Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 19 February 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a modest consensus against the proposed move (and clearly nothing approaching a consensus in favor of it). BD2412 T 17:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel → Allegations of sexual and gender-based violence during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel – Per #Change in article title above, these are allegations and for consistency with other article titles, we should use 2023 Hamas attack on Israel rather than a specific date. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey RM

• Support because of inconsistencies and controversies association with unfounded allegations of systematic sexual violence, which has repeatedly been shown to be false. Of course, it is possible that individual violence occurred, but there is absolutely no evidence of systematic nature of this type of assault during Oct 7.

• Support as much more precise, but without the words "and gender-based" since the article focuses strictly on sexual violence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that change too.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, "Hamas-led attacks" would be more aligned with the main article. But I'm fine with either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because the sexual violence has been confirmed by numerous sources. We don't need to specify that they haven't been proven in a court of law, because that isn't how the world or encyclopedias work. Many people say that the October 7th attacks didn't happen, or that there were no kidnappings, and those pages don't have allegations in the title. This title change is an attempt to discredit the events. TimeEngineer (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose because the sexual violence has been confirmed by numerous sources

  No, it hasn't. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per TimeEngineer. Specifically, the NYT conducted a two-month investigation that established that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7. The investigation relied on photographs, videos, GPS data from phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors. Many other RS journals follow, e.g. CNN, BBC, NBC, The Guardian, Algeminer, France24 and more GidiD (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are reports such as Netanyahu’s War on Truth that appear to cast some doubt on the NYT reporting? Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  And this Family of key case in New York Times October 7 sexual violence report renounces story, says reporters manipulated them from Mondoweiss (also discussed at RSN). Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that this later report from NYT U.N. to Study Reports of Sexual Violence in Israel During Oct. 7 Attack includes the sentence "The U.N. visit comes after multiple news organizations reported allegations of sexual violence" and details what critics have said about the initial reporting. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of the sources you site contends that there is some kind of rape hoax going on. The Intercept for instance sais as follows:

  The fact that Israel has not produced forensic evidence for individual rapes does not prove that no such deeds took place. Rape investigations are often complex, particularly when the crime occurs amid a chaotic scene of mass violence. Sexual violence is common in warfare, and it often takes years for the full story of such crimes to emerge. But there is a difference between making specific allegations of rape or sexual assault and charging that organized mass rape was a central component of an operation meticulously planned over the course of years. Israel’s evidence of the latter comes nowhere near to measuring up to its claims. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) second sentence added. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  A critical look at The New York Times' weaponisation of rape in service of Israeli propaganda by Randa Abdel-Fattah Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Same there: We are confronted with the political reality that sexual assault against Israeli women is being weaponised in the service of manufacturing consent for genocide against Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Seems that the article is need of some serious editing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  The New York Times has a pro-Israeli bias. This isn't hard. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since when? AriTheHorse^{Talk to me!} 18:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can't give a date, not just NYT. But everyone knows this already.Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS:ALLEGED: Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. No one in the public domain except conspiracy theorists are drumming their fingers saying "gee I don't know if there was sexual violence on Oct. 7." That is established fact. Keep in mind the wording of the current title simply states in NPOV fashion that there was sexual violence, which I do believe even Hamas concedes. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  See Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza When there is doubt, entirely appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  You merely have to look at the article to see the difference. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Israel/oPt: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls No objection if I create Extrajudicial killing and sexual violence by Israel against Palestinian women and girls, without "allegations" of course. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [Edit: I see Sexual and gender-based violence in 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza has in fact been created. 13:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)]

  Please do. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is that there is ample evidence of genocide, yet not a single independently confirmed case of rape on 10/7. If you disagree, please name a single person who was raped on 10/7 and whose rape was independently confirmed. You can't. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Genocide" is a technical, legal term with a very specific definition, and so it is appropriate to be very cautious before putting it into a title, whereas "Sexual and gendered-based violence" is a more generally term that requires some caution but not the same level. I think it is appropriate we have articles without the cumbersome "Allegations of" for both Sexual and gender-based violence in 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza and Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, as there is widespread reporting about both, even if specific named incidents have not necessarily been verified to a legal standard in either case. Our standard of evidence is not that of a court, but we need to be careful with legal terms. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources are in agreement that sexual and gender-based violence occurred - while there is disagreement about the specifics, changing the title as proposed would suggest that there is the possibility such violence did not occur and would as such be an NPOV violation.

  As far as I can tell, even the editors !voting oppose don't dispute that this violence took place? BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Selfstudier and WP:NPOV. It is absolutely normal to use "alleged" or "allegations" in articles and article titles until there has been proof of a crime - such as Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza or any of the myriad of Troubles in Northern Ireland killings, which remained at "killing of" titles until a murder was proven. This is also the norm in criminal cases, e.g., Killing of Ashling Murphy until conviction, Murder of George Floyd after conviction, etc. What MOS:ALLEGED actually states is alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Killing of Ashling Murphy, Murder of George Floyd, as well as the myriad Troubles in Northern Ireland killings are subject to special rules, WP:BLPCRIME, that don't apply here. We are allowed to say, in Wikivoice, that atrocities took place even prior to a conviction for said atrocities, if reliable sources are in agreement - and it would be an NPOV violation for us not to do so.

  For example, we can and must say in Wikivoice that civilians were massacred during the October 7 attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

By this standard, Bastun, we would not have articles such as War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. Agree we should be more cautious with terms like "genocide", "murder", "manslaughter" or "rape" (and therefore in some cases complicate the title with "Allegations of") than with "killing" or "violence", but Sexual and gender-based violence" is more akin to the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per TimeEngineer, Coretheapple, and BilledMammal. Also these well documented and evidenced cases fall under War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war, and the war crimes article does not have “allegations” in its title. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: First of all, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:

"Context relates to specific facts, not just the source. The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. ".

Obviously, statements by the State of Israel are extremely biased, thus not RS. The New York Times article is also not a RS in this case, as other RS have shown how unchecked, inconsistent, and unreliable the witness testimony reported in the Times was, and this is discussed at length within this article itself! Thus, as per WP:ALLEGED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear". There is literally no, ZERO forensic or victim testimony about any of the alleged rapes, and FWIW I do believe some did happen that day, but since NO INCIDENT has been documented other than hearsay, I don't see how we can NOT say "alleged rapes", otherwise Wikipedia's voice is literally Hasbara, the voice of the Israeli regime.Keizers (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Might be compelling if Israeli government sources were all we had, but nobody could accuse Physicians for Human Rights of hasbara.[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support: If "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" already carries "allegations" in the title, there is no reason to treat this article differently, given that the sexual violence allegations are being heavily weaponized by Israel and the controveries brought by the NYT article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  According to this site: https://checkyourfact.com/2024/01/05/fact-check-new-york-times-story-hamas/

  NYT did not retract its story. Modoweiss’ story is false. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please refrain from making straw-man argument. No one said that the NYT retracted the Screams without Words story. Additionally, the mother company of CheckYourFact.com[2], The Daily Caller, is considered a deprecated source (WP:DAILYCALLER)—simply put, it is unreliable and forbidden to be used on Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t know that source was unreliable. The source article’s title is “FACT CHECK: DID THE NEW YORK TIMES RETRACT ITS STORY ON HAMAS AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE?”

