it's referencing the same instance (out of "at least five") of purported rape. Also seems plausible that something may have been lost in translation, since there are no direct quotes from Karol. I think this would normally be fine if attributed, if not for BLP's source requirements. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert @Bobfrombrockley's removal of the attributed source as this is clearly a controversial action that violates Wiki rules (the source was attributed and relates to a non-controversial point), so the removal requires consensus in talk first.
Regarding it being a trivial, non-controversial point the source is being used for:
Ali Abunimah's explanation in the referenced video does not merely "seem plausible", it is a factual description of the November 8 Haaretz piece citing Sapir's testimony, which then adds: "Another witness who has recounted the incident to police was a man who was hiding behind the eyewitness and didn’t see the rape. He said she told him at the time what she saw."
The piece is written in English, it's published in Haaretz which is a reputable reliable source not known for basic linguistic errors let alone rendering a testimony in a way that alters its entire meaning. So we're not going to speculate in a way that fits our biases and are going to stick by Wiki reliable sources policy, and accept that the Haaretz report is accurate, unless Daniel or Bob or anyone else can cite a credible source saying otherwise.
As for the question of this potentially referencing someone else, that's also not only not plausible, it's not possible, as we know from other credible sources (including those currently cited as such on the page).
We know for a fact that the first unnamed witness in the Haaretz piece is referencing the person later identified as S. or Sapir. Haaretz attributes this quote to them: “They bent someone over,” the witness said. “I realized he was raping her and passing her on to someone else also in uniform.”
The same quote is reproduced in the ARCCI report from February, and is attributed to Sapir.
So the question of whether what Ali Abunimah as cited in @Ïvana's reference said is not a matter of plain fact being acknowledged, but rather something that is, to use @Bobfrombrockley's language, "highly contentious", relies on the belief that Haaretz and the New York Times published false and flawed testimonies or accounts of what happened by what can only be the same two people, S. or Sapir and Yura Karol, the only person who was hiding behind her.
I'm sorry, but this is just not plausible.
Is this the argument you're going to go with? That actually there was a third or fourth or other person hiding behind Sapir that the New York Times neglected to mention? That Haaretz reported false testimonies?
Ok, if that's the argument you want to go with, that's fine, but I don't think you're going to get consensus for that. But I'm curious to see what other editors think.
For now though, the reference is clearly in line with Wiki rules, does not violate WP:RSP because it's attributed and in addition to that it's concerning a non-controversial point, which I realize is up for discussion here and again I look forward to @Bobfrombrockley and others trying to argue that it is actually controversial somehow. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we don't know the Haaretz witness was near Sapir; I'm say we can't assume that Yura Karol was only witness hiding near Sapir. Hundreds of rave attendees survived by hiding. Most were probably far from Sapir, but we can't quantify that without OR. We also know that Sapir claimed to witness 5+ rapes, so we can't string two different statements together and assume that they're about the same purported rape.
I don't think our opinions on this ultimately matter though. We literally have no reliable sources (besides NYT) using the name Yura Karol. As long as that's the case, any content about Yura Karol (besides summarizing the NYT) is either WP:OR or fails WP:BLP's source requirements. This is probably "contentious material" since it's an insinuation that Karol gave a false account. Even if it wasn't contentious, it fails other prongs of BLP. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, if including Karol's account without this insinuation about a possible false testimony seems non-neutral, we can just remove Karol's account altogether. We don't need to be comprehensive. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our opinions don't matter, sources matter. And you just removed a source that explicitly refers to Karol by name even though it does not violate WP:RSP, and you removed the other source by Gupta that explicitly refers to the Karol testimony for no reason whatsoever, and you removed the Haaretz testimony that cannot but be referring to Karol because of your own bias that leads you to believe they must have falsely reported it due to some translation error which is quite frankly absurd.
In other words, you aren't editing based on established sources per Wiki rules, you're editing based on your own speculations and inferences. We don't do that here.
