Talk:Anat Schwartz

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" - 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. 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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Wikipedia editors' dislike of EU actions doesn't favor into their relevance to articles. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Regardless of how long her career is, this is what she is clearly notable for. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * - are you aware of reliable sources that can supposedly balance the article more? If there are such sources, we can balance the article more. If there aren’t, then the article is not unbalanced. WP:BALANCE says assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Clearly her post October 7 actions have high prominence in sources reporting on her. It is up to you to provide evidence for other aspects’ prominence.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's two issues:
 * 1) the relative weight of the last eight months versus the rest of her life. Yes, the former have more prominence, but if that's all we have then it's a BLP1E and we should delete the article and keep the longer one about the NYT reporting. (In arguing against deletion at the last AfD, various editors said this wasn't a BLP1E because she had a record in film etc, but the article doesn't reflect that.) That's not about WP:BALANCE really. My starting point would be to remove the paragraph on Keshet12 as it's not really relevant to a biography, plus check what sources there are on the rest of her career.
 * 2) In terms of WP:BALANCE, there's an issue of whether critical sources are given more weight than positive ones. Looking now, the current version doesn't seem that unbalanced, although there are loads of RSs that did fairly positive secondary reporting about the three NYT articles she co-authored in December, which aren't reflected here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that last sentence, as these don't mention her name; they generally just say "the New York Times". They should be in the article about the article. (Similarly, criticisms of the article that don't mention her name shouldn't be here either.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard disagree with remove the paragraph on Keshet12 as it's not really relevant to a biography. This is reliable secondary coverage of the subject telling the world how she did her most notable work. Of course it’s relevant to her. Her actions, her words and her prominent work. Plus, it helps readers gain a better understanding over why her reporting was criticised.  starship .paint  (RUN) 05:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the UNDUE tag - her involvement in the Screams Without Words controversy represents the most significant aspect of her public notability. As highlighted by Letdown101, Iskandar323, and starship.paint, this has garnered extensive coverage in reliable sources. Content should be weighted in proportion to its prominence; therefore, it is appropriate for her article to extensively cover this incident, including the paragraph on her remarks in the Keshet12 interview, as it provides essential context regarding her actions and public responses. Efforts to balance the article should accurately reflect the depth and significance of this event, while also incorporating sourced information about Schwartz's broader career where available. - Ïvana (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the broad consensus is that this is not unbalanced and that Keshet12 para should stay. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)