Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 1

Times of Israel and the Jerusalem Post

While reading through this article I've noticed that more than half of the cited sources come from, the Times of Israel and the Jerusalem Post. As these news sources are affiliated with the State of Israel, It would be best if other non Arab/Israeli news sources are used to prevent any potential bias. (Reuters, Amnesty International, etc) It is important to note that I am not denying that such attacks have happened I am simply stating that reliable sources not affiliated with the State of Israel be used to prevent any potential bias if present. Nonameafghan (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there :), thanks for bringing this up. I've added more diverse sources. Please feel free to point out more issues. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article about the massive sexual violence committed since 1948 by the Israelis. Dl.thinker (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Disruptive and trolling comments like this could get you banned from this topic area. Longhornsg (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment is not disruptive. I only mentioned it to raise a fact. [1], [2], [3] are just a few examples. Dl.thinker (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please try and only discuss issues about this article. Any help is appreciated of course. Please leave discussion about other things outside. This article is on sexual violence in 7/10. Sadly its a very notable topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you feel about the fact that Israelis have been repeatedly caught lying, and have provided no evidence for "widespread sexual violence" besides "believe me or you hate Jews"? 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:B157:A2A2:CE47:3D32 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree this is a topic specific page which needs to focus on the actual event. I can confirm that there are extensive detailed Wikipedia pages covering previous conflicts and pogroms. I would not expect to find those mentioned here.

Thank you editors for creating the page. I watched the media conference covering the forensic detail. I’m wondering if there is an official transcript of that conference? If possible that would be helpful. I am glad to be able to point people to this page, as I am yet to see coverage on our public broadcasters in Australia. I will certainly be keeping my eye open for any.

Does anyone know what the policy or practice is in regard to memes? I am guessing there would need to be media coverage to include these, but I have seen some that I think speak to the complicit silence on this. I will keep my eye open for such an article. EthicalAugur (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong phrase… it’s not really complicit silence I was thinking of, nor false equivalence, but whatever it is when blame is shifted. EthicalAugur (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There are indeed pages on specific events so I don't find this page is extraordinary in this regard. I'm afraid I did not really understand your meaning regarding memes :). Homerethegreat (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like people bringing up the fact that Israel and the IDF systematically use rape for the purpose of interrogation and torture doesn't mean that anything he said is "disruptive" or "trolling". Sorry bro. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:B157:A2A2:CE47:3D32 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to make that page. Just be sure to scrutinize & treat all claims devoid of any evidence other than testimony to be presumed false as you do for Jewish rape victims. And, maybe after that you can create an article about the sadistic amount of sexual violence committed by Muslims against Jews & many other peoples over the last 1400 years starting with the serial rapist "prophet" Muhammad who enslaved thousands of Jewish children & women into concubinage aka sex slavery. Muhammad took Rayhānah bint Zayd, a Jewish women of the Banu Nadir as his "wife" by force, and began raping her on the very same day he murdered her actual husband, and the rest of her family. Muhammad did the same to his Jewish "wife" Safiyya bint Huyayy, raping her on the very same day he had tortured her husband Kenana with a hot iron poker, before beheading him, and the rest of her family. There are four separate suras in the Quran which detail how to treat ones sex slaves. So, it was no surprise on October 7th to see the thousands of comments made by Arab Muslims in Gaza, and Muslims throughout the MENA celebrating the "war bounties" taken by HAMAS, and how raping war bounties is "halal". 2601:587:4302:1620:55C9:A60:8DBF:A7F9 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

1. off topic

2. source?

cheers, Nonameafghan (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

how about the fact that all the non-Israeli sources you added are really just requoting what Israeli sources have said? Absolutely nothing but rote repetition. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:B157:A2A2:CE47:3D32 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Either how I think the situation is now satisfactory. I can add more sources if need be :). Thank you! Homerethegreat (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is not a reliable source, making bizarre conspiratorial claims like a killed Gazan baby was a doll. Its nonsense has been called out by BBC Verify journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue was already addressed, I can keep adding more sources if need be. The Jerusalem Post is actually considered rather reliable, it is considered a centrist oriented newspaper (not rightwing). TOI and ynet are considered Left leaning and have also frequently criticized the Israeli government, so has Jpost. Either how there are plenty of French, American and British sources through out the article. Please feel free to raise a specific issue if need be. Thanks for the time! Homerethegreat (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bdell555 funny that you mention BBC. last I checked it wasn't jpost that mentioned 500 killed in hospital airstrikes.... MoshiachNow (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the sources in this page including TOI, JPOST, The Guardian, The Economist, The Washington Post, NYT...etc are generally reliable. If there's a specific problem then we can address it specifically. However overall I personally worked on making sure there's a diversity of sources so I believe the problem is resolved now. If there's need for attention on a specific sentence then I welcome a discussion on it. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Drsruli (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

How is JPOST reliable? They quite literally tried to make report that a dead Palestinian baby was a doll.. Why the hell are Israeli news sources deemed reliable even though they are constantly posting misinformation, but Electronic Intifada is not allowed as a source? 2601:601:8582:8FF0:94DF:AEE7:BC4D:90B5 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So EI is generally reliable, right? But the problem according to wikipedia is that it is "biased". Then what do you call the Jpost and Times of Israel? Are they not just as biased? 2601:601:8582:8FF0:94DF:AEE7:BC4D:90B5 (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless the argument is that a source is so biased that they make stuff up out of whole cloth and/or lack basic standards of journalism and fact checking. If you wish to challenge the reliability of the JPost and Times of Israel, you may do so at the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. You may also go there if a source isn't being permitted. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is often discussed, and has been determined to not be a reliable source, see its listing at the perennially discussed sources list. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Request

please someone include link to the documentary Bearing Witness(2023 film) somewhere in the article. also a seperate section for denial, creation of false equivalences as well as justification of attrocities for oct 7 acts by many pro palestine groups,media outlets,people etc should also be there in detail. Many editors/admins will come(you know the names) requesting to delete or merge or atleast rename the article.stand your ground. thank you 2409:40E3:100A:A08A:1175:D3FD:2DA2:F307 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please make a specific edit request so its easier to understand. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

New testemonies

add this also

At the UN headquarters in New York, a special and pivotal event took place tonight (Monday) with the aim of exposing to the world and the organization the horrors and disgraceful acts of sexual violence committed by Hamas terrorists against Israeli women on October 7. The event was initiated by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, after three days ago, the UN Women’s Organization condemned Hamas’ actions but chose to begin its statement by referring to the “escalation of military operations in Gaza.” The event revealed, among other things, new testimonies of atrocities, including testimonies from survivors of the attacks, and a video featuring poignant testimonies from the investigations conducted by the Israeli police.