Someone should restore those notes, and you and @Bobfrombrockley need to secure consensus here before they are removed again as you are editing in a controversial manner. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, what is the reliable source that refers to Karol by name? — xDanielx T/C\R 02:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you believe the Ali Abunimah source is not reliable and wasn't properly used, but @Ïvana already explained that you're wrong: It was attributed per WP:RSPSS. You yourself acknowledged that it's a passable source, then shifted when @Bobfrombrockley chimed in and insisted on removing it.
Not only did you violate your own earlier pronouncements by removing that, you also absurdly decided to remove the Haaretz source and the Gupta one, the latter of which directly references the Karol testimony in the NYT piece.
Again, another editor should revert this, and you and @Bobfrombrockley need to get consensus before you proceed with any tendentious removals. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the RSP entry. It’s very clear, and is the result of multiple discussions at the RSN: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. We cannot use it for something like this which is a highly sensitive topic (the allegation that a recently diseased person was a victim of sexual violence) and is also a BLP issue (calling Karol a liar), which requires high quality sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving out the other part of the RSP entry: "their statements should be attributed".
And there are two parts to the reference. The first is merely matching the identities of Karol in the Haaretz piece and the NYT piece. You are the one who insisted on a source for that to avoid improper synthesis, which @Ïvana provided. That's a purely factual observation that has no bearing on any allegations about deceased peoples being victims of sexual assault or not. For that, it's clearly an adequate source, and you should not have removed it before seeking consensus first.
However, for the other part, where the source criticized Karol and alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies, I agree that that veers into WP:RSP, and should not be included.
The Gupta source however is valid and clearly does not violate WP:RSP.
So my position is 1) restore the Haaretz part, 2) the Ali Abunimah/EI part purely for the matching of the identities claim that you requested a source for which is a factual matter, unless you want to argue that the person cited in Haaretz is not Karol hence making the EI source not a neutral factual observation of matching an identity, but instead one of a controversial nature. In which case, make that argument with a reliable source. And 3) restore the Gupta reference.
I'm assuming you have no objections to 1 and 3, though perhaps you want the improper synthesis tag added back to 1 until it's resolved in talk. I'm fine with that.
If you have a problem with 2, we can agree to leave that out until consensus is reached in talk to either include it as a source or not. If not, and there's no alternative source, then 1 can be removed as well and the improper synthesis tag issue is resolved with it.
But @XDanielx's removal of the Haaretz and Gupta sources was undue and needs to be reverted until consensus can be reached on the 2nd point.
If we can all agree on this, someone can move ahead and restore the uncontroversial Haaretz and Gupta parts, and see if consensus can be found on EI or another source to resolve the improper synthesis issue. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the RSP entry in full reads: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. The second half doesn’t negate the first half but specifies further. If in doubt, read the RfC close by S Marshall. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're referencing WP:RSP on the assumption that the source was being cited for a "highly controversial" topic. It wasn't. It was being cited for the match of an identity that is an established fact. Do you contest that it is an established fact that the Haaretz piece was referring to Sapir and Karol?
You haven't once said you do, only intimated it by repeatedly saying the use of EI as a source for that is WP:RSP.
If that's the case you want to make, that's fine, it can be argued here and I hope other editors weigh in. @XDanielx disagreed with you before you came in, as do I and @Ïvana.
Also this doesn't relate to the Haaretz and Gupta sections, which again clearly need to be restored as their removal was undue. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an opinion as to whether it’s the same person. It’s a question of why we’re referencing something that isn’t about the subject of this particular WP
article without a reliable source relating it to the subject of this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Raskolnikov.Rev, you might be working to incorrect assumptipns about the use of WP:GUNREL generally unreliable sources. When there's a sensitive issue or a BLP dimension, we should be extra careful in avoiding GUNREL sources. But if you think this doesn't count as such as case (and I think it does) we should still avoid. It's not that we can use them apart from in the case of a highly controversial topic; rather, it's the other way around - we can only use them in exceptional circumstances. Here's the policy:
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I oppose the inclusion of the earlier Haaretz source that doesn’t mention SWW for speculation that it’s the same witness, unless we have an actually reliable source discussing both articles. I don’t see what it adds anyway. If Haaretz is added back, it needs to be clear that this was earlier (eg the word “had reported”) and with a synth tag. Given the synth tag was there for a while, onus for finding consensus is on those who want to include.