  And later, “ A New York Times spokesperson said that “we stand by our report” in an email to Check Your Fact.” Wafflefrites (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  We don't care what unreliable source says, even in a "response from the reliable source to an unreliable source" situation. If you want to engage in a constructive discussion, stop quoting anything from the unreliable source. (The very act of asking if "the NYT retracted the story" by this unreliable source is a straw man.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Allegation : "a statement, made without giving proof, that someone has done something wrong or illegal". We currently are way passed the threshold where most of Hamas sexual violence are not allegations anymore. Alice Jill Edwards and Morris Tidball-Binz — the UN's special rapporteurs on torture and arbitrary executions have said "The growing body of evidence about reported sexual violence is particularly harrowing," The question is not if we have proofs or not anymore, we even have videos shared by Hamas proving sexual violence, the question is how many cases of sexual violence were left undocumented as most victims were killed or kidnapped. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oct-7-sexual-violence-investigation-1.7093742 https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack-rape-bb06b950bb6794affb8d468cd283bc51 Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coretheapple. I can't help but feel this is more about meta narratives than the title itself. Concerns about Israel exaggerating this to justify atrocities are absolutely legitimate, but I don't see how the current title advances that narrative. It does not say "systematic" or "coordinated", just that some sexual violence occurred. There's no disagreement on that, the controversy is about things that already aren't in the title. Jamedeus (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I write as somone who believes that the 'atrocity stories' have been greatly amplified and the 'waters muddied' by the weaponisation of those stories by Israel and pro-Israel commentators. Also that sources are often being 'cherry-picked' and misrepresented here to imply that most sources endorse the NYT level of unsceptical embracing of frankly absurd and speculative accounts (a broken pelvis can be caused by being struck with any rigid object, such as a baseball bat, the butt of a rifle, or explosive force of a grenade throwing a person against a wall - all of these are much more likely to cause pelvic fracture than rape, yet pelvic fracture in a small number of corpses is offered as proof of mass rape - an edited interview tape of an alleged perpetrator has about the same value as evidence as a 'hostage tape' released by Hamas, ie zero, we have no idea of the level of coercion employed to get the interviewee to say what was wanted). Sceptical sources don't endorse the more hysterical coverage and none of us knows at present how many of these 'atrocity stories' will turn out to be probably true, nor who the perps were. Of course the UN said reported sexual violence is particularly harrowing, I am shocked by both some of the stories officials have told and citizens have related, but that doesn't mean the UN is endorsing the truth of such reports. An honest investigation's very purpose is to - as far as possible - establish the likely truth, not to 'rubberstamp' a pre-existing narrative. Despite my scepticism, I believe the topic is aptly named and in line with similar 'conflict-related' articles, which will never meet levels of proof involved in normal criminal cases. I endorse Jamedeus comment that Concerns about Israel exaggerating this to justify atrocities are absolutely legitimate, but I don't see how the current title advances that narrative. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC) addendum I would support removal of "and gender-based (violence)" . The term is vague - is everything done to a female inherently 'gender-based'? Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  You may have a point re "gender-based." At first blush it seems redundant. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agree we should probably remove “gender-based”. According to NBC, male bodies also showed signs of genital mutilation, so it was not limited to females. [3] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I also support removing "gender-based", it's unclear what this phrase adds. Sexual violence seems like a broad enough term. Jamedeus (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Physicians for Human Rights use both terms: Sexual and gender-based violence refers to acts of abuse committed against a person’s will and rooted in a system of unequal gender norms and dynamics. Gender violence includes physical, sexual, and mental harm intended to humiliate, subordinate, threaten, and debilitate victims. In the context of armed conflict, these acts of violence are sometimes utilized to humiliate not only the victims themselves but to symbolically infringe upon the dignity of their entire communities, societies, and nations.[4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - As Coretheapple says that Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, having the title remain so definitive implies that all events within the page are definitive fact. As mentioned by numerous users above, with Israel weaponising such stories of these atrocities as propaganda (lest we forget the "beheaded babies" story or the "baby roasted in an oven" story), I think the situation is just too delicate to take any accusation as fact. I think the article title should remain with the words "alleged" or "allegations of" permanently.
  The IDF have shown throughout the entire conflict that a minority of their members are disgusting individuals. From videos showing members ransacking Palestinian homes, rifling through women's underwear drawers, posing with the lingerie of a displaced (or possibly killed) Palestinian woman, to the various reports of rape by Israeli soldiers (including prior to 7 Oct, and including assaults on their own peers), including a report today that the UN are calling for investigations into more reported rapes and sexual assaults, it is not farfetched to pose the question: were the (alleged) atrocities on 7 Oct perhaps committed by Israeli soldiers themselves, not knowing who was Israeli or who was Palestinian in the conflict? It has been reported that Israeli activated the Hannibal Directive on 7 Oct, killing any moving targets, which would inevitably include a number of Israeli civilians.
  Finally, as Sameboat has rightly brought up, why is it that the article Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza remains with such a title, given the genocidal intent being shown by serving members of Israel's government. If this is not enough to change the title to "Genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza", then there is certainly not enough definitive proof to keep the title here as it is. When all we have to work with is eyewitness testimony and (harrowing, but by no means evidence) photos/videos of purported victims, we will likely never know for sure if these alleged crimes did take place.
  What we do know is that both Hamas and the IDF killed hundreds of people each on 7 Oct 2023. This is fact. Any details of the atrocities committed by both sides on this day are subject to scrutiny, and for this reason the page should be moved to the suggested destination, or a variation of it. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as there is not a single confirmed case of sexual assault by Hamas on 10/7. People who are voting to keep the current title, all you have to do to prove me wrong is give me a single name of someone who was sexually assaulted on 10/7, by Hamas, whose assault has been confirmed by impartial sources. The fact that there is yet to be a single such name is ample evidence of the spuriousnesss of such accusations, rooted as they are in the Orientalist idea that all Arabs are rapacious hordes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a weird request. Neither the surviving victims of sexual assault nor the relatives of the dead ones are likely to want to make their names public. Consider Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were many instances of sexual violence but I don't think you'll find many victims' names made public. Alaexis_¿question? 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Complying with this request would likely be a WP:BLPNAME violation; unless widely publicised we should not be disclosing the names of rape victims. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Rape victims are treated with sensitivity (perhaps not here, but usually), and no, Wikipedia doesn't demand this absurd level of "proof" in determining titles. Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Goes to change Israel and apartheid to Israeli apartheid in view of "absurd level of proof" not being required. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a really problematic and inappropriate request that does not relate to any WP policies. As Physicians for Human Rights note: Due to privacy concerns, details of the violent acts were not made public. Given the nature and consequences of sexual violence, the well-being of survivors is prioritized over the collection and documentation of evidence.[5] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sources, including those that reported on it some time after the events make it clear that some sexual violence happened (The bodies of women and girls showed various signs of sexual assault, from the WSJ). Alaexis_¿question? 09:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because the sexual violence has been confirmed by numerous sources. SocialTechWorker (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the fact that there was sexual violence during the Hamas attack is widely documented by reliable secondary sources, although some specific cases and testimonies are in dispute (which doesn't justify change in title). –BanyanClimber(talk) 10:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per BanyanClimber and others. Widely established by reliable mainstream sources, including recent shocking report by ynetnews. Noon (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please stop using abhorrent Israeli propaganda as “credible sources”? This article is solely eyewitness testimony. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ynet is not "Israeli propaganda". It is a free newspaper in a democratic country that reports news and conducts journalistic investigations. In many cases it presents a position that is contrary to the position of the current government, and sometimes even criticizes it venomously. I have not seen anywhere on Wikipedia a formal challenge to Ynet's legitimacy as a reliable source or as a reference. Noon (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  It - and all the other news sources - are just that: news sources. Not police. Not doctors. Not victims. Not courts. Until there are a) convictions; or b) reports released by independent invesitgative bodies (and I believe Hamas is subject to at least one such investigation by the ICJ), then all a news source can report is allegations. In the middle of a vicious armed conflict, there may also be some propaganda floating about. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you aware that if an Israeli newspaper reported now that there was no sexual violence on 7/10, they would instantly lose most advertisers and revenue? Business is business, most newspapers are not there to discover the truth but to earn money for their owners. Yes, Ynet runs plenty of propaganda, because that's what its audience and customers expect and pay for. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  One can say exactly the same about a host of news organizations on the opposite side of the battle line that are (sometimes unwisely in my view) accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. That's why I keep repeating that Wikipedia should not be a press clipping service. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the mainstream sources supporting this does not involve an "allegation". Hogo-2020 (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. These are not allegations, but facts. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Zat so? Since when? According to who? What does "reportedly" mean in Line 1? and "accused of" in Line 2? Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  I’m very concerned that the “Oppose” votes here are mostly based on personal opinion or ideological affiliation. Every “fact” they speak of is still based on witness testimony, and is therefore not fact. While discussion is, of course, welcome, it is dangerous to ignore standard terminology in favour of personal opinion, especially when casting votes. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, this is actually a matter of fact per multiple RS (CNN [6], NYT [7], Guardian, Reuters, you name it), a 35-page report [8], etc. Do you guys seriously imply that nothing had happen? My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources also state that Israel is currently engaged in a genocide in Gaza, so therefore we can include that in Wikipedia too, in Wikivoice, by the same logic. Yes? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You say: Many, many reliable sources also state that Israel is currently engaged in a genocide in Gaza. True or not, but this is irrelevant for this page which is on entirely different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