Within this context, a spokesperson from the American State Department confirmed today what senior Israeli officials have been saying behind the scenes in recent days. “We appreciate that one of the reasons Hamas does not want to release some of the women it holds as hostages, and the reason for the ceasefire confusion, is that they do not want these women to be able to speak about what happened to them in captivity,” he said

translated: https://medium.com/@explainIsrael/my-life-will-never-be-the-same-testimonies-of-sexual-assault-on-october-7-revealed-at-the-un-7d71c07eb7f6 Original Hebrew on Ynet: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b1gyfliba 213.57.102.74 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Background info

The reason I removed what was there [4] was just that it seemed relatively quite random and insubstantial to merit a stand-alone section. But it probably was Synth as well.

But I think it could be fine to have some background about that. For instance, at least a few of the sources already at the article bring up the matter of whether this could be prosecuted as a war crime, so it would IMO be okay to mention that proportionally. It might then be okay to add in something more general about such war crimes and their prosecution as explanation or parenthetical.

It is more dubious whether a full section of sources that have no explicit connection to the recent attack would be possible; for this one might look at what is done in comparable articles, indeed about Ukraine etc. ByVarying | talk 10:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should present a short historical context on sexual violence in war? I think we can connect it however you are right that it was too disconnected from the rest of the article. If there is a source that connects both would it merit mention in your opinion? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Witness not witnesses

As it stands, every article linked in this entry references the same single witness who reported seeing an individual sexually assaulted and shot, another individual sexually assaulted by multiple individuals, and an individual carrying a naked body and several heads simultaneously. The paramedic who was with the witness was unable to corroborate the witnesses story. https://hebrewnews.com/article/57301 104.172.167.42 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm afraid I don't understand the edit request. Furthermore, the news you sent actually says that there new testimonies released. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The article I posted is from November 15th. At the time, the account of said witness was the "new testimony". The edit request is that it the article states "where witnesses said they tortured, raped and sexually assaulted many women and girls of all ages, and some men" with references to several articles. However, said articles only reference a single witness in their content. Would it not be more accurate to state "where a witness said". 104.172.167.42 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same witness? From what I saw it was several different witnesses as well as different people's statements. Witnesses include first responders, soldiers, survivors... Also the source you sent said there are different testimonies. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

92.6.46.165 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

After the 1st paragraph under the title "Evidence collection", this part should be added, to bring to the attention of the leader that the government of Israel has rejected to cooperate with the UN to allow for an independent investigation:

On 5 December 2023, BBC News mentioned that an ongoing UN commission of inquiry investigating alleged war crimes on both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict would include a focus on sexual violence carried out during the attacks on 7 October. However, Israel had not until then co-operated with the commission, viewing it as biased.

Navi Pillay, who chaired the inquiry, said if Tel Aviv did not want to co-operate, her team could still take evidence from survivors and witnesses outside the country.

"All they [Israel] have to do is let us in," she told the BBC, adding that survivors of the attacks should be able to get a UN hearing.

Ms Pillay also rejected claims that the UN delayed acknowledging that sexual violence had taken place during Hamas's attacks and said "every effort" was being made as part of her team's investigations.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67613153 Oss1973 (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Some of this content is already in the article, but a slightly 'pruned' version of your suggestion has been added to the text dealing with the UN inquiry. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have noticed an omission in the sentence ending by footnote 86 that could result in bias.

Reuter's original text says: "A U.N. commission of inquiry investigating war crimes on both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict will focus on sexual violence by Hamas in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel"

The BBC version says: "An ongoing UN commission of inquiry investigating alleged war crimes on both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict will include a focus on sexual violence carried out during the attacks on 7 October"

The current article text has omitted the sentence(s) in bold; thus implying that the Commission is focusing on war crimes by one side only. Oss1973 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'only one side' argument is necessarily true, but it doesn't hurt to be clear, so I've added your bolded text. At the same time I slightly altered our text as it implied that the main focus of the inquiry is the sexual violence element, whereas sources make clear that this is going to be only one aspect included in the inquiry. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Image is ridiculous

There is a photograph of a woman shot in her bedroom. Given the title of this article, there is a tacit insinuation that she was raped. But we have no evidence of this. JDiala (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree totally. Also the room and its contents are distinct and recognisable, therefore - indirectly - the woman is too, which is intrusive and exploitative in my view. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The photo should be removed. It is purely associative. Zartesbitter (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. No obvious connection to the subject. It's removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

In the paragraph 'United Nations and human rights groups' under the 'Responses' heading. The last line of the last paragraph represents a source badly. "Navi Pillay, who chairs the UN inquiry rejected claims that the UN had delayed acknowledging the sexual violence and said that, despite Israel not cooperating, her team could still take evidence from survivors and witnesses: "All they [Israel] have to do is let us in," she told the BBC." Should be changed to something like: "Navi Pillay, who chairs the UN inquiry rejected claims that the UN had delayed acknowledging the sexual violence and said that, despite Israel not cooperating, her team could attempt to take evidence from survivors and witnesses outside of the country: "All they [Israel] have to do is let us in," she told the BBC." To better represent the source. While maybe the change seems trivial, the latter is more accurate. TropicalSun44 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done; good catch. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please keep this article current

This subject is a "moving target." If we do not keep it updated, and if we rely mainly on the sketchy early reports, we will have a dated mess. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSUW in the lead section

My edit in the lead section 'Hamas has denied all these accusations" was removed by Figureofnine.

Neutrality is one of the five principles of Wikipedia. Therefore, if the article discusses sexual violence from the Hamas attack on Israel, the lead section should present both the accusations (from Israel) and the denial from (Hamas). So, why is there no reason to mention that Hamas denies the sexual violence? The information is sourced from The Washington Post, and to maintain a balanced perspective, we should include both viewpoints as per WP:RSUW. Otherwise, the lead section will be biased.

