Talk:Forensic Architecture

COI edits

Hi,

A researcher from Forensic Architecture here interested to help fill out this page. In line with the COI guidelines, I'd like to propose and reference some additions to the page:

Forensic Architecture

Forensic Architecture is a multidisciplinary research group that uses architectural rendering software and critical theory to investigate potential war crimes and human rights violations. The University of London-based group is led by architect Eyal Weizman.

The agency develops new evidentiary techniques and undertakes advanced architectural and media research with and on behalf of communities affected by state violence, and routinely work in partnership with international prosecutors, human rights organisations and political and environmental justice groups.

The agency is comprised of an interdisciplinary team of investigators including architects, scholars, artists, filmmakers, software developers, investigative journalists, archaeologists, lawyers, and scientists. It undertakes investigations in human rights violations by states or corporations, on behalf of civil society groups.

The group uses advanced architectural and media techniques to investigate armed conflicts and environmental destruction, as well as to cross-reference a variety of evidence sources, such as new media, remote sensing, material analysis, and witness testimony.

Forensic architecture is also an academic field developed at the Centre for Research Architecture, at Goldsmiths, University of London. It refers to the production and presentation of architectural evidence – buildings and urban environments and their media representations.

History

Forensic Architecture was formed in 2010 as a research project within the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths, University of London.

Forensic Architecture developed as a response to several converging phenomena, such as the urbanisation of warfare, the erosion of trust in evidence in relation to state crimes and human rights violations, the emergence and proliferation of open source media (or 'image flotsam'), the increased use of smartphone footage in documenting human rights violations in urban conflict, and the need for civil society to have its own means of evidence production for application in law, politics and advocacy.

The first project undertaken by Forensic Architecture was an investigation into the killing of Bassem Abu Rahma in Bil’in, for human rights lawyer and activist Michael Sfard, and eventually presented to the Supreme Court of Israel.

In 2011, a team was launched within Forensic Architecture to conduct investigations into the policies of European national and international authorities in relation to migration across the Mediterranean. The team, Forensic Oceanography, published its first investigation in 2012, telling the story of the deaths of seventy-three migrants who were left drifting for two weeks within NATO’s maritime surveillance area.

In 2012, Forensic Architecture presented a report to a meeting of states party to the UN’s Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on the use of airburst white phosphorus munitions in urban environments, in regard to the Israeli attacks on Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, known as ‘Operation Cast Lead’. The report eventually led Israel to admit for the first time the use of such munitions, and later to declare that the IDF would stop using white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. Also that year, the agency conducted an investigation with SITU Studio and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism titled ‘Where the Drones Strike’, on behalf of the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights.

In 2013, the project was awarded a second European Research Council grant to develop a multimedia data-aggregation and -visualisation platform called Pattrn. Pattrn enables its users to anonymously collate and share first-hand reports of events ‘on the ground’ and to make sense of information by combining and visualising different forms of media and information. The tool was employed by Forensic Architecture in their Gaza Platform, an interactive map of attacks by Israeli forces on Gaza between 8 July and 26 August 2014, developed in partnership with Amnesty International.

In 2015, in partnership with Amnesty International, Forensic Architecture collected and analysed mobile phone footage of hundreds of explosions in the city of Rafah, Gaza, during the city’s ‘Black Friday’ of 1 August 2014. By analysing the shape and movement of bomb clouds captured in mobile phone footage, Forensic Architecture’s researchers located and mapped hundreds of Israeli strikes on the city.

In 2016, also in partnership with Amnesty International, Forensic Architecture conducted an investigation into Syria’s Saydnaya Prison, interviewing surviving detainees who had been blindfolded or kept in darkness for most of the years they had spent in the space, and reconstructing the dimensions of the prison through a process of ‘ear witnessing’.

In 2017, Forensic Architecture produced a video investigation into the presence of a member of the German intelligence services at the scene of the 2006 killing by neo-Nazis of a Turkish internet cafe owner. Forensic Architecture conducted physical experiments which cast doubt on the testimony of the secret service agent. The results of their video and written reports were ultimately referenced in both federal and state parliamentary inquiries in Germany, as well as the trial of the remaining NSU members in Munich.

Fellows and PhD students who have been part of the Forensic Architecture programme include Susan Schuppli, John Palmesino, Lorenzo Pezzani and Charles Heller (co-founders of the Forensic Oceanography project), Lawrence Abu Hamdan, Shela Sheikh, Adrian Lahoud, Anselm Franke, Ayesha Hameed, Thomas Keenan, Paulo Tavares, Francesco Sebregondi, Maayan Amir,Ariel Caine and Stefanos Levidis.