2) I oppose the use of EI for as unreliable for reasons already given. Onus for seeking consensus here is on those arguing for inclusion, as it’s a gunrel source used for sensitive BLP content.
3) I have no opinion on Yes! magazine, which I believe was recently added. I am
unfamiliar with the source and the author so don’t know if it is considered reliable. Assuming it’s reliable: If it is indeed recent, then onus for consensus is on those seeking inclusion, but if it’s been there for a while onus is on those seeking to remove. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite what I meant. I figure since EI isn't considered reliable, the question becomes whether Ali Abunimah himself is reliable under the rules for self-published sources. I think he might be if not for WP:BLPSPS.
I wanted to understand what Abunimah was saying in case the connection turned out to be more or less incontrovertible, like if there was a clarifying email from Karol himself or something. In that case it might be reasonable to invoke WP:IAR, or at least I wouldn't be inclined to personally enforce the rules.
I think the connection Abunimah makes seems very plausible but there are some (reasonable but unproven) assumptions behind it, as I mentioned earlier. So I think both the letter and spirit of BLP would tell us to ignore the purported connection entirely, unless a reliable source can be found.
Attributed statements can sometimes help make questionable sources passable, but I don't think it would help in this case where there seem to be pretty clear BLP violations inherent to the use of the source. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the other sources become synthesis without Abunimah. Either we're relying on a non-BLP-compliant source's synthesis or we're doing our own synthesis. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it seems like a serious BLP issue at least in spirit. The authors who didn't name Karol probably weren't 100% sure if it was the same person, and if feels very wrong to imply wrongdoing based on sources which could possibly be talking about a different individual. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your view is not relevant. The content and reliability of the source is.
Aron Gupta is a journalist who has published in The Guardian, Washington Post and The Intercept, and wrote an investigative report in Yes! Magazine wherein he explicitly refers to Karol's testimony as contained in SWW not backing up" Sapir's. It has nothing to do with the earlier Haaretz piece.
Your removal of it is a serious violation of NPOV, and it should be restored immediately.
I also support restoring the Haaretz part with the synthesis tag for now as the debate continues on inclusion of EI in talk, but that is a separate matter from the Gupta on which there is no question at all that your edit violates NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Gupta is indeed a reputable journalist so I have no objection to citation of this article in general. The current citation was introduced yesterday, 21 August, so onus for getting consensus is on the editors seeking inclusion, not those seeking removal. I note Gupta does not name Karol, which means it is at least veering into SYNTH. He says only this: Since both Sapir and Cohen’s accounts surfaced, a different companion who hid with each one has since come forward. The Times interviewed both, and their accounts don’t back up those of Sapir or Cohen. This is a little opaque to me, and is not fleshed out. I would suggest that if we restore this citation, we should include that quote in the ref, so readers can think it through themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating my view on policy matters, not on the events.
Gupta's credentials aren't really relevant, since we always need a reliable secondary source for information about living persons. Absent that, we can't be sure if Gupta's explanation would survive a rigorous fact-checking or editorial review process. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synth issue is now resolved as we have another source (which is not GUNREL) identifying Karol as the same person referenced in the Haaretz article. There's also no compelling reason to consider Yes magazine unreliable. I made sure to use the language BobFromBrockley recommended and put direct quotes whenever I could. All statements are correctly attributed to the journalists/publications involved so nothing is presented in Wiki voice. - Ïvana (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, seems like a reasonable solution which indeed avoids synthesis.