Regards, Riad Salih (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that the Times investigation is of greater weight than a perfunctory denial of no credbility whatsoever. We don't want to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE and sticking their denial up there is not necessary. It's in the body of the article, putting it in the lead gives it far more weight than it deserves. I would even go so far as to say that the denial is so at odds with the weight of evidence as to fall afoul of WP:FRINGE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You reverted not just the ridiculous Hamas denial but the New York Times finding. Was that a mistake? Please reinstate the Times conclusion. Meanwhile I will put it in the body of the article, where it needs to be as well. But I do believe it needs to be in the lead along with, and preferably in lieu of, that Hamas denial that nobody on the planet, including Hamas, believes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with a false balance here, it is about neutrality. We can add the investigation by The Times in the lead section, and The Times is a newspaper and not an independent investigative organization. This kind of accusation requires time for a thorough investigation, and no newspaper can definitively affirm or deny it, especially during a war and within a short timeframe. And I did not make any revert in this case. Riad Salih (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Riad Salih, this doesn't quite make sense. The New York Times is considered generally reliable (WP:NYT) and is capable of performing investigations. Surely things will change as time passes, but especially with attribution there should be no issue with including the report and its findings.

The NYT report should absolutely be included in the article, and no one removed it; Figureofnine, my revert was for the reasons mentioned in the edit summary and on this talk page. You replaced the Hamas denial with the NYT report in the lead, and I undid this. The NYT report was always in the body.

As for inclusion in the lead, results of various investigative reports should probably be put in the lead (as appropriate per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), attributed to the publishers. The issue here was that, in adding the NYT report to the lead, Figureofnine removed other content and did not provide any notification or explanation in the edit summary. Wracking ^talk! 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it very much that you agree that the Times investigation should be noted in the lead, and I would encourage you to reinstate it, as you removed it from the lead and I am barred from doing so myself by 1RR. I have commenced an RfC on the Hamas denial to get a broader range of editor imput. cheers, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for respecting 1RR. I'm going to look for secondary sources (about the report) before I do add the NYT report to the lead.

For reference, I wrote up this sentence for the lead (open to comments): An investigation by The New York Times, published on December 28, found "a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women" in the October 7 attacks. Wracking ^talk! 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've done some searching now and I've decided I won't be adding anything to the lead right now. Given MOS:LEADREL, I was looking for reliable (based on WP:RSP) secondary sources that discuss the report. As the report is only about a day old, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I didn't find much. I think I see this as a watch-and-wait thing. Wracking ^talk! 00:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking We'll see what develops, though i don't believe sourcing on the sourcing is necessary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Figureofnine, I think it is not false balance nor a fringe statement to relay the statements of a key party. If the denial was cited to an unreliable source, or if it was from a person without authority on the issue, there might be WP:DUE concerns–this isn't the case, though. The Washington Post is a reliable source. As a leader, Basem Naim can be considered an authority on Hamas positions.

If you still believe the sentence in question has WP:FALSEBALANCE or WP:FRINGE issues, please provide specific information (ideally section names or specific passages) to back up your arguments.

Additionally, please ensure you provide accurate edit summaries, especially when editing contentious topics. Wracking ^talk! 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I was rushed. I am terrible with edit summaries. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

TNYT article

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Drsruli (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no women on record claiming that they suffered sexual violence on Oct. 7th. This article cites one woman, Sapir, who claimed she witnessed rape. Her story is a transparent fraud. She claims that as one "terrorist" raped a woman, another cut off her breast with a box cutter. “One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road,” Sapir said. On top of witnessing that, "she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women." Where is the evidence of a severed breast and severed heads? Who really believes this insanity? The article then cites two other women soldiers who claim that they saw signs of sexual violence in the corpses. But yet the article also concedes that the Israeli army has zero forensic or physical evidence of sexual violence. As one Israeli army spokesperson says: "We have zero autopsies, zero." Accordingly, Israel has zero evidence. Yet so many dupes are rushing to parrot this genocidal state's insane claims. 24.87.14.45 (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel → Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war – Current article title dates it to only 07 October attacks, while the article also brings in testimony from hostages that experienced abuse while held after the October date. It also limits full coverage as Palestinians in Gaza have raised allegation of sexual violence against IDF members Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

First time using this template let me know if I missed something and am open to suggestions on the title of the article, thanks. Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just fyi, there is an unresolved issue of how we call this war, since it's already 2024. In case that article gets renamed the name of this article would have to be changed too. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I agree this is a good idea. I think the title is correct at the current time, and should change only if there is a change in the main article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Gender studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the title and details of sexual violence on 10/7 is correct at the current time.

If people want to create a new page on wider, broader based sexual violence during the Israel-Gaza War, then one should be created doing that. Giantsfann48 (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per GNG, this topic on its own is notable on its own right for it's own standing article.

I will also note that a general article can be opened of course on sexual and gender based violence in the war overall (No problem at all), but this article ought to remain standing on its own.

Per Wikipedia:GNG: there is Significant coverage (As noted by over 100 articles used in the article including WSJ,NYT,FRANCE24...); A vast majority of sources used meet reliability Reliable as well as are Secondary and are Independent of the subject.

Overall, this article meets WP:GNG and merits its own standalone article. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I agree with Homerethegreat with the GNG arguments. Further, The scale of the sexual crimes committed by Hamas militants on that specific day is unprecedented. It is backed by an exceptional amount of evidence, including Hamas body camera footage, survivor testimonies, forensic and medical findings and more; politicians all over the world refered to this event - all backed by very reliable sources. These factors justify dedication of an article to the Sexual crimes that took place in Israel on 7 October. GidiD (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. I agree with GidiD and Homerethegreat here. I think the title and details of "Sexual violence on 10/7 attack" is the correct name for the article because the sexual crimes committed by Hamas were widespread in scale, happened in multiple locations, and were done onto dozens of women. The evidence and sources are clear, and President Biden has made clear that the sexual crimes Hamas committed on that day must be remembered. For that memory to happen, the Sexual Crimes in Israel on 7 October deserve a freestanding article on its own. Giantsfann48 (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I disagree quite strongly about the quality and clarity of the evidence offered to date, IMO there has been more heat than light, but agree that the topic deserves (and is mainly covered) as part of a discrete event - the Oct 7th attack. this topic on its own is notable on its own right for it's own standing article.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Sexual and gender-based violence during the October 7 attack merits a standalone article. Marokwitz (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The article title precisely describes the content and changing it as proposed would not be constructive. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As above. The current title is best. Drsruli (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this could potentially change the whole topic of the article and for now it seems it should be focused on the specific day until someone has a better idea. Jorahm (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a shred of direct evidence

