Talk:Israelism (film)

Inappropriate reference to NBC blog
The latest edit introduced two citations linking to an NBC blog about the fighting between Israel and Hamas. I'm guessing that the editor has in mind the section of the blog titled "Hunter College criticized for canceling screening of film critical of Israel". That section is buried a long way down the blog timeline and is, therefore, inappropriate. I suggest that a publication dealing specifically with the matters mentioned in this article be used as a reference instead. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s verifiable information from a reliable source. Can you point me to the policy that makes it inappropriate? Innisfree987 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate because it is difficult for a reader to find the text being referred to. I suggest that you either find a way of linking to that specific section of the NBC blog or find some other item on the Web which can be linked to directly. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No that’s directly at odds with policy. Sources don’t even have to be on the web, or they could be paywalled—this is all allowed. It only needs to be from a reliable source. WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible." Innisfree987 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd align with Misha here, although I would say "less-than-helpful" rather than "inappropriate". I don't think anyone is proposing a change in prose, just to find a better-functioning link. Moreover, this seems like information that could be backed by other sources already cited in the article (and as a summary of the film itself, it's debatable whether it even needs a citation to begin with). signed,Rosguill talk 16:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill, thanks for your edit. I've replaced the second link (regarding the PEN statement) with one to the full statement on the PEN website. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do see now that vis-a-vis the PEN statement, this puts us on shakier ground as far as whether it's DUE for inclusion, as the live blog appears to be the only secondary source to have picked it up. signed,Rosguill talk 17:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it seems important to include the secondary coverage. For reader convenience, a quote could be included in the citation. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format
I don't know whether this article should follow US (mdy) or International (dmy) date format but "In the aftermath of the October 7th 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the film was ..." seems to follow neither format. Though article 2023 Hamas attack on Israel uses dmy date format, this is an American film so the article should probably use mdy format, ie "October 7, 2023". Misha Wolf (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I've changed the date to dmy format. Misha Wolf (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Errant wikilink
A wikilink has been added to the Independent Spirit Awards but this does not match the source cited, which references the Brooklyn Film Festival Spirit Award. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Now corrected. Thanks for spotting it. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sentence about a "Zionist rabbi"
I removed the description of the rabbi as being a Zionist as the source cited made no mention of him being a Zionist and, what is more, whether he is or is not a Zionist (and if he is, then what kind of Zionist) is not relevant to this article. I removed the words about him being "heckled off the stage" as the source mentioned heckling but not heckling off the stage. I changed the reason for the audience anger from being caused by the moderator asking critical questions to the filmmakers to being caused by the moderator asking his own questions instead of passing on the questions from the audience (as per the source). I removed the mention of the academic departments which were not allowed to sponsor the event as this level of detail is out of sync with the rest of the article. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Concision
I wonder if anyone would object to trimming the section on campaign against the film. Right now the level of detail given to individual episodes reads to me like it’s veering into NOTNEWS territory. Thoughts? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Trimming of the section is OK with me. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticism
The factual claims brought in this film are under a lot of criticism. Therefore, i suggest adding it to this as a topic. Taran te (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you provide examples of coverage of such in reliable sources? Also, be mindful of WP:CSECTION--reception both positive and negative is typically best presented in one cohesive section, rather than cleaving positive and negative opinions. signed,Rosguill talk 15:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)