My only complaint now is with Yes! - aside from any BLP questions, their accounts don't back up those of Sapir or Cohen just doesn't seem meaningful since the author doesn't elaborate at all. The Fathom content is so much more specific and substantiated. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As BobFromBrockley suggested, by including the direct quote, readers can form their own judgments about the reasonableness of Gupta's conclusion. The Sapir testimony is right there, as is the Karol one. Gupta's detailed investigative report concludes that Karol's testimony does not support Sapir's. You may disagree, but that's not relevant to whether it is justified to include on the page. - Ïvana (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Yes! magazine is RS, I guess we can infer it’s Karol being mentioned in that sentence. It’s veering towards SYNTH. Including Ha’aretz is more speculative (as acknowledged in the word “possible” in the sub-head), as it doesn’t refer to SWW. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the Haaretz piece is months older than SWW so couldn’t possibly mention it. That’s definitely SYNTH BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As posted on the main page on gender violence, this article should be examined and revise in the light of studies now emerging at a distance from the event. For example Statement on the Evidence of Sexualized Violence Against Israeli Women During Hamas' Attack on October 7, 2023 Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security10 February 2024. It only mentions the Karol-Sapir testimonies en passant, but in a context of discussing flaws in the investigation.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That piece might be worth mining for this article - although more for the main page on gender violence than this article - but probably not for the Karol issue, which it doesn't illuminate: Sapir supported her verbal testimony with photographs of her hiding spot in which another survivor, Yura Karol, a security consultant, was also present. Karol similarly described having seen women being raped and killed from this hiding spot. The NYT article offered one of the most comprehensive understandings of the evidence of sexualized violence at the time and affirmed the necessity that these testimonies be taken seriously.
I also don't think this source can really be used in relation to the Gal Abdush story, which it devotes more spaces to (two paragraphs) because it sources what it says about that exclusively to Twitter posts by Max Blumenthal.
Where it is strongest in relation to the NYT investigation is on the unreliability of ZAKA, and I would be very happy for us to augment or replace the Intercept citation on that issue to this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Ïvana, @Raskolnikov.Rev and @CoolAndUniqueUsername that the Haaretz/Ware section should remain as is, and with the former two that the cell should be shaded as pink. Haaretz is WP:RS and backed by Ware who is also WP:RS as referring to Yura Karol. Including the argument for why such a conflict exists leaves it up for the reader to decide, but the fact that there is such a conflict is clear. In any case the Gupta reference, which clearly meets WP:RS and the bar for BLP, also points out a conflict in the testimony, so pink shading is justified here. Lf8u2 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this remains problematic. We now have Ha'aretz (who don't mention Karol or Screams, and published before Screams), then John Ware "confirming" that Ha'aretz are talking about the same person, then Gupta. I've already said why I think Ha'aretz shouldn't be here. The Ware doesn't confirm. He says: The previous month Haaretz referred briefly to what sounds like the same incident but without any names. And Gupta's mention is also brief and opaque. In short, none of this is due, and is either synthesis or verging on it, and the use of Ware is misleading. Ware is the only one of the three who talks about Karol in any detail, and Ware refutes the allegatoin of contradiction so it shouldn't be shaded pink. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC) [Note: I have listed this on the OR/N for extra eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Ware does confirm Karol's identity; otherwise, he wouldn't devote time arguing that his statements are not contradictory. He is directly referencing the Haaretz article, which justifies its inclusion for context. Ware contests whether the discrepancies between Karol's testimony, as recounted by Haaretz and also referenced in the NYT, are significant or indicative of unreliability. He concludes that we cannot know without comparing both testimonies in full; he is only questioning the content of the statements, not their source, which is unequivocally Karol. I made sure to include his reasoning so readers can form their own conclusions. Ware is offering his own analysis of why the two versions of Karol's testimony are contradictory. This does not negate the fact that the allegations of unreliability existed in the first place, otherwise, he wouldn't be responding to them (which is why I highlighted the row in pink).
Gupta also notices the contradictions and points them out: Since both Sapir and Cohen's accounts surfaced, a different companion who hid with each one has since come forward. The Times interviewed both, and their accounts don't back up those of Sapir or Cohen. There is no other secondary witness to Sapir cited in that NYT piece (which is linked in the Yes article), so I don't see how there is any room for confusion. Who else could it possibly be? - Ïvana (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ware is acknowledging that the connection seems to be likely; that's not really a confirmation.