ZAKA (rescue team) is not a trustworthy source for allegations of sexual violence on October 7. Many of the reports in Israeli and international media networks — including CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, and many others — that accuse Palestinians of committing systematic wide-scale gender-based violence against Israeli women on October 7, 2023, rely on testimonies by Israeli ZAKA volunteers. ZAKA is a non-governmental religious Haredi organization specializing in collecting dead bodies and body parts from sites of “unnatural” deaths and transporting them to morgues according to strict Jewish religious laws. The testimonies provided by ZAKA’s members — all men, most of whom are volunteers — on sexual violence on October 7 are based on their interpretation of what they claim to have seen on bodies they collected after the attack. Not only do these men lack the professional qualifications to make such assessments (they are not medical experts), but their testimonies also lack details: no age, no location, and no time. Details and/or evidence have not even been given to journalists who have asked to see them while reporting on these testimonies. This means that it is impossible to either confirm or debunk them. In other words, the organization’s testimonies hold no value unless one blindly trusts what its men say. Since October 7, ZAKA has been playing a key role in Israel’s orchestrated propaganda campaign, spreading fake news and vague information in the service of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Looking closely into ZAKA reveals that the organization and its volunteers lack credibility. In fact, a significant part of their testimonies has been proven to be fabrications. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/12/zaka-is-not-a-trustworthy-source-for-allegations-of-sexual-violence-on-october-7/ 24.87.14.45 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note mondoweiss is not considered a reliable source. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat ZAKA has faced numerous criticisms from multiple sources, there is a clear bias towards the Israeli viewpoint. As a result, when it comes to reliability and impartiality in this conflict, ZAKA holds no credibility. We can engage a debate on this subject. Riad Salih (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There's been independent reporting by several sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia. This isn't an article about a living person where editors must be careful about including information before a conviction. Wikipedia just covers the facts as they're reliably reported. Nemov (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the @Nemov explain the issue well. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

“Not a shred of direct evidence” - just to generally point out, that “circumstantial evidence” can be considered strong evidence, even in a court of law, even for the death penalty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence#Validity_of_circumstantial_evidence Drsruli (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable info throughout - article needs warning mention or removal

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
unfortunately most of the sources cited in this article are either similar or always news articles based on vague, witnesses accounts from Israeli authorities, while it has been shown that Israeli authorities may have lied on some aspects of the Oct 7 attack, including possibly shooting from the Israeli army (helicopters, tanks, or riffles) on Israeli citizens. This article should be edited or removed until accurate and reliable information can be confirmed. More specifically, the table of witnesses account is extremely vague and again and reliable information and come across some more as propaganda. 2607:FEA8:55F:EC5C:D404:4888:1A9F:6B7E (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) https://www.hamas-massacre.net/categories/mass-rapes Drsruli (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) A highly unreliable source. — kashmīrī TALK 14:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sexual abuse of returned captives

The article had, until today, this as its second para of the lead:

Evidence collected from released hostages indicate that both female and male hostages held by Hamas in Gaza have been subjected to sexual violence by their captors, raising concerns about possible pregnancies among female hostages resulting from these assaults.

References

There are a number of issues with both our text and the sources. Firstly, the lead text is meant to be a summary of the body of the article, not only are most of these claims not expanded anywhere in the body, there is no indication that the treatment of captives has been given the level of attention which would justify such a prominent position in the lead.

Secondly, the three sources are all relatively partisan but not attributed. They tend to frame their claims in very emotive terms while offering little concrete information.

The first -JP - source is largely a hypothetical article about how Israeli medical agencies might need to prepare for or deal with consequences of rape/sexual abuse among returning captives - including potential unwanted pregnancies and/or STDs as a result of rape and possible trauma. It makes no claims about the actual treatment of hostages beyond one general claim that there are some indications that hostages might have been sexually mistreated, to a greater or lesser extent: "testimonies from some of the returned hostages suggested that the women endured sexual harassment, possibly including rape, while in captivity." "Sexual harassment", isn't what one would normally think of as 'Sexual or gender-based violence".

The bulk of the rest of the JP content is wholly hypothetical: "The Israeli medical community, usually reluctant to consider such scenarios, has recently actively been preparing for the appalling possibility of several female hostages who were raped in captivity and subsequently become pregnant … According to sources who spoke with Maariv, there have been comprehensive discussions in hospitals across the country about preparing for the return of Israeli hostages who have been sexually assaulted by Hamas terrorists and are currently at different stages of pregnancy."

So that source says little more than that female hostages may have been sexually harassed and/or abused and/or physically assaulted - including possible rape and Israeli medical agencies may have a medical crises on their hands if sexual abuse/rape of the hostages turns out to have been extensive.

The other two sources mainly deal with the testimony given to a Knesset inquiry by one captive (Aviva Siegel) and her daughter, (Shir). Shir it turns out, if I understand the Times of Israel correctly, was not even a captive, but her 'testimony' - which is the most graphic and explicit offered, is rendered in some sources as fact: "Right now there is someone being raped in a tunnel,” declared Shir, who was away from the kibbutz on the day of the Hamas onslaught … Shir, told lawmakers that her mother’s testimony was “only the tip of the iceberg,” … Shir say(s) that both women and men are being raped in Hamas captivity.

The mother's - who is a returned hostage - testimony is obviously more credible, but again, despite very emotive language, there is little specific about what she says happened, to whom, or how she knows, since she would presumably have had little freedom of movement while in captivity. Despite this, she is also emphatic that "Women and men are being raped" in Hamas captivity:

"Speaking to Israeli lawmakers in the Knesset, Aviva said that inside the tunnels in Gaza: “The terrorists bring inappropriate clothes for the girls, the clothes of dolls. They turned the girls into their dolls, that they can do whatever they want with … and is likely still violating victims in captivity … “I saw it with my own eyes,” said former hostage Aviva Siegel … “I felt as if the girls in captivity were my daughters … “I’m still there. My body is there. The boys also go through abuse — what the girls go through. Maybe they don’t get pregnant [but] they are also puppets on a string.” " What she saw "with her own eyes" is not made clear in either source that quotes her (UK's Jewish Chronicle and TofI).

There is probably a huge, frightening cultural chasm between Gazan families/guards and Israeli women and girls being held captive, but being provided with inapt clothes or subjected to 'sexist' remarks or attitudes, is a million miles from being raped, or even sexually abused in the normal, physical, sense of that term. One of the articles continues: "last month, Goldstein Almog said that while in captivity, her 17-year-old daughter Agam had feared being raped or sexually abused — and that their captors taunted the 17-year-old that she would be “married off” to someone in Gaza and that they would “find [her] a husband.”

Finally, although there has been coverage outside Israeli/Jewish sources of the possibility that returning hostages may have been/be being abused sexually, the coverage has been a great deal more constrained and cautious in tone than the sources used above.