One could argue that there is more factual evidence supporting this claim than the claim that sexual assault took place on 7 Oct... Clear genocidal intent from Israeli politicians, tens of thousands (mostly civilians) killed, millions displaced, indiscriminate killing of children and civilians in the West Bank... Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The first article is solely witness testimony, and this is even in the headline of the article itself. Not fact.

The second article is mostly witness testimony, or suspicions: "Israeli police officials said they believed that Ms. Abdush was raped", "The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated". Whilst the images that the NYT saw were clearly harrowing, judging by the descriptions, it does not take away from the fact that these are allegations, not proven fact.

More worryingly, and in my opinion enough to have it permanently removed as a source, as well as a discussion over the credibility of the New York Times, is the fact that one of the authors of this piece, Anat Schwartz, has only started writing for the NYT since November 2023. Adam Sella, another author on the post, who was also not active as a journalist for the NYT before Oct 2023, appears to be Schwartz' husband's nephew, and her husband has revealed that she is not actually a journalist.

Not only is this a conflict of interest, but it appears that the NYT hired an extremist to write anti-Palestinian propaganda for them in November 2023. Schwartz' likes on Twitter have shown her to be in agreement that Gaza should be turned into a "slaughterhouse", as well as peddling the debunked lie that 40 babies were murdered on 7 Oct.

The third author of this piece, Jeffrey Gettleman, is not exactly known for his quality journalism. Here is a video of Gettleman himself stating that he is not presenting evidence in his articles, but merely "give people a voice". He has also written pieces on the Netanyahu brothers, which wouldn't look out of place in North Korea if you swapped Benjamin Netanyahu for Kim Jong-un.

The final source is also unreliable. In it, the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel have supposedly come up with a 35-page document; a compilation of "interviews with witnesses, first responders and medical officials", as well as information from other articles, which are also almost solely witness testimony. It also states that Israel has refused to cooperate with any UN commission of inquiry - accusing them of bias. The UN.

A statement does not become a fact simply because multiple witnesses claim it to be true, otherwise aliens would be factually real. The "evidence" coming from Israeli-backed news articles is based on witness testimony, it comes from unreliable "journalists" and is often nothing more than propaganda. The fact that this topic is even up for debate is quite worrying for the integrity of this website, in my opinion.

If we are accepting any Israeli-backed reports about the conflict, without even questioning their journalistic integrity, then we are no better than an Israeli propaganda machine. The fact of the matter is: these witness testimonies are allegations. The title of this article should reflect that. It's not saying that nothing happened on 7 Oct, it is just clarifying that, thus far, any claims of sexual assault are not proven. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your entire comment should be put in bold and pinned on top of this section.👍 — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

it is a little self-defeating to call reliable sources into question by citing as your authority... "zei squirrel" and "esha legal" on Twitter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The support argument seems to be based on extraordinarily disregarding coverage by many reliable sources as shoddy, misleading, fraudulent, or incomplete. There's no extraordinary evidence for this. Reliable sources report it as fact; it is, for Wikipedia's purposes, fact. Zanahary (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which can prove that these events took place. Please refrain from using any articles that are based solely on witness testimony, as this is, by definition, not fact. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha, please show me the policy that says no reliable sources that report witness testimony may be cited on Wikipedia Zanahary (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Not what they said. There are no RS reporting these allegations as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept:

ONE THING IS true: Hamas and other Palestinian militants committed unspeakable sexual violence against Israeli civilians on October 7.

NYT:

A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

The Guardian:

Guardian aware of sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist.

Associated Press:

Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took more than 240 hostages that day.

Zanahary (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

First one is Intercept voices ie an opinion. The NYT article has been rubbished by several sources and the NYT even cancelled follow ups based on it. Third one, evidence is not proof (of 6 assaults). AP attributes accounts given to them. A lot of this article is Netanyahu’s War on Truth Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Evidence is not proof, but AP’s stated conclusion is that, factually, sexual assault was part of what happened during the Oct 7 attack in Israel. You said no reliable sources state it as fact. That is not correct. Zanahary (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show..." is not fact. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, the word "show" makes clear that their conclusion is that it happened. X shows Y implies Y. Zanahary (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The "accounts"... and ... "the first assessments" (subject) "show" (verb). Not an AP conclusion at all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your argument implies that "The flat earthers' arguments show that the Earth's roundness is a myth" would not imply the author's conclusion or acceptance that the Earth is flat. Zanahary (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That says that the earth is not round according to the flat earthers. Need any more help with attribution? Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Really no need to be impolite. Apparently we disagree on the meaning of this verbiage. To me it’s clear AP would never use it if they didn’t intend to affirm that rapes occurred during the Oct 7 attack in Israel. Zanahary (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So...the "Support"commenters are not biased? 2601:603:4D00:CC70:3071:B14:43D:B5 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are literally hundreds RS on this subject which say something similar; I only gave a few examples that strongly support my point. There is an extensive evidence [9] that the abuses on a large scale did happen. Sorry. Yes, I know some people can not accept facts. For example, some Russians, even here in USA, still think that Bucha was staged. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  You understand the difference between attributing an accusation and reporting a fact, right? Because, once again, you’re bringing a source attributing an accusation. nableezy - 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are many cases with bare accusations that may or may not be true; they must be explicitly attributed to specific sources, etc. However, in this case, the mass rapes by Hamas members is already a historical fact, just as Bucha massacre by Russian forces is a historical fact, etc. Facts can be described in multiple RS, but that does not make them merely accusations. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol. "Alternative facts".Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

