Talk:Screams Before Silence

Recent contentious edits and reversions
I discovered that some IPs have been adding purely negative content about the documentary and citing unreliable sources. The two sources cited are from The Electronic Intifada and YouTube.

Please be informed that both sources are unreliable according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP). The policy states:
 * The Electronic Intifada (EI) - 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.

Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
 * YouTube - Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all.

So, please, be conscious of the sources you cite on such a page that attracts so much attention. If there are reliable WP:RS that has same negative content, then such can be allowed within the confines of Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not interested in anybody's truth. Cheers everyone!Georgeee101 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The EI source being provided directly addresses the content of the documentary. The substance of the disagreement is over the factual nature and motivation of claims of a campaign of mass rape.  Currently the article presents these claims as fact without qualification, despite an ongoing scandal about the credibility of these claims and their sources (ZAKA, Jeffrey Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, etc. - see Screams Without Words).  This seems to at the least violate WP:NPOV.  Recommend finding a way to at least mention with attribution that there's criticism of the documentary, which I'm going to try in a moment. Asonnlakn (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Asonnlakn Please be informed The Electronic Intifada (EI) is unreliable according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP). The policy states:


 * The Electronic Intifada (EI) - 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.


 * I read it. My edit (the "Criticism" section) attributed it, as WP:RSP required.  Why was the edit reversed?  As I said, this is introducing bias WP:NPOV by omitting any criticism and treating unverifiable claims as fact.  Speaking from my own perspective, not sure why EI is considered unreliable either, it's far more methodical and evidence-based than the documentary this entire page is about. Asonnlakn (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also clearly a dispute about whether or not EI is reliable on the sources linked in WP:RSP, not a consensus. WP:RSP has been edited accordingly.
 * @Daniel Case asking you as the admin who added contentious topic protection - what is the best course of action to get these edits included? I'm not as fluent in Wikipedia rules as some. The specific source in question is very well-cited and raises major concerns about the factual accuracy of this documentary, but even properly attributed references to an outlet disputing it (as required in the previous status in WP:RSP) are being reversed.  As a result we're just seeing any and every mention of criticism of the documentary being hidden. Asonnlakn (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, this talk page doesn't seem to be protected, so you can open a discussion here, as you seem to have done. But, as noted, EI is not considered a reliable source. You could take this question up at WP:RS/N (I'd look at previous discussions of EI first; they should be linked from the quoted bit at RSP, linked above).
 * You could also find other sources of less questionable reliability that express criticism. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , they actually can't do any of that. As this is covered by WP:ARBECR all they can do is make constructive edit requests, not engage in any discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, hadn't checked their user rights (But what about starting discussion about RS/N? That goes beyond more than this article). Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if it's related to ARBPIA. There was a whole clarification at ARCA a few months back. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence construction
The sentence Additionally, the film includes testimonies about rape and sexual assaults by members of ZAKA and other witnesses during the massacre at the Nova Festival and in other places in Israel where the attack took place. is poorly written. It means that members of Zaka and other witnesses committed rape and sexual assaults.

It should be rewritten this way : "Additionally, the film includes testimonies by members of ZAKA and other witnesses about rape and sexual assaults during the massacre at the Nova Festival and in other places in Israel where the attack took place." 176.147.238.79 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)