Gupta doesn't mention anything about a contradiction. It's one vague sentence with no elaboration; let's not read into it something it doesn't say. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Ware doesn't really "confirm" the connection (so we should at least fix the inaccurate "confirmed" wording), but I suppose his discussion of it (even in uncertain terms) makes it no longer strictly synthesis. In principle we could mention Haaretz's article based only on the Ware source. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BobFromBrockley and xDanielx on 1 point but disagree with the rest.
Agree: Karol's entry in the table should not be marked in pink. Ware is a reliable source who has explained why they think Karol did not contradict himself. Gupta is another reliable source who explained the opposite. Given WP:BLP, we should not label Karol as contradictory.
Disagree: Haaretz is in WP:RSP and their work as the on-the-ground journalist cannot be deleted. The article should point out contradictions especially when the contradiction is with a published article in a newspaper of record. WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION applies here. The article doesn't combine reports from different reliable sources to form a new thesis. Instead, each report is summarized and provided for the reader. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Magazine

[edit]

@Raskolnikov.Rev, Ïvana, and Bobfrombrockley: I don't think this is really a suitable as a WP:BLPSOURCE, particularly for accusations of false testimony which are clearly "contentious material about living persons".

I don't see any discussions of Yes! on RSN, but it seems to be a (more or less) freelance-only magazine, where articles very much have the appearance of opinion pieces or personal essays. Like most Yes! articles, this one doesn't really purport to be objective. See also the author's Twitter which is 100% anti-Israeli content.

That said, I do think the NPOV concerns are valid. Hopefully we can find a satisfactory BLP-compliant solution, like a different source which scrutinizes Sapir in a more objective and journalistic manner. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Magazine is not a freelance blog that randomly publishes content; it is an award-winning journalistic outlet with a professional editorial staff, which adheres to strict editorial policies and standards. Its editorial team comprises seasoned journalists, many of whom have received significant awards for their work. The author of the piece in question is a reputable investigative journalist with contributions to notable publications such as the Washington Post, The Guardian, The Nation and The Intercept. His Twitter posts—and interpretations of them—do not affect the credibility of his investigative report published in a respected journalistic outlet. The conclusions of the investigation stand independently of personal opinions about the source's reliability. I have also included The Intercept as a reliable source that supports Gupta's conclusions regarding the lack of corroborating physical evidence from the police. If you have concerns about the magazine and feel it needs to be deprecated feel free to start the process, but this is not the place for that. - Ïvana (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source has accolades of some sort. RT describes itself as an eleven-time Emmy finalist which works with Pulitzer prize winners (both technically correct), yet it's WP:DEPREC. There's no default assumption of reliability. Particularly with accusations against living persons, the default should be to hold off until we have some signals indicating reliability. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your personal opinions about Yes Magazine not being reliable or "objective" (using your own words, bias doesn't inherently imply unreliability) are not relevant to this page, and any comparisons to RT or whatever else are just grasping at straws. It's plainly not a violation of WP:RS; it's a recognized and respected, highly awarded journalistic outlet, with an editorial staff comprised of respected and renowned journalists, and the journalist in question is reputable and widely published in other respected and renowned outlets. Moreover, the Intercept backs up core parts of their conclusion. Again, if you want to get the magazine deprecated because you think it's like RT, do that in the respective venue. This is not the place for it. - Ïvana (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, posted on BLP/N. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! is a member of the The Trust Project. Other members include reputable sources like The Washington Post, CBC News, and South China Morning Post. They have been a member since 2020. You can find out about The Trust Project's vetting process here.