??? If multiple RS present the rapes as a fact (e.g. [10]) rather than an allegation, so should we. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That source attributes the accusation to the Israeli government and Physicians for Human Rights in Israel. nableezy - 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This and other sources describe the rapes as something that had undoubtedly happened and clearly supported by the existing evidence, not merely an allegation. Yes, it says about the sources, such as the report by Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, which looks like a reputable organization. And once again, providing the sources of information (e.g. in scientific articles) does not make any factual information or whatever less reliable. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The entirety of the article is an interview with one of the PHR authors. Yes, that is a reputable organization. But it is a source for attributed views, just as we use them attributed for Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights. You keep bringing sources that attribute the accusation, but that is not the same as presenting it as a fact. nableezy - 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but violations of certain human rights in Israel is also a matter of fact, except that human rights is a complex subject (so one can argue here one way or another), but rape is something well defined and especially in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

But we present them as accusations by human rights organizations. Israel is accused of using disproportionate force, of a creating a system of apartheid, and so on. We dont say Amnesty International. HRW, Btselem and so on have all found this to be a fact so we present it as a fact. We attribute the accusations to those who are making them. Your sources do the same. The last one you brought presented this as the view of PHR-Israel, not as an established fact. This is like Wikipedia 101, I dont understand what about this is difficult to understand. nableezy - 16:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The discrimination at the Israeli-occupied territories is actually a fact. If it should be defined as an apartheid is an accusation and debatable. By the same token, the rapes during the attack is a fact. Should they be described as a genocide is an accusation and debatable. Or at least this is my understanding. Sorry if we disagree about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think y'all just want to pick and choose what's a fact and what's an accusation. If it looks bad for Israel its an accusation and if it looks bad for Hamas, then its a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I just provided examples of facts and allegations on both sides. Yes, one needs to know the subject to make a qualified judgement what is a well established fact in the field and what is not. I am not an expert here, but read enough about it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You just saying the same thing again doesn’t make it true. And for the record, the NYT is now investigating the author of the Screams without Words article for having liked tweets that called for genocidal violence against the Palestinians. nableezy - 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the phrasing of other articles, the degree of credibility of the claim, the avoidance of weasel words, and othee arguments made by others above. That being said, not generally opposed to implementation of a general standard for Wikipedia when alleged should and shouldn’t be used that significantly increases the bar required to be met, as long as it is broadly applied to all articles and titles.FortunateSons (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support, many of the Israeli allegations have already been proven to be false, including alleged "sexual" ones like the "cutting of breast and playing with it" and the "40 beheaded babies". There is no reason why wikipedia should reprint made up Israeli war propaganda. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. As indicated by the articles cited by Zanahary, reliable sources make it perfectly plain that sexual violence took place in southern Israel on Oct. 7. Only WP:FRINGE viewpoints state that there is substantial doubt that sexual violence too place, that it may have all been made up. The title is quite neutral. It does not allege who committed the violence, but simply states that there was sexual violence. There is no need to utilize weasel words in Wikipedia's voice in crafting the title of the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - they are not allegations, as they clearly happened. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

URGENT comment - The Intercept (a WP:RSP) has reported in the past few hours that the New York Times article "Screams Without Words", written in part by disgraced faux-journalist Anat Schwartz, was almost entirely fabricated.

An interview given by Schwartz to Channel 12 (Israel) reveals that "[Schwartz] was told there had been no complaints made of sexual assaults" when she called hospitals, rape crisis centres, trauma recovery facilities, and sex assault hotlines in Israel. She states that "no one had met a victim of sexual assault" at a number of hospitals, and that the manager of the sexual assault hotline in Israel’s south also told her that they had no reports of sexual violence.

She went on to interview a paramedic from the Israeli Air Force medical unit 669, whose ludicrous claims were since discredited, and after speaking to him, she stated "I say, ‘OK, so it happened, one person saw it happen in Be’eri, so it can’t be just one person, because it’s two girls. It’s sisters. It’s in the room. Something about it is systematic, something about it feels to me that it’s not random". This is based on no evidence or factual information other than the testimony of someone who claimed that a rescuer "pulled out of the garbage" a baby who’d been stabbed multiple times, and that he had seen "Arabic sentences that were written on entrances to houses … with the blood of the people that were living in the houses.", both of which have been debunked.

Schwartz then went on to speak with ZAKA, who have already been discredited (1, 2), and that ZAKA were the ones who made the claims of seeing "naked women" or "women without underwear". Schwartz herself states in the Channel 12 interview that even after speaking to the one supposed eyewitness and ZAKA, "stories, like, didn’t emerge from there".

Schwartz then spoke to Shari Mendes, and despite her ridiculous stories of a baby cut from a mother and beheaded and broken pelvises, the NYT went on to use Mendes' statements as facts in their article, without even questioning her credibility - she has no medical or forensic credentials to legally determine rape. Schwartz later wrote that Israel’s police chief, Kobi Shabtai, promised that ample evidence would soon be provided - evidence which has yet to be produced. Unbelievably, Schwartz later accused therapists and counsellors at a holistic therapy facility, Merhav Marpe, of being engaged in "a conspiracy of silence".

Schwartz herself has discredited the suggestion that rape took place at the Nova music festival, stating that there logistically would not have been enough time for such acts to take place in such a frenzied escape.

Claims by Raz Cohen that civilians engaged in rape and murder of Israeli women were included in the NYT article, despite Cohen having changed his story on multiple occasions. Cohen stated that his friend, Shoam Gueta, was a corroborating witness to the rape, which was repeated by the NYT, however Gueta made no mention of rape in an interview on the 8th October, a day after the supposed events. Gueta has since been deployed to Gaza with the IDF and has posted many videos on TikTok of himself rummaging through Palestinian homes. Cohen later declined to speak to the NYT, citing "the stress of his experience".

Adi Edri, the Israeli official leading the investigation into sexual violence on October 7, stated that "At this stage [a week after the NYT article was published], I have no specific bodies".

A later article by the NYT went on to acknowledge that the NYT had not yet been able to corroborate the allegations made, and added a correction to the article, reading: "An earlier version of this article misstated the kind of evidence Israeli police have gathered in investigating accusations of sexual violence committed on Oct. 7 in the attack by Hamas against Israel. The police are relying mainly on witness testimony, not on autopsies or forensic evidence." In the same article, it was reported by Schwartz, Sella and Gettleman that "Investigators have gathered ‘tens of thousands’ of testimonies of sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, according to the Israeli police, including at the site of a music festival that was attacked". Such testimonies have yet to materialise, and as mentioned earlier, Schwartz has already rubbished the idea that any rape took place at the Nova music festival.

