Talk:Screams Before Silence

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration articles

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Jewish Women

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

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 Wikipedia: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.

YouTube - Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Asonnlakn Please be informed The Electronic Intifada (EI) is unreliable according to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Daniel Case, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I note that the two unreliable sources have now been added again. I am taking it that the consensus here is that we should not cite them for that reason (that would be my strong opinion, as non-RS criticisms are not noteworthy unless there are reliable secondary sources mentioning their criticisms, in which case we would cite the secondary sources). I appreciate that editors have NPOV concerns, but if there are no criticisms in RSs, then there is no need to introduce criticism for the sake of it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Briahna Joy Gray review is a segment from The Hill, which does not violate WP:RS. I have added a secondary source referencing it to Sandberg herself, also establishing notability.

I have also added a source where journalist Ali Abunimah critically reviews the Sandberg documentary, and kept the EI as a non-primary source that is directly referenced in it. If consensus can be found to keep it, the tag can be removed, and if not the reference to the review can be removed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable sources should be removed and the WP:COATRACK trimmed, and I have done so. Andre🚐 01:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's more than bad grammar and bad hasbara. It must be karma: as employees of ZAKA, like Yehuda Meshi Zahav, his two brothers and other employees were over nearly 40-year period accused of multiple cases of rape, sexual abuse - some made by minors: ZAKA emergency group co-founder accused of multiple cases of rape, sexual abuse, TOI, 2021 + The international Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA) --91.54.16.203 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]