• NEEDS SOURCES

Methodology

Forensic Architecture describes forensic work as operating across three spaces: the field, the laboratory, and the forum.

Lacking the privileges of the state’s forensic process - access, resources and the power to set the rules of evidence - the agency employs ‘counter-forensics’: the process of turning the "forensic gaze" onto the actions of the state. This includes operating in multiple forums, or public spaces, engaging not only with parliamentary and juridical processes but also museums, art galleries, citizens’ tribunals, and the media.

Exhibitions

Forensic Architecture’s first major international exhibition, Towards an Investigative Aesthetics, was displayed first at the Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art, then at the University Museum of Contemporary Art in Mexico City. The exhibition set Forensic Architecture’s work in the context of the history of forensic aesthetics.

The agency’s second major exhibition, Counter Investigations: Forensic Architecture, was displayed at London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts in 2018, and presented the theory and principles behind Forensic Architecture’s work through a selection of their recent projects.

In April 2018, it was announced that Forensic Architecture would represent the UK in the second London Design Biennale.

Solo exhibitions

Institution	Location	Year	Title
Institute of Contemporary Arts	London	2018	Counter Investigations: Forensic Architecture
Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art	Barcelona	2017	Forensic Architecture: Towards an Investigative Aesthetics
University Museum of Contemporary Art	Mexico City	2017	Forensic Architecture: Towards an Investigative Aesthetics

Exhibition contributions

TO COMPLETE, FORMATTING

References

References

Further reading

• use the {{cite web}} template for these
• https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018645123/forensic-architecture-when-buildings-become-evidence
• https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/forensic-architecture-using-technology-to-expose-injustice/10030473.article?blocktitle=top-2-news-stories&contentID=19633

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/170730/plus/through-the-eyes-of-a-pioneering-forensic-architect-252244.html http://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaza-data-forensics https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531420-900-how-to-make-right-state-wrongs/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2017-Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1504998569 https://www.ica.art/whats-on/short-course-forensic-architecture-counter-forensics

As mentioned above, I would appreciate some help to include a bibliography and exhibitions list in the appropriate format. Thanks in advance for your advice and comments.

Bob Trafford 1990 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Some places to start:

• Rmv sources affiliated with FA. If the partnerships with Amnesty, ERC are important, the basics of the work should be covered in and cited to reliable, secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, major blogs with reputations for accuracy, e.g., through editorial pedigree or fact-checking process).

- OK, is this also true where using ERC as a source is to evidence factual claims e.g. funding given by ERC? - otherwise, Amnesty/ERC links removed

• Similarly, rmv primary sources such as university pages about FA doc students. If the doc students are important to mention by name, a secondary source will prominently mention those individuals.

- OK, I have removed primary sources and will do another search for primary sources, and leave in what researchers we can on that basis

• Distribute the refs & claims from the lead/lede paragraph throughout the article. The lede should summarize the body of the article and as long as it paraphrases the article, does not need refs for its repeat claims (save for extraordinary claims that do require a repeat ref).

- Done

• If you have other secondary sources that are not currently used but could be, dump them in the section I opened above

- Done

• Turn the exhibitions section into a list with show name, location, year, unless you have prose to add to each. Exhibitions can also be a list and, if needed, you can elaborate on each within the earlier History or Cases section. (Ideally the cases would be part of History too so it can read better as prose.)

- Done, though I'm not sure if I used the right kind of list format - exhibition contributions still to come, a longer list - Cases merged into history

czar 10:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: above, the logic is that secondary, reliable sources cover everything worth paraphrasing. So if the ERC funding isn't mentioned in a secondary, reliable source, it likely isn't worth mentioning. I can reformat the exhibitions list later—doesn't need to be complete, but should have major exhibitions. Can format as a text list rather than using a table (e.g., Nadia Kaabi-Linke#Selected exhibitions). May not be necessary to list at all if each exhibition is described in prose. Goal is to maximize removal of primary sources unless there is exceptional cause to include a specific, uncontroversial detail that wasn't mentioned by secondary sources. czar 10:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Images

Hello Bob Trafford 1990. Can you ask Forensic Architecture to upload some free images to Wikimedia (and perhaps the logo of the agency as well)? I am currently writing the Hebrew version of the article. Images will greatly improve the entry, present some prominent case studies, and allow us to explain the methodology of the agency visually (image-data complex especially, as far as I'm concerned). Thanks, Roi Boshi רועי בושי (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi [User:רועי בושי], we'd be very happy to help you in that respect. I will arrange for some captioned images to be uploaded to Wikimedia. We're pleased by the prospect of a Hebrew article on us, and would be happy to support its presentation and accuracy in any other way, if there's anything else you can think of. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.47.83 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you very much for the quick answer. Hurray! I'm very happy to hear that you're going to upload some pictures. This will greatly strengthen the articles. Please update me here when it is done.