Schwartz admitted in the Channel 12 interview that if she did not hurry to publish the NYT article, the topic "may no longer be interesting". She also stated that Israel police sources were pressuring her to move quickly to publish, and that she felt pressured to report that rape and sexual assault had happened.

The NYT article relies also on the story of Gal Abdush, whose own family have later stated that they felt reporters manipulated them, and that the timing of Abdush's WhatsApp messages make the Israeli officials’ claims that she was raped implausible. Her brother in law stated that the media invented the story of Abdush's rape, while the person who filmed her charred corpse told YNet that Schwartz and Sella had pressured her into giving the paper access to her photos and videos for the purposes of serving Israeli propaganda.

This article went on to be the basis for many other stories in supposedly reputable media, and was largely used as a justification for the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in Gaza in the weeks that followed. The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of Schwartz and the NYT, and I think we may even have to go as far as to rename the article Disproven allegations of sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the writeup!

I think we may even have to go as far as to rename the article Disproven allegations of sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel.

Not unless there's a consensus among reliable sources that allegations of sexual and gender-based violence in the Oct 7 attack on Israel are disproven—which is way out of scope of this one Intercept piece (which at best would discredit the NYT piece) anyways. Zanahary (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but something to consider for the future of the article, depending on how this story develops - as stated I believe most other RS articles rely heavily on the NYT article, or the points details within it, for their accusations. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I truly do not consider The Intercept a reliable source on this matter; New York Times in contrast is a paper of record. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Not just the Intercept, we have the Nation, CNN as well, while no-one is questioning overall NYT reliability, seems pretty clear they screwed the pooch on this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources, as of Wikipedia consensus, but it is very clear (from the sources mentioned above by Selfstudier) that the NYT's coverage of this specific topic was handled terribly, and in my opinion this should definitely raise questions over the NYT's coverage of the entire genocide. If they are hiring people who are no better than propagandists, who write such damning articles on such delicate matters with little to no actual evidence besides the witness testimony of known frauds and liars, then can they be trusted in future coverage of the events that unfold? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Five months after October 7 so far the only sources pushing the mass rape/weaponized mass sexual violence trope (as opposed to individual sexual violence cases) are: 1) the ZAKA fraudsters and 2) the totally discredited Schwartz and Sella piece. If Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza can still have "allegations" in its title even though the statements proving actual genocidal intent are coming from the horse's mouth itself (Gallant, Netanyahu, Dichter, Eiland, Yadlin etc), then this article should have "allegations" in its title too if a reportage of disgraced fraudsters is its chief source. BubbleBabis (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support If a woman (or man) told me they had been raped/have witnessed rape, I would generally believe them, at least 99%. But if those allegations came from genocide supporter, like Anat Schwartz, or ZAKA (whose memeber lied for years to protect their rapist founder, Yehuda Meshi Zahav), then my belief in them drops to about 1%. "Allegations" is definitely needed in the article name. Huldra (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  What about if following a 17-day visit to Israel, the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict found that "in the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel"? https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217 Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The sexual violence perpetrated is well-documented, including by GoPro footage uploaded by participants themselves. Moreover, the United Nations today (3/4/2024) released a thorough report of reasonable grounds and ‘clear and convincing information’ to believe Hamas committed sexual violence on Oct. 7 and that the hostages held in Gaza are currently being subjected to sexual violence. The same report expressed concerns raised over cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Palestinians in detention, including sexual violence in the form of invasive searches, threats of rape and prolonged forced nudity. If this page needs to be renamed to "alleged", then so does Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war. But neither should be. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217 Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Now that there is an official UN report available, I am willing to drop my support for adding allegations, provided that this report and only this report and RS relating to it (plenty of them already) are the basis for the article going forward. Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the UN report does discredit the notion of adding "alleged" to this article title and makes it seem frankly ridiculous. But we don't remove perfectly valid sources because they are confirmed. Quite the opposite. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, because we have a bunch of allegations (including possibly unfounded allegations, I haven't scrutinized the reports as yet) besides the confirmed facts. ZAKA, the NYT and who knows what other non UN confirmed stories are possible and need to be rooted out. Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that no information belongs in this article unless it comes from a source pertaining to today’s UN report? Zanahary (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, I said the UN report must form the basis for the article going forward. Please don't put words in my mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  It was a question.

  What do you mean by basis? Zanahary (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Er, "basis" is what I mean. Selfstudier (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  What does "the UN report must form the basis for the article" mean, if not that only content pertaining to that report should make up the article? Zanahary (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Asked and answered. Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  must form the basis Look, this is not a bargaining session. If you wish to remove your objection to "alleged," fine. If not, fine. We don't disregard our sourcing policies to "win over" an editor who has an unreasonable position on sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am not bargaining. Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it is. You began this RM and now you're saying you'll change your mind not on the merits but if you get the sourcing restricted in a way that you want. There are two separate issues, whether the RM should be approved and whether we need to nuke all non-UN related sources. You're linking them and frankly I think even proposing it is improper. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, after UN report. And I suggest a WP:SNOWCLOSE here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I concur with WP:SNOWCLOSE. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly this is a moving target, evidence of the sexual assaults being clear from the start---for after all the sorry state of the victims were recorded by the triumphant rapists---but now, yes the absurdity of this whole "alleged" nonsense is plainly clean, however much some editors seek to muddy the waters. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A SNOW close is inappropriate because "allegations" is only one part of the proposed move, there is also the matter of replacing the ill defined 7 October attack with the consistent 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. It is an RM, not long to wait. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's no need to muddy the waters. The comments were directed entirely at "alleged," the absurdity of which is now evident. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Glad you agree that they were not absurd when the RM was opened. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Afraid your gladness is misplaced. ;) Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  As is your assertion of prior absurdity. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the report says "The mission team conducted a visit to kibbutz Be’eri and 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. These included a highly publicized allegation of a pregnant woman whose womb had reportedly been ripped open before being killed, with her fetus stabbed while still inside her. Other allegations, including of objects intentionally inserted into female genital organs, could not be verified by the mission team due in part to limited and low-quality imagery."

  and per the BBC "The mission, led by Ms Patten along with nine experts, was not investigative in nature, but designed to gather and verify allegations, the UN said."

  So it seems that at least the UN team understood that they were allegations (and that some remain) Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  you're clutching at straws Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

hood criticism of this bunk https://twitter.com/daniela127/status/1764393496327135321