The journalist's social media activity is not material. The editors of Yes! fact-checked the claims and applied their editorial standards. We must, of course, be careful when it comes to WP:BLPSOURCES and in this case it is clear that the source is reliable and not of the tabloid variety. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with this source or the journalist, but the journalist has a long track record. It doesn't matter that they are biased if they are reliable. John Ware (journalist), biased in the other direction but in my view probably also reliable, devotes quite a bit of space to criticising Yes! here, categorising it as "alt-media". Might be worth taking it to RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) [[Note: I have listed this on the RS/N for extra eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Only two editors contributed to the RSN discussion before it was auto-archived here. One editor felt it is weakly reliable with attribution, the other that it goes beyond bias to unreliability on this topic, the latter noting an edit elsewhere by a third editor who had considered it unreliable source on this topic. That means at this point we have three editors arguing it is unreliable for this topic, two that it is weakly reliable with attribution, two that it is strongly reliable. I read that as no consensus. I would err towards caution when BLP is relevant though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the other editor assessment in the RSN discussion about the outlet publishing "questionable I/P content" especially with the example provided (this article). The article is citing Israel's Channel 12 broadcast, something that numerous RS have also done; it also links to some RS discussing it (like CNN, Hareetz and Btselem). The magazine doesn't say anything in their own voice ("they appear to sexually violate him", "It is thought that this footage corroborates recent allegations" - emphasis is mine). And they interviewed the director of US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. That's pretty much what the article is about. It was removed from the Sde Teiman page on the basis that it is not a RS (and it was also used to support an edit that included loaded language, which I would also have removed - but the source itself is good with attribution). The list of RS is not and will never be complete so unless something is explicitly GUNREL then we should use our own judgement. I don't see how this particular example makes them "less than reliable for the I/P conflict". In both the other article and the one being used here they act as secondary sources reporting on what other RS have already said. And in Gupta's case, consensus is that he is reliable, same as Ware. - Ïvana (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BobFromBrockley, I'm curious why you're not counting the people who have voiced an opinion in this talk page about Yes! Magazine?
  • I provided quantitative data demonstrating Yes! is a reliable source.
  • So has Ivana.
  • From the noticeboard, ActivelyDisinterested confirms it's a reliable source (contrary to your interpretation of their vote. They only said that Yes! acknowledges that this topic is different from what they usually report on, which is called communicating with journalistic integrity, not being unreliable.)
  • Ivana has provided a thorough analysis of why FortunateSons' argument doesn't hold water.
  • Lf8u2 has voted for Yes! being a reliable source
  • xDanielx has voted against
I see the votes as 4 for and 1 against when you include all votes, with FortunateSons' argument being nullified by Ivana's rebuttal. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, paged the wrong Bob. Paging @Bobfrombrockley CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did count the arguments on this page, but perhaps I put ActivelyDisinterested in the wrong category BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the Gupta piece in Yes! magazine reliable if it's attributed, and in general it meets the BLP requirement for a high quality source. How it's used or if it should be included aren't questions I won't to be involved in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arun Gupta is a credible journalist as pointed out by @Ïvana, @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Bobfrombrockley and @CoolAndUniqueUsername. This is evidenced by his extensive publishing background in respected and reliable journalistic outlets (WaPo, Guardian, Nation, Intercept). And as others noted, Yes! Magazine is a credible journalistic outlet itself (multiple journalism awards won, award-winning journalists on its editorial board, part of respected and field-standard journalistic integrity organizations, etc.). Both combined ensure that WP:RS is clearly not violated and the bar for BLP is satisfied. So we should keep the Gupta/Yes! Magazine reference as is; we should keep the Ware/Haaretz section as is; and we should shade the cell as pink since there clearly is a contradiction. Lf8u2 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. think this is a useful ref Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Haaretz is not reliability but synth, as it was published prior to the text this WP article is supposedly about, as per discussion in the relevant section above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware but the synth issue was resolved by the Ware reference as noted by @Ïvana and @CoolAndUniqueUsername. Your latest edit has further strengthened keeping both in and leaving it up to readers to decide. That plus the Gupta reference is sufficient to shade the cell pink imo. Lf8u2 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that Yes! magazine does display the 'signals' set out in WP:NEWSORG for a news organization that "engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy" -- it has a corrections policy and has an ethics/conflict of interest policy, both for the magazine and for the board. Disagreeing with the content of an external article does not mean it is automatically suspicious/not RS, if that were the case Wikipedia would grind to a halt! For example, in my non-wikipedia-related news consumption generally treat everything Ware says as incredibly suspicious given his previous reporting, but that doesn't mean I disagree with how he is used here given the information itself is cross-validated in other places. I agree with others in the thread - this reference and corresponding pink cell should remain, as should the Ware/Haaretz section. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Screams_Without_Words&oldid=1245553096"