I have heavily pruned the existing coverage, to something more in accord with a summarised version of what the body of the article says, but am posting here to give my reasons for the 'pruning'. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This listing is filled with Israeli propaganda from unverified sources

Here is just a small selection of articles that question the Israeli narrative. key topics not addressed: - the number of civilians killed by the IDF particularly victims incinerated by tank shelling and Apache helicopter fire - general Israeli misinformation which has been documented by Israeli media regarding sexual assault, beheading of civilians including babies, babies in ovens etc etc which brings into question much of the hearsay and indirect accounts

This information easily accessed via social media.

Please consult https://www.oct7factcheck.com/index https://speakupeg.com/2023/12/30/nyts-disgraceful-investigation-weaponizing-sexual-violence-against-women-for-occupation-propaganda/

https://new.thecradle.co/articles-id/18526?fbclid=PAAaZ7KvxmBaeShZgjVQEA4FVMxLPCgk2H66W2y5kS5PuJR-x_poNDPcagSC4_aem_ARoJH3dQLXbgZbQZ5vGUrOic9ASOxPNac2EAY_J8NE2sK7l3cjmCWKqUC4CBkb6wAvM 175.157.97.173 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.hamas-massacre.net/categories/mass-rapes Drsruli (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

These are precisely unreliable sources – websites created to promote a specific POV, so with no editorial independence. Editors must disregard them on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack-rape-bb06b950bb6794affb8d468cd283bc51 Drsruli (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted on the above sources (partisan or unreliable sources is a better term btw).

The AP, however, is RS. Mistamystery (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism towards the NYT reportage

@Riad Salih note that the sources you used are not considered very reliable. Mondoweiss is considered biased and with low credibility[5][6][7], also source styles itself as anti-Zionist from what I read. Press TV, based in Iran has been accused of antisemitism [8] and also here is its score [9]. I suggest you self revert until you find better sources to support statements you added. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the sources, it's questionable, but it connects the basic information, which is that a family present in the report claims to have been manipulated. The testimony is also present in other sources Riad Salih (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The NYC reportage has faced significant criticism from individuals featured in the report itself, who have accused the newspaper of manipulating their statements. These accusations have also been covered by Israeli media. However, @Homerethegreat removed this information without providing a convening explanation for me. Riad Salih (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I answered below and explained the problems with the sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Riad Salih (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To quote from WP:RSPSS, There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. RSPSS specifically states that it can be used with attribution. There is no reason to exclude statements cited to this source if they are properly attributed. If "biased and opinionated" was a reason to exclude sources, boy oh boy would there be a lot of trimming of material sourced to Ynet, i24, ToI, JPost, etc. WillowCity^(talk) 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with WillowCity here. Also substantial parts of the Mondoweiss coverage is reporting interviews with Israeli sources or sceptical coverage by Israeli sources. Cautiously, and with attribution where apt, I think this material can be used. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether it's due. The problem with this Mondoweiss article is that they take facts and reports and then spin a story matching their agenda. I'll give a few concrete examples.

1. MW write Times investigation hinges predominantly on one central story, the story of the rape of “Gal Abdush. The problem here in that the NYT never said that she was raped in its own voice - only that the police believed it was so and that her family members suspected that.
2. The first paragraph in ‘The media invented it’ section says that the family didn’t know about the rape at all. We only knew after a New York Times journalist contacted us. They said they matched evidence and concluded that she had been sexually assaulted.. So what? The NYT article explains this well btw.
3. Translating מחרחרת (wheezing) as "dying." While it's a minor error it shows that they wouldn't get inconvenient details in the way of the story that they are pushing. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it's undue to include reasonable coverage of the NYT piece, if there's an entire section on the NYT piece. If anything, it's undue to have such a section but exclude dissenting coverage.

1. NYT used her family as their cover photo and spent (as MW put it) about a third of its report talking about her, in an article on what they describe as the "weaponization" of sexual violence. Moreover, if the point of the NYT piece is that her family members suspected that she had been sexually assaulted, then the comments from other family members described in MW are even more relevant.

2. The NYT article does suggest that the family was treated quite shabbily by Israeli authorities (other than a virtual "hug" from Herzog). But there's no real explanation in their piece of why there hadn't been any suggestion to them of sexual violence, if indeed police believed that happened. We can discuss other aspects of the MW article in the wiki article if that would allay your concerns (the paragraph that was removed could benefit from some cleanup anyway).

3. This doesn't prove anything. They were probably interpreting what the relative said to simplify the article and meet a word count (e.g. "מחרחרת" could also be a euphemism for death rattle?)

In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Maybe you could do a refutation of the refutation, get that published in a RS, and then we could have a conversation about the above three points. Until then, these critiques are just your opinion, which are immaterial in contrast to sourced reportage. WillowCity^(talk) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should follow RS and I think NYT is considered more reliable than Mondoweiss, if another reliable source (say WSJ or CNN or another source that has no fault in perrenial sources list) criticizes the NYT report then it should be included. However at the moment, I think it's best to simply write in short that Mondoweiss has criticized the NYT report. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I think the subsection on NYT critisicm should be moved down to Responses section, I think it's a more natural place since Mondoweiss is responding to the NYT report. What are your opinions on the matter? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would make the most sense to move the whole NYT subsection to "Responses" (not sure if that's what you're suggesting?); the MW coverage could be included there. WillowCity^(talk) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any sources other than Mondoweiss (and PressTV, which is rejected for obvious reasons) criticizing the NYT report? BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why more than one source is needed, if one source apparently merits an entire section all to itself. But yes, here's The Cradle, and here's The Hill (interviewing Max Blumenthal, but hey, they platformed him). WillowCity^(talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable; The Cradle is deprecated, and since the reliability of a source is dependent also on the author, this specific The Hill piece is also not reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My mistake regarding the Cradle, was not aware it had been deprecated. As for the Hill interview, it is a video (still a published RS per WP:RS); if it reflects material covered by an RS it could nevertheless be conveyed with attribution as necessary. WillowCity^(talk) 18:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We couldn’t; the Hill isn’t the source for the statements Blumenthal says in the interview, Blumenthal is, and Blumenthal isn’t a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither are Hamas and the IDF, but we still include interviews with their spokespeople if they're covered in RS.