Now also further disproved by U.N. and likely the further investigations will continue to reveal the rape horrors. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I just realized I needed to sign in to add my !vote here. Rookie mistake. But anyway, I still oppose the move due to the UN report. IncompA 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (invited by the bot for the other question above) While there may be debate about some of the specifics, this happenned and is the subject of the article. The subject is not "allegations". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Allegations looking increasingly dubious in light of The Intercept's debunking and the discrediting of e.g. ZAKA. JDiala (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Worth noting similar articles with much more documented evidence such as: Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The majority of the claims here remain wildly unsubstantiated at the evidence level. The NYT piece has been wildly lambasted for inaccuracy, but did get the point about there being little evidence beyond witness testimony correct. The UN report – i.e. the report itself, not the biased news spun from it – is based not on a formal investigation, because Israel wouldn't allow the UN special rapporteur to investigate formally, but merely pertains to selected evidence provided to the investigator's office by the Israeli authorities. Based on this limited information, the report suggests that there was "convincing evidence", but nothing to take the claims "beyond reasonable doubt", which is the actual standard of proof. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  The U.N. report says they received the full cooperation of Israel. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Diplomatic speak. "Full cooperation", but not too investigate. See "authorities have refused to give access to the proper UN bodies that could thoroughly investigate the alleged crimes." [11] [12] Iskandar323 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  These are from January 16th. The report began January 29th. I suggest reading the full report; it is not just "diplomatic speak", unless you have something to back up such a claim. I am also surprised to see Times of Israel cites, since I recall it being called "from a regime currently pumping out propaganda" quite recently on here.SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no point furthering this discussion or wasting further breath if you plan on simply denying that the UN report was non-investigative precisely because the Israeli authorities refused to allow the UN the necessary access for it to be investigative. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am going by the UN report, which clearly says it has the full cooperation of Israel. If you do not wish to discuss it further, then fine. The UN report said it was there to verify information and it did --- rape happened and is ongoing, and a full fledged investigation is needed. The dates matter. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Further, the UN report itself says - "The mission was neither intended to, and nor could the mission team, in such a short period of time, establish the prevalence of conflict-related sexual violence during and after the 7 October attacks. The overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a comprehensive investigation by competent bodies." The "non-investigative" nature was due to its short time there, not because Israel refusing the UN, which the UN report clarifies it did not.

  To repeat from below: The Times of Israel article is talking about "The commission of inquiry [that] was set up in May 2021 as “an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021." It is not about the report on sexual crimes. The UN report is clear: "The UN noted that the acts of sexual violence that were detailed in the report constituted “evidence [that] rises above ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ yet falls below ‘beyond a reasonable doubt...A "fully fledged" investigation will be needed to establish the latter." SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Ms. Patten’s recommendations include a call for the Israeli Government to grant full access to the UN human rights office [...] to conduct fully-fledged independent investigations into all alleged violations". [13] Iskandar323 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat from below: Yes, and? The UN report said it was given full cooperation by Israel. The report is explicit that she was there for a short time, and that is why it is not "investigative in nature." Patten's recommendation is not surprising, since the next step is a full investigation, and Israel and all parties will need to grant full access. Which I am guessing Hamas will not do. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe Israel has ever cooperated fully with a UN investigation, and there is no reason to believe they will begin now. The recent visit was just an attempt to launder the information that they have no intention of investigating fully through the UN for propaganda purposes. EI has just reported this, so other media might get around to it in a month or two from now, or possibly not. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you have something to back up these wild claims - "laundering for propaganda purposes", taking your "I don't believe" is not sufficient to dispose of a serious report by the UN. Also Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source - this article is just gesticulating that no rape happened and anyone who says it did is pushing "Israeli propaganda", a ridiculous accusation against the UN, who hates Israel. The UN confirmed what Hamas filmed and uploaded. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I said I don't believe it will fully cooperate, i.e. it hasn't to date, and there is no indication that it plans to cooperate fully in future with an independent investigation. The UN report is simply based on the information that Israel chose to provide to the UN. Even so, as the actually rather cogent EI piece notes: the report admits that “in the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos,” undertaken by the UN team, “no tangible indications of rape could be identified.” It also concedes that the UN team saw “no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence”. The quoted parts are directly from the report, so the gaping omissions in the information are documented by the UN. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  The second part of this quote reads, "Further investigation may alter this assessment in the future. Nevertheless, considering the nature of rape, which often does not result in visible injuries, this possibility cannot be ruled out based solely on the medicolegal assessment. Therefore, the mission team concluded that circumstantial indicators, like the position of the corpse and the state of clothing, should also be considered when determining the occurrence of sexual violations, in addition to witness and survivor testimony."

  In other words, the digital photos and videos may indicate sex crimes. Hamas uploaded their GoPro footage themselves of their crimes.

  To repeat, the UN report got the full cooperation of Israel, and the information given to the UN was verified to indicate the clear and convincing evidence of sex crimes. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  "That said, Patten stated in the report that it is not possible to determine the extent of the sexual violence. In addition, she criticized the Israeli authorities' conduct regarding the collection of evidence about sexual violence, and called on Israel to cooperate with other UN bodies in their investigations." per Haaretz report on UNSC presentation yesterday.Israel almost never cooperates properly. Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  We are talking about the UN report. I am well aware that Israel did not cooperate with the larger "commission of inquiry [that] was set up in May 2021 as “an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021." Their reasoning was the UN hates Israel.

  And Hamas has not cooperated an iota. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am talking about the UN report not the CoI, it was presented by Patten to the UNSC yesterday and she criticized Israel for incomplete co-operation ie the usual situation with Israel, who, in general, do not cooperate with inquiries of any description. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I read and watched it. The UN report itself said for their specific report they received the government's full cooperation. Patten is speaking on the broader investigations. Hamas itself refuses to comply to anything. Again, this talk page is for improving the article. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this talk page is for improving the article True, try and follow that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I actually have, and have added significant improvements.

• Patten is speaking on the broader investigations as is linked in the article. Per Patten, she states that taking people hostage is "prohibited according to international law" and emphasized that the report findings state that there were "reasonable grounds to believe" sexual violence." And she saw "shocking brutality" with her own eyes, with hostages "going through hell." She also said: "I wish to express my disappointment that the immediate reaction to my report by some political actors was not to open inquiries into those alleged incidents, but rather to reject them outright via social media." I presume she is speaking of people attempting to delegitimize her findings. Thank you for sharing this article, it is a good addition actually to this page. I may add it now. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  You mention videos again immediately after the UN quote stating that there was "no digital evidence". Not sure how much clearer that can be. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  So Hamas did not upload any videos, then, to the internet at all? The UN report itself said they did; they just did not get explicit glean of sex crimes; but said in the quote above, it is possible. In any case, this talk page is for improving the article. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  The UN team has simply verified allegations without investigating them, in the process finding vallegations that they were unable to verify as well as unfounded allegations. It was not investigative and trying to pretend that it was is not cool. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I said repeatedly that it was to verify allegations, as you can see above. And they did verify that information. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're getting warmer. Yes, it's been verified that there are allegations, and that there is some information that is worth investigating, but ... no actual concrete evidence yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the report did say there is evidence and verified that information. But that a fully fledged investigation is needed. Moreover, "As in other conflict-affected contexts, there remains a significant likelihood that the findings of the mission team, in terms of verified violations, only partially reflect the crimes actually committed" and that the evidence collected in this short span time falls under the 'generally agreed that “clear and convincing” information or evidence rises above “reasonable grounds to believe” yet falls below “beyond a reasonable doubt”'. (#56) Thus, it will require "a fully-fledged investigation by competent bodies with adequate time and capacity."(#56) All of which is exactly what I have been saying all along, and the lede correctly states.SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. This is where you are incorrect. The report did not rise to level of asserting or assessing evidence – which it did not have a mandate to collect. It said there is clear and compelling information – expressly avoiding the word "evidence", not being a fully fledged investigation. The entire report is framed in terms of "received information", not evidence ... which is only references in phrases like “circumstantial evidence”, "no digital evidence", etc. in specific contexts. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  It actually did not avoid the word evidence (including about "collection of evidence" and "available circumstantial evidence", which IS evidence), and clearly outlines above that they verified this information as "clear and convincing information that some have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence including rape and sexualized torture and sexualized cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and it also has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing." The report outlines this information/evidence and verifies it. The rapes happened. In the quote itself: "it is generally agreed that “clear and convincing” information or evidence rises above “reasonable grounds to believe” yet falls below “beyond a reasonable doubt."' It verified information or evidence that sexual crimes took place. It is clear there were sexual crimes committed. Whether one individually believes it or not is another matter. In any case, the article does not use the word "evidence" when speaking of the UN report, so the point is moot in regards to the point of the talk page - improving the actual article. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh. From AP

  "Patten’s key recommendation is to encourage Israel to grant access to the U.N. human rights chief and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Palestinian territories and Israel “to carry out full-fledged investigations into the alleged violations” by Hamas."