I would be very grateful if you would review the Hebrew article. Ariel Caine can certainly read it, if he has time (Regards to Ariel). The basis was a translation of the English article, but from there I continued to expand on subjects that interested me. Thanks again, Roi Boshi רועי בושי (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures! רועי בושי (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If this [1] is deleted solely due to the bizarre editing restrictions in place on this article, would someone with the allowable credentials restore it. I was adding the content to another article, and thought it should be added here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.118.48 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

unreliable sources

NGO Monitor has an established consensus as an unreliable source, Honest Reporting has had similar results at RSN over the years even if no RFC. Neither of them are reliable to include in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 20:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Concur that NGO Monitor is partisan hackery and undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, should probably remove it then, as one user has seen fit to attempt to edit-war it in. nableezy - 21:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:Bias: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'"

WP:NPOVHOW: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. (...) Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

NPOV demands all viewpoints be represented. You cannot just delete criticism

Nableezy, the edit you reverted correctly attributed these sources of the criticism as pro-Israel. The removed text did not misinform or mislead that their criticism of FA is an objective opinion. I will be reverting your reversion. Please review Wikipedia standards. --Scharb (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You need reliable sources discussing FA to include that view in the article on FA. Using unreliable sources is a not one of the options here. You also need to review WP:ONUS, simply re-reverting over somebody is going to result in a report to arbitration enforcement for edit-warring. When your edit is challenged you need to establish a consensus for it. This is not about the neutrality of the sources, it is about their unreliability. nableezy - 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of my points. Scharb (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, sentence like "as al-Haq which have been designated "terror-linked NGOs" by the Israeli government" is unacceptable, as the Israeli government has come up with exactly zero proof of their allegation, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Israeli government designated those groups as "terror-linked NGOs" Scharb (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It is also a fact that the Israeli government has told a lot of lies over the years, and that not even the CIA found any evidence of it being "terror-linked", Read the Al-Haq#Terrorist_designation_by_Israel cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't pertinent to my edit, and that's your own point of view.

--Scharb (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I could give you a long list of lies the Israeli government has told over the years (in fact; I am here because of that: for the nearly 30 first years of my life I was an ardent Israel-supporter. Then the Israeli spokesman told one lie too many.) But my main argument is that there is zero outside support of al-Haq being "terror-linked". ZERO. Huldra (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"not reliable for facts"

yes, that's why my edit explicitly stated that it was an opinion and correctly noted the source's bias. Scharb (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to establish weight for a viewpoint. You have none. nableezy - 21:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article in JPost discussing NGOM's criticism of FA. Scharb (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, the sole part of that article that discusses FA is The watchdog group added that the head of Forensic Architecture is Eyal Weitzman, a former board member of Israeli NGO B’Tselem, who signed a petition during the 2009 Gaza conflict calling for the UN Security Council and the EU to impose sanctions on Israel. nableezy - 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, that corroborates the edit you reverted and the POV you are attempting to suppress. Scharb (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not, and anybody can see that it does not. You do not have reliable sources for the material you inserted, and absent that there is nothing really left to discuss here. If you do get reliable sources, then we can discuss weight. nableezy - 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion." Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight

You have no leg to stand on. Scharb (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable for its own opinion. But absent a reliable source discussing that opinion it has no weight to be included. And besides you there is unanimous agreement on this talk page about that. nableezy - 23:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change:

"Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. (...)

Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)."

Discussion is encouraged on wikipedia. You are misstating every single one of wikipedia's standards. --Scharb (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool story. I promise if you edit war this material in I will report that to arbitration enforcement. Consensus may change, but until it does this is out. nableezy - 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You forgot what follows: "However, not all sources have relevant opinions. Please do not give the opinions of sources undue weight". This is completely WP:UNDUE, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. "

You are claiming that it is undue weight to even mention this viewpoint, which clearly contradicts the above-quoted policy. Scharb (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

All significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. There aren’t any reliable sources here. nableezy - 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I already quoted: Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and I also added a mention of the criticism from the Jerusalem Post. Scharb (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve answered both parts of that already. nableezy - 00:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)