And anyway, this doesn't grapple with the relevant question of why the MW piece can't be used with attribution per RSPSS. WillowCity^(talk) 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Max Blumenthal can be considered unreliable. It also appears that he has shown bias and at minimum his statement should be attributed and at maximum due to FALSEBALANCE and WEIGHT it is perhaps undue to include his statement. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not think we should be using Blumenthal as a source and strive to NPOV sources. Preferably RSN such as NYT, WSJ and other media that are considered more reliable per Wikipedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A different Blumenthal interview has now been added. If The Grayzone, Blumenthal's paper is considered unreliable, does he now become reliable if interviewed by The Hill? Drsmoo (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz update on Zaka testimony

The page now obviously needs to incorporate the major Haaretz update throwing significant cold water on all of the already highly dubious testimony linked back to Zaka. All related material needs to be reviewed, as well as set alongside the context that has come to light - I note there is a table containing Zaka claims that currently does not provide such context, and as such has been tagged for weight issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:Haaretz clearly asserts that there is overshadowing doubt, espeially about spreading accounts of atrocities that never happened. I added/edited this which I hope its fair, based on what Haaretz asserts:

The mostly ultra-Orthodox ZAKA volunteer paramedic and rescue group began collecting bodies immediately after the Hamas attacks, while the IDF avoided assigning soldiers with training to carefully retrieve and document human remains in post-terrorism situations. However, as part of the effort to get media exposure, Zaka spread accounts of atrocities that never happened, released sensitive and graphic photos, and acted unprofessionally on the ground, often mixing up remains of multiple victims in the same bag and creating little or no documentation about the remains.

To the two listings of eyewitness testimony of ZAKA members, I added a note:

Note: ZAKA as a whole has spread accounts of atrocities that never happened

Keizers (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should incorporate the Haaretz material, but AFAI can see, this is an allegation from a single source and should be attributed, not put into WP:VOICE. The recent addition looks to be much too strongly phrased, but I can't read the full Haaretz article (££$$) so cannot rephrase myself. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please delete the recent addition stating "Note: ZAKA as a whole has spread accounts of atrocities that never happened[50]" below every Zaka witness account. This "note" is grossly inaccurate & wholly unsubstantiated. Moreover, the listed source does not confirm whatsoever the "note" that "Zaka as a whole has spread accounts of atrocities that never happened". 2601:587:4302:1620:55C9:A60:8DBF:A7F9 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I added another source (Times of Israel) and modified the tone to say "IDF Home Front Command soldiers and volunteers from other organizations accuse ZAKA members of spreading accounts of some atrocities that never happened". The intention here is not to say that sexual violence did not happen, but to point out that some testimony is from people working for the the group that in some cases (allegedly) literally made up stories about sexual violence (!!! who does that???) on such as serious issue, just to get attention on social media. Let the gravity of that sink in!

For reference the Haa'retz story is available here for purposes of this discussion. Keizers (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Change in article title

It's a pretty major change (as far as this article goes) to add "alleged" to the title, but for the record, I agree with that change. So many of the original accusations are inconsistent, unresearched, unsupported, and some of the related accusations are just plain lies (e.g. beheadings, various ZAKA fabrications, etc.) that as a whole, "alleged" is the proper term. I doesn't mean that some of the alleged crimes didn't happen, but as a whole the articles deals more with claims that haven't been proved, than any that might have been proved.

I further changed the title to "Alleged rapes in the 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel" because:

1. WP:CONCISE: the accusations are all about rape, not other forms of sexual or gender-based violence.
2. changing "7 October attack on Israel" to "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" as per WP:CRITERIA, specifically "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" - in other words the title should match the "parent" article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. While I personally find "October 7" more intuitive, it's imprecise and I suppose that question has been debated ad nauseam over on the other article's discussion ))

— Keizers (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The article's title was Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel but was reverted twice within the past few hours without discussion or consensus, the first time by Davidlofgren1996 to Alleged sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel and three hours later by yourself to Alleged rapes in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. These are POV changes to put it mildly, in effect saying in Wikipedia's voice "hey, maybe there wasn't any sexual violence!". Obviously a Requested Move would be necessary to make a dramatic change like this in a controversial subject area. I am requesting here that you or David revert back to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

These are not POV changes. My edit was an objective change, due to the alleged crimes being, well, alleged. This was not an opinion-based edit, merely a change of wording to express the situation as it currently stands. Until investigations are completed with tangible proof, all we have is witness testimony - which is not a reliable source. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Article title changes likely to be controversial, as this one obviously was, should not be done without discussion per WP:BEFOREMOVING. An editor sought to restore the page back to the previous title, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel,but inadvertently made the change to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, That helps, but it still needs to be changed back to the original, as that change also cannot be made without discussion. I'm not up to it technically. It would be nice thing if you would restore the title, but if you don't, well that is your decision I suppose. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996 Oh, there is plenty of evidence beyond witness testimony, and more than a few investigations that confirmed the accusations of the sexual crimes committed by Hamas. Please read the thorough NYT research. Further, it is not 'only' rapes but gang rapes, mutilation of sex organs and even sexual offenses against men. And on top of it - the accusation that it was used by Hamas as a terrorizing means, a weapon of war. GidiD (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@GidiD: The NYT research was not thorough, and this article discusses that in detail. They more or less listed testimony from people who had already testified in other media, and you have cases where the story changed (Karol, Cohen), two testimonies from ZAKA which Ha'aretz has proved have told out-and-out lies to solicit donations, Sargeant G, who cleary made a story up. NONE of this was researched by the NYT, even though all that information was out in the media. The rest of the allegations are based on hearsay, not a single victim has given testimony. Therefore, the NYT or similar "listings" of unchecked information, are not RS in this case.Keizers (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The New York Times research was as thorough and comprehensive as can be!!! NYT team conducted a two-month investigation that relied on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors. They cross checked the evidence and confirmed at least seven places where Israeli women were sexually assaulted or mutilated.

Given that NYT is considered a RS and the high standard of the confirmation procedure - you cannot just dismiss it as "unchecked information". GidiD (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but before we engage in this discussion I think it is imperative that someone technically confident enough restore the article title back to where it was, Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. Elad sought to do so but made a good faith error and changed it to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Personally I like that title better, but we can't change it without consensus. I know reaching consensus on titles is cumbersome in these I/P articles, but we gotta do. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not about newspapers. It's about the threshold of evidence required to accuse a legal person of a crime in Wikipedia voice. The threshold of evidence should be the same for Hamas as for, say, legally operating political parties and groups in the West. For example, should the media accuse, say, British National Party of a crime, and there was no court conviction yet, we would normally qualify these accusations by using the term alleged, allegations. Similarly here, irrespective of how outrageous the media reports are, we need to be careful about how we present these accusations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously these are allegations. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No matter if some rapes happened or none at all, these clearly are allegations, and not proved facts that can be reported as fact. The NYT so-called research was anything but thorough, and this article discusses that in detail, with significant info from RS that the testimony is grossly flawed. The NYT et al. more or less listed testimony from people who had already testified in other media, and you have cases where the story changed (Karol, Cohen), two testimonies from ZAKA which Ha'aretz has proved have told out-and-out lies about Oct 7, Sargeant G, who clearly made a story up. The rest of the allegations that haven't obviously changed, are based on hearsay... not a single victim has given testimony. A court has not ruled on this. Therefore, the NYT or similar "listings" of unchecked information, are not RS that can prove that the allegations are true.Keizers (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