  Clear enough now? Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I quoted that above actually, so yes, it is clear to me lol. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Great. So everybody is happy using allegations, oh wait, except WP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, it is not allegations anymore, per the report. The report speaks of verified crimes, AND unverified allegations. Sexual crimes happened. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  RS are calling them allegations, even after the report. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, it is not just allegations anymore, per the report: "In kibbutz Re’im, the mission team further verified an incident of the rape of a woman outside of a bomb shelter and heard of other allegations of rape that could not yet be verified" (#13) This distinguishes between "verification" and "allegation". In AP, Patten is speaking of the broader allegations against Hamas - if you read the full transcript of her speech, this is made clearer. Obviously, Hamas brutally murdered 1.2k people. Further, the report states "The mission team did not seek to gather information and/or to verify allegations in the context of the occupied Palestinian Territory in order not to duplicate the ongoing work of other UN entities in this regard, which will inform the forthcoming annual Report of the Secretary-General on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence." If this page needs to be renamed to "allegations", then so does Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war. But it should not. Because it is happening, as it is and did to Israeli (Jewish and Arab-Palestinian Israeli) women, as verified information by UN.SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not "information/evidence" or "information or evidence"; it is "clear and compelling information", because again – for the umpteenth time – there was no mandate to collect evidence. These are technical terms and not interchangeable. In acting otherwise, you misrepresent the sources – a WP:CIR issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Opppose per Coretheapple. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: While others such as North8000 have made compelling arguments that some level of sexual violence clearly occurred during the attack, this article deals with the unsubstantiated and discredited claims made by ZAKA and NYT as well as the more credible ones, so "allegations" is appropriate in this case.

TRCRF22 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The supporters of this RM have not provided evidence that most RS on this topic talks about it as allegations rather than as matters of fact. StellarHalo (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @StellarHalo: The information is all out there across the coverage in reliable sources since the UN report, which found no claims that went "beyond reasonable doubt", i.e. allegations that cross the evidential threshold, [14] in part because "authorities have refused to give access to the proper UN bodies that could thoroughly investigate the alleged crimes." [15] Iskandar323 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  U.N. said Israeli gov fully cooperated. The article cited in Vox is from January, before the UN reporting took place. Furthermore, "While the UN report was not investigative in nature, it was designed to gather and verify allegations." The UN noted that the acts of sexual violence that were detailed in the report constituted “evidence [that] rises above ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ yet falls below ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.' This is no longer alleged, and frankly, never was. Par the UN report, but something we all knew, Hamas filmed their sex crimes and uploaded it online. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yet the situation still has not changed, with the UN report being non-investigative because they were not given access to properly investigate, which is why they could not proceed "beyond a reasonable doubt", the legal standard that is the benchmark. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is actually not true. The reason why was because they were there for a short time, which is written in the report itself. Further, I took a look at the source cited by Vox, which is the Times of Israel article. The Times of Israel article is talking about "The commission of inquiry [that] was set up in May 2021 as “an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and abuses of international human rights law leading up and since 13 April 2021." It is not about the report on sexual crimes. The UN report is clear: "The UN noted that the acts of sexual violence that were detailed in the report constituted “evidence [that] rises above ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ yet falls below ‘beyond a reasonable doubt...A "fully fledged" investigation will be needed to establish the latter." SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Ms. Patten’s recommendations include a call for the Israeli Government to grant full access to the UN human rights office [...] to conduct fully-fledged independent investigations into all alleged violations". [16] Iskandar323 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and? The UN report said it was given full cooperation by Israel. The report is explicit that she was there for a short time, and that is why it is not "investigative in nature." Patten's recommendation is not surprising, since the next step is a full investigation, and Israel and all parties will need to grant full access. Which I am guessing Hamas will not do. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Replied above. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  So what? There is no policy or guideline dictating that Wikipedia has to wait for an event or act to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" to have actually occurred in order to publish what most RS say about it, at least as far as when people as notable as Hamas are concerned. StellarHalo (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @StellarHalo: The report, not being the result of an investigation, also did not assign any specific actors to the alleged violence (the only compelling information it found for which occurred around the Nova music festival), so it would not be correct to say "Hamas" anything, because the report did not assess if Hamas, the PIJ, others or even unaffiliated Gazan individuals were involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coretheapple and others. Given the intense feelings around this conflict and the events of the article at the point when this discussion is taking place, it is not hard to see a change of title less than the neutrality expected from an Encyclopedia. It would given the appearance as wikipedia picking sides with those denying all atrocities comitted by one side of the conflict, and thus a part of propaganda. --Aciram (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support'- We are reporting a war where propaganda and image manipulation as usual plays a fundamental role in the struggle to dominate the public global narrativ. A notable number of the most striking claims from the outset of the war - babies cooked, 40 decapitated, rapists playing handball with a woman's excised breast etc-.Israel so far has refused to collaborate with UN observers endeavouring to interview the victims to ascertain the facts and verify the claims.The analogies with denialism drawing on Bucha are, for that reason, sandinthe eyes, since Ukraine gave outside observers full access to their data and the suviving victims and eyewitnesses.

The only sure way of complying with wiki standards and NPOV is to prioritize the use of secondary sources that examine the claims, their merits and defects, rather than repeat memes in the 'breaking news' cycle that feed off this media furor. These exist already and they generally very circumspect about the status as facts of this tsunami of hearsay allegations.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Timeenginer, Coretheapple, Pincrete, Patrick.N.L and others. There is enough RS reporting that some such violence occurred that we do not need the caveat casting doubt on this, even if not all allegations are ultimately verified. Many of the oppose !voters write as if the NYT and/or Zaka are the only source and believe that criticisms of those two sources invalidate the entire article, an assumption which erases in particular Physicians for Human Rights as well as the UN and others. Even many of the "debunkers", such as The Intercept or Counterpunch, note that sexual violence did indeed occur on 7 October, even while placing doubt on some specific reports. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Coretheapple, and the UN Report on on sexual violence. 존 (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the sentence in the article that the UN found that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks". Up the Walls (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I am acknowledging that this sentence was not in the article at the time the renaming proposal was made. Up the Walls (talk)

