Talk:Screams Without Words

This seems odd
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)
 * 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)
 * Done. Please see if it is neutral enough. Tbh, it is notable because of the controversy Keizers (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Neutrality issue
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

- since you, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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,, 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)


 * I've done a bit of rejiggering here and there, but I have to say I am bothered by the Anat Schwartz section. It seems over-weighted and a possible BLP issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - I don't agree with the placement of the table, at the bottom, I think it should be just below content, but in the spirit of cooperation and consensus, I will let it slide unless someone else also objects. Now, what BLP issue is there with Anat? Have we (a) misrepresented sources? Or (b) not included some reliable source? I urge you to show us.  starship .paint  (RUN) 23:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's certainly appreciated. I'll get back to you on the Schwartz issue. It's quite a hunk of the article and she was one of three co-authors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just one quick point. I can't fix this as it might violate 1RR. The text The Times conducted a review of Schwartz's social media posts, after a preliminary statement that such activity breaches company policy. is sourced to a very brief Ynet article that does not substantiate that text. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found a Daily Beast article that substantiates that text. Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Daily Beast isn't the best source but this is not urgent.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't urgent especially because the Ynet article already supports the claim. —Alalch E. 02:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight
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)
 * for WP:UNDUE, similarly, are we (a) relying on unreliable sources, (b) what are the sources with opposite views on Anat that show that the current position is overstated?  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sourcing and undue emphasis are entirely separate issues. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - how do we recognise what is "undue emphasis"? Surely there must be some context. I’m not seeing you provide any evidence that there is undue emphasis, you’re simply claiming that there is undue emphasis. Evidence for undue emphasis should obviously be based in reliable sources.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That isnt true, not liking that so many sources focus on Schwartz and her role in the article and her past behavior doesnt negate how much attention that has gotten. You may feel that it should not get that attention, but it has and we should reflect that.  nableezy  - 14:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an edit conflict and what I wanted to add to Coretheapple was: when you object to nearly half of the criticism in this article being focused on Anat, perhaps indeed nearly half or even more of the criticism in the sources are focused on Anat. In that case there is no WP:UNDUE. Also, if I may add on, there is no indication that I know of that the other authors of Screams: Gettleman and Sella, similarly had controversial social media activity or gave an interview about Screams. Therefore it is not surprising that the brunt of criticism has gone to Anat.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My request for you to provide reliable sources to substantiate your claim is still open, . Without your proper substantiation, I do not see why the undue tag should remain. Exactly what reliable sources show that something is missing or de-emphasised from the article such that we have over-emphasised criticism of Anat?  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not the sources but that the article overemphasizes Schwartz's role. It's not complicated. Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.  Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - if that is the approach you make, then exactly how are we failing to convey information fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias? Exactly how has the article overemphasizes Schwartz's role? Please substantiate your claims.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not "the approach I make." That's copied from WP:NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to show that viewpoints are not being presented in proportion to their weight in reliable sources, not just surmise that the balance is off based on sources you think must be out there. Bring sources that show a viewpoint is getting undue weight, either too much or too little, or remove the tag.  nableezy  - 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not "not liking the sources" it's how the article is written. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag, as I see that it's been edited to give proper emphasis to Schwartz,. who is no longer singled out in a separate section. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Let's write a lead section now. —Alalch E. 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I started this. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We could also reduce the volume/number of quotes by around 20% I think. —Alalch E. 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Testimony verbiage
I agree with you that using the word testimony is wrong. Not the right word. Does not mean what it should mean. 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)
 * What's the right word? Keizers (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Account, statement, report, story. —Alalch E. 23:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 . 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)
 * I have fixed the wording. —Alalch E. 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't endorse this removal
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 : Thanks for any input on this. —Alalch E. 06:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first sentence regarding Anat can be kept as it relates to Screams. The second sentence onwards about Corbett is irrelevant.  starship .paint  (RUN) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)

Unrelated publications
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)
 * Actually, accounts of Cohen and Gueta are discussed in the Intercept article 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)

Alalch E.'s edit about Mondoweiss
"anonymous group of Palestinian journalists in Israel". What is the source for this claim ? Deblinis (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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" ? entered that text on the article on 11 March 2024 . --- Deblinis (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Formatting of Raz Cohena and Shoam Gueta testimony
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)

Categories and NPOV
@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)

Synthesis
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)

Merge table into prose?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)