these clearly are allegations, and not proved facts that can be reported as fact … should the media accuse, someone of a crime, and there was no court conviction yet, we would normally qualify these accusations by using the term alleged. I write as someone who - from day one - has been extremely sceptical about the more tenuous - and sometimes outrageous claims on this topic. I was also - from day one - acutely aware of how the topic was being weaponised as 'atrocity propaganda' but still it is wholly unrealistic to expect a 'court level' of proof to ever emerge and highly improbable that any individual will ever face criminal prosecution for sexual crime relating to Oct 7th - certainly in the foreseeable future. This is normal for conflict situations, both the 'atrocity propaganda' element and the problem of accurately assessing how widespread such behaviour was. Historians are still arguing about how widespread rape was in the 1948 Nakba.

The allegations aren't only about rape, they are also about other forms of 'gendered violence' and alleged acts of post-mortem mutilation and are generally referred to as such by sources. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I slightly lean towards supporting the move to "alleged" or "allegations". I think you, GidiD, are the one who ignored what other reliable sources countering the rape or any sexual violence claims. On the other hand, articles about alleged crimes (e.g. War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) or even that of clear fabrication (e.g. Nayirah testimony) are rarely given any indications in the article title about the verifiability of the claims. A compromise would giving this article a short description, which it currently lacks, to reflect that it's merely an allegation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You rightly point to the title of War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine – I was also concerned about it and went through its sources, trying to establish whether the term "war crimes" is reliably sourced, and, possibly, start a RM. Maybe now it's the time... — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends as well on which sources, Amnesty, the UN, experts, alleging something isn't at all the same thing as witnesses alleging that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't appreciate the media deciding about what constitutes a crime. "War crime" is a legal term for a closed category of acts, and normally the qualification is decided on by an independent court, not by the press, NGOs, and so on. So while I don't doubt that Russian forces have committed many of the acts they've been accused of, I'd rather wait for a court to say that yes, these were war crimes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then one needs to change Israeli war crimes and other such in addition. On WP, we do treat things differently according to what sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Sexual and gender-based violence in 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza has been created. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for two articles

Do we really need two articles for sexual violence in two consecutive engagements in the same war? Couldn't there just be a "Sexual violence in the Israel-Hamas war"? Surely these articles together wouldn't hit any sort of page size limit as they are now. I realize I didn't say this in the other article so to be specific I'm referring to this article and the one concerning the invasion of Gaza here: Sexual violence against Palestinians in the 2023-2024 Israeli war on Gaza. XeCyranium (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A valid point. But your proposal assumes we're impartial researchers here who have no interest in pushing a specific POV............... — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The scope of the 2 articles are different enough to warrant a separate article, one about a single-day attack and the other about an ongoing military conflict which affects far more people than the former, and casualties are still increasing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the scale of the Gaza invasion is much greater than that of this attack, although I don't know if that applies regarding sexual violence as the other article is still in its early stages, but I don't see why that couldn't be reflected in a single merged article. XeCyranium (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If I must give you a different reason, is the risk of trivializing the scale of sexual violence against Palestinians, when the alleged victims of the Oct 7 attack are limited to those assaulted by the Hamas on Oct 7. Even though the article about the sexual violence carried out by the IDF is still a stub, there are already plenty of information for expansion to justified a separate article, for example, Gazan men being strip-searched, humiliated and filmed in public space by the IDF is very well-reported. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

POV

This page fails utterly to reference any of the widespread sources examining the use of and/or dissemination of related claims as part of war propaganda and disinformation campaigns. The internet now contains myriad of analyses looking at the ways in which misinformation and/or disinformstion was spread about this event, including with regards to sexual violence. Not least among these are the lengthy and unflattering Haaretz analysis on the testimonies peddled by Zaka and this commendable analysis by the Intercept. Until this page incorporates some of this analysis, it will remain incomplete in such a one-sided manner that it cannot hope to represent a full telling of the topic, let alone an encyclopedic treatment of the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I agree, however it is very difficult to formulate this side of the story without a LOT of research. I added a section under "response" which is about the news sources that claim that Israeli claims are exaggerations and thus propaganda, e.g. "mass rape" or "weaponization of rape". The problem is, Wikipedia does not consider many alternative news sources as reliable sources. Like Electronic Intifada, Intercept, Mondoweiss, Middle East Eye, +972, or even Al-Jazeera. Meanwhile, WSJ and NYT are considered reliable sources even thought they have in my judgement published Israeli propaganda (without properly vetting it) multiple times, most recently in the WSJ about how 10% of UNRWA staff has "connections" to Hamas, without defining "connection", without reliable objective research. We really need a so-called "reliable source" that talks ABOUT what the pro-Palestinian media have concluded, and so far I didn't find much. No surprise, because the Western "reliable" media are not investigating too much things that are unfavorable to the Israeli side. (Sometimes Ha'aretz is a lifesaver, as it's a reliable source that presents truths even when unfavorable to the Israeli state.) I did what I could in the new section and hopefully it stands.Keizers (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Your reliance on the intercept "commendable" analysis is ridiculus: if any neutrality should be criticised - it is the intercept article. Here are just a few examples:

1) “commandos”?  Genuine commandos do not attack civilians; genuine commandos clearly do not record themselves killing citizens; genuine commandos do not rape or commit gender-based crimes. These are characteristics of terrorists, not of elite forces.

2) The statement "Attacking military installations as well as kibbutzim" is highly misleading and inaccurate, since mainly civilians were attacked!  Hamas terrorists targeted approximately 30 civilian communities, including kibbutzim, villages, and two Israeli towns (Ofakim and Sderot). And only about 9 military bases. Additionally, there was a massacre of 364 civilians who were dancing and singing at the Nova festival.

3) The statement "Not a single Israeli hostage has been freed through military force..." is a lie. It fails to acknowledge the successful rescue of Ori Megidish on October 29, carried out through a joint IDF and Shin Bet operation. [10] GidiD (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with point #2, it's the most factual to say "X kibbutzim, X towns and villages, and 9 military installations", go get the specific numbers here. 9 military bases is a lot! I think there are 75 in total so that's 15%. There are 270 kibbutzim so that was maybe 10%. Both huge impacts.