Discusssion RM

• Note: Is there a reason that Aisha8787 ‘s comment was deleted? Why should a comment like that be deleted from a talk page with no clear reasoning? TimeEngineer (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't remove her comment personally, but she did she have >500 edits, technically speaking. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Where are you seeing that? I see very few. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Tdmurlock Those are rules for editing the article, not adding a comment onto a talk page. TimeEngineer (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they apply to comments on the talk page as well. nableezy - 19:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was under the impression the restrictions did not include "constructive comments on talk pages" very specifically. XeCyranium (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Never mind, sorry I'd gotten that from reading a clarification thread, not the actual text of the restrictions. XeCyranium (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  They do apply to talk page comments. I see 844 global edits, mostly on the Russian Wikipedia. However, I am not certain as to whether the extended confirm rules encompass non-English Wikipedia projects. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is 500 edits on the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks everyone for the discussion and clarification. I see the reason now. That said, I feel that there should be more latitude given to participation in talk pages for protected topics. Maybe loosening restrictions slightly - exactly how I don't know - would be something worth raising to the higher ups. TimeEngineer (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ARBECR is currently a subject of discussion here Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  That might be worth bringing up somewhere, perhaps the discussion cited just above, but I doubt they'll change the ECR by very much, lest it result in a free-for-all. Out-of-control socking and so on. Coretheapple (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Tdmurlock . I do see >800 edits on the Russian project BUT only English contribs count. That should be made clearer in the warning at the top of these pages. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've requested that the template message be clarified[17] Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• A UN report is out today:

Following a 17-day visit to Israel, the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict reported on Monday that she and a team of experts had found “clear and convincing information” of rape, and sexualized torture being committed against hostages seized during the 7 October terror attacks.

Pramila Patten added in a press release issued along with the report, that there are also reasonable grounds to believe that such violence, which includes other “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”, may be continuing against those still being held by Hamas and other extremists in the Gaza Strip.

The report from her Office, arose from an official visit to Israel at the invitation of the Government, which included a visit to the occupied West Bank, between 29 January and 14 February.

In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.

The team also found a pattern of victims, mostly women, found fully or partially naked, bound and shot across multiple locations which “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.

In some locations, the mission said it could not verify reported incidents of rape.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217 Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The UN report is not relevatory or groundbreaking. It is not a formal investigation, because this was prevented by the Israel authorities, and the selected evidence provided to the UN failed to incline the special rapporteur to make a pronouncement that the claims and selected evidence produced took proceedings "beyond reasonable doubt". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, the full UN report is revelatory in recording what many of us were already aware of, and more, plus groundbreaking in the formal beginning of international investigation into the Hamas sex crimes. Further, per the report: "The mission team received the full cooperation of the Government of Israel." (#2 - Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024) SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Revelatory? "There is only one new case of rape that the UN report attempts to add to the already very limited list of alleged cases" [18] Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 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.

Edit request

this should be added https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-gang-rape-likely-occurred-during-hamas-attack-israel-2024-03-04/

80.217.100.31 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it should go under "notable reports" immediately. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few RS about the report already, I am sure things will be added shortly. Patience. Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The UN release concerning the report states as follows: "Following a 17-day visit to Israel, the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict reported on Monday that she and a team of experts had found 'clear and convincing information' of rape, and sexualized torture being committed against hostages seized during the 7 October terror attacks.

"Pramila Patten added in a press release issued along with the report, that there are also reasonable grounds to believe that such violence, which includes other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment', may be continuing against those still being held by Hamas and other extremists in the Gaza Strip."

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217 and there is also substantial news coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's the actual report. Go to 55 and 86. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We have all read. U.N. rightly says it will take months and years to collect and collate more data. Overall report is credible and confirmed rape and sexual abuse of Israelis (Jewish and Arab/Palestinian Israelis) and others (including the foreign workers) on October 7th and in captivity. It also at #87 reports the strong reports of Palestinian women and men in occupied territories being subject to sex crimes by Israeli military, which too will unfortunately take months and years to collect/collate data. Time to give up the fantasy that men did not rape any women. Should have when the Hamas terrorists filmed it on GroPro and uploaded it online (which the U.N. report notes: "Additionally, the experts reviewed more than 5,000 photographic images and about 50 hours of footage of the attacks, much of it from Hamas members’ GoPro cameras." https://www.voanews.com/a/un-mission-clear-and-convincing-information-exists-that-hamas-sexually-violated-women/7513624.html) Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the report acknowledge that Hamas filmed their sex crimes and posted them online. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The report also says "As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate. Nevertheless, the mission team took every step, in line with UN methodology, to mitigate issues of source reliability before drawing conclusions within the scope of this report." (55) and

"The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and concludes that the overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a fully-fledged investigation. A comprehensive investigation would enable the information base to be expanded in locations which the mission team was not able to visit and to build the required trust with survivors/victims of conflict-related sexual violence who may be reluctant to come forward at this point" (86)

Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

::Yes I read that the first time you pointed it out and responded above. I read the whole report. I am sorry your saviors, Hamas, are rapist pigs. I realize that this is hard for you - although I would say being a victim of rape is harder amd having Hamas film it and upload it on their GoPro cameras to krudplug and kaotic for everone to see - but talk pages are for improving articles, not defending rape.

Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You probably want to strike your comment as it crosses the policy lines on attacking other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic, lengthy tangential exchange. Coretheapple (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Afraid Cdjp1 is right. Trust me on that. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I removed the comments, is this what you mean by strike out? Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I suggest striking out. As I said in the wisecrack I just deleted, it will save you heartburn in the future. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC) By which I mean <s> </s> Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Got it I will strike it out now! Thank you. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) It looks like this Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) To strikethrough, you leave the original comment in place for the record, but add [ {{strikethrough ] followed by a pipe at the beginning of the comment, and corresponding [ }} ] at the end. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Will keep that in mind if I ever get mouthy in the future. I will still strikeout what I left. Thanks you to you both! Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) You should restore the full original comment, and format the strikethrough on it, deleting such comments from the record is look less favourably upon than just having written them in the first place. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) doing so now. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, you see the strikeout preserves what you said, as Cdjp1 already responded. Now had he not responded, refactoring would work, especially if it had been just a short while. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I understand your frustration and your anger. Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, not the real world. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Got it. Leave my rudeness for the record, but strike it out to show my repentance if someone has already commented. I have now striked out my refactoring (I think I did it right.) Sorry Selfstudier! I should assume good faith, as wikipedia says. Thanks Coretheapple & Cdjp1. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) btw I hate to be picky, but it might help if you could strike out your original comment (sub your original impolite language in lieu of how you changed it); see, otherwise your strikeout makes no sense; it makes it seem as if Cdjp1 was asking you to strike out a polite comment. Make sense? Sorry, I don't mean to a be fussy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I get it. I will restore my rude comment and strike it. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Ok. Does this look fine? Thanks for you help by the way. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) It's fine. Thank you. This little colloquy can be hatted btw. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Hatted as in finished? Got it. ;) Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Yes and there is a hatting template---hat followed by hab---but I'm damned if I remember how to do it. Cdjp1 can you do the honors? See, this discussion is off-topic, so according to Hoyle it should be collapsed. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Is this it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Superhatting Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, that is it. Thank you! Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry Coretheapple I'm not familiar with the hatting policy, and I've only ever seen administrators hat off discussions, so I was under the assumption that it was practice to have admins do it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I have found that it is OK if collapsing the conversation is totally uncontroversial and no editor objects. So if you don't want it hatted, I certainly won't do it. No big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Issue appears now to have been addressed, please reopen a new request if needed. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)