Also guys, this is not the place for this tone, it's about what facts or sources or terminology to use in the article (e.g. commando or terrorist). Even then, everyone needs to be respectful and not accuse other editors as "lying"... they are stating things to the best of their knowledge, and on both sides of this tragedy it is very, very difficult to get to the truth, not only because so many facts are missing, but because the press is incomplete and biased. I personally rely on sites like Intercept and +972 to get facts missing from the mainstream Western press, but these are not considered RS for Wikipedia, and also they are biased. In the same way we can gather some facts from WSJ & NYT, but we have to be careful because they have shown their negligence and sometimes publishing information that comes straight from the Israeli state/military. Let's be patient and tolerant and respectful despite our understandably strong emotions.Keizers (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It would do a lot for neutrality if less reliance was placed on probably biased news sources in this article, and more on academic analyses, such as papers in peer-reviewed journals and books from reliable publishers. In the immediate aftermath of the events news reports are all we have to go on, and, in its infinite wisdom (and despite my opposition based on WP:NOT#NEWS), consensus has decided to allow them as sources for an article. By this time we should have something better. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"UN Women condemned the acts of rape by Hamas in early December 2023" - but they didn't.

Our text in the lead says :"UN Women condemned the acts of rape by Hamas in early December 2023". It is cited to Jerusalem Post and the article is mainly about the UN coming to Israel to investigate the rape allegations, though our text implies that the facts of the rapes are established, and accepted by UN Women.

Although the linked JPost says that UN Women finally condemned the sexual violence - as it is largely complaining about the UN delay, actually UN Women don't condemn the acts, nor do they imply that they necessarily accept their truth: "Only at the end of last week did UN Women finally condemn the rapes against Israelis, stating, “We are alarmed by the numerous accounts of gender-based atrocities and sexual violence during those attacks”. Being alarmed by the accounts neither condemns the acts, nor does it imply acceptance of the various accounts. So lurid are some of the accounts, that one would need to be made of stone to not be alarmed by them, that doesn't equate to condemning them or accepting their accuracy.

IMO the text should be modified or attributed to J Post, since ours is not a very complete or balanced account of what UN Women actually said.

References

Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Kibbutz Be'eri

As per this intercept article (I know a lot of here people don't like it as an outlet), but supported by the statements from the UN investigator and the UN report, as detailed in Al Jazeera, it may be of use to add this information into the section on Kibbutz Be'eri in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Although twt is not a 'reliable source', this offers some good context & counter to the intercept, including them themselves using some unreliable sources. https://twitter.com/daniela127/status/1764393496327135321 Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As detailed in my original comment, it is supported by statements from the UN investigator and report, so whatever criticism you have of the Intercept is non-applicable to the UN. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The U.N. report confirming that rape happened on Oct 7th and is likely still happening to hostages? Got it. I think it also said they need to do further investigation on the horrors at Kibbutz Be'eri. That should be noted too, I think. Unfortunately, the rape reports towards Israelis (Jewish and Arab/Palestinian) and to Palestinians in detention will take months and years to understand the fuller brutal picture of the atrocities taking place. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad you agree that current state of there being no support in investigations of sexual violence in the case of Kibbutz Be'eri should be added to the article. Feel free to do so whenever is convenient. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it says "no support", it says an investigation further needs to be added. You yourself can add it, as you brought it up. Thank you! Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For those interested, the UN report on Kibbutz Be’eri is at #62-67. This is between the confirmed reports of rape at other kibbutz (like Kibbutz Kfar Aza #68) of Jewish and Arab/Palestinian Israelis as well as the foreign workers. Will be useful for the article. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, it was "was able to determine that at least two allegations of sexual violence widely repeated in the media were unfounded due to either new superseding information or inconsistency in the facts gathered." So the ones that the section on Kibbutz Be'eri solely comments on were "unfounded" allegations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That is what it says yes! Also take at look at #62-67. Unfortunately, Nova Music Festival and surrounding areas (#57-60) Kibbutz Re’im (#61), Kibbutz Kfar Aza (#68), and Nahal Oz Military Base (#69-70) are all confirmed to have had horrible rape cases.

To build off your suggestion, I think the article should note where it is confirmed sexual sadistic acts have been confirmed, and where they have yet to be. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never said it shouldn't, was just pointing out one instance where there is currently a difference between the article and the highly lauded report. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think both of our suggestions should be taken into account, is what I mean. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

👍 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the problem I referred to previously in the RM, the business of including allegations as if they were fact. We need to clearly separate what is allegation from allegations that have been verified by the UN team. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fork at Screams without Words

Per the heading, noting that there is now a fork of this article specifically about the NYT article at Screams without Words. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a fork. It's a WP:SPINOUT that follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE—Alalch E. 09:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you say so. - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have been a fork but for the fact that information is not redundantly repeated here and there, but is merely summarized here, using the excerpt template, consistent with WP:SYNC. The content that was copied from here was, in fact, removed from here, and more content on the same topic that was found in other articles was gathered, and all of it was assembled on one, main, page, precisely to avoid content forking. Creating a new article in this way is a content-forking-avoidance technique, not content forking. —Alalch E. 12:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have been a fork, and was when I looked at it, except you removed relevant content from this article specifically to prevent that between when I saw the two articles and I finished commenting here. It was certainly a fork when it was created, and still was shortly before I made the post. Anyway, I don't care one way or the other how you choose to describe it, but I felt it should be mentioned here that the new article existed. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Strange structure

There seems to be an undue emphasis on references to the ARCCI as an organising principle in the structure of the page, without anything to particularly suggest that ARCCI's take, interpretation or structuring of the material is in any way authoritative or widely accepted. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I did add that content, but didn't mean to imply that ARCCI is so authoritative. It's not, for our purposes, it's largely a rehash of the sources cites previously. I do like the way they clearly delineated the places where the alleged violence took place, and I think this is still a useful way to organize the information. In addition, I think it is important to mention which witnesses they cite, inasmuch as they are AN authority that was widely cited, and they identifies a few pieces of additional information that wasn't in the NYT or other summaries. But I would suggest that that ARCCI witness stuff can go at the end of each location section. ARCCI also offers commentary on how the alleged activities fit into "typical contexts of war" etc., and other psychological stuff, but I don't think it really adds to the article here. Others might feel differently. It also repeats the claim of systematic patterns, without really substantiating it other than to claim that there were X amount of incidents, therefore it must be systematic, which doesn't really hold water.Keizers (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)