Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

False edit summary justifying the suppression of details in a core source

A UN report in March 2024 concluded, while stating that no tangible indications of rape from video and photo evidence could be identified, and no digital evidence for sexual violence had been forthcoming ,

Salomeofjudea cancelled this writing This is not what the report says. This also needs a secondary source. NPOV.

This is blatantly false. Two of the findings of the report say precisely what the removed text paraphrased:

• 74.In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified. 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. P.19

• 77. The digital evidence discovered during independent open-source review appeared authentic and unmanipulated. While the mission team reviewed extensive digital material depicting a range of egregious violations, no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence was found in open sources. p.19

I.e., you censored the text without reading it. If you did read it, then it’s even worse. Your edit summary in either case falsifies what you did in censoring a UN report for two of its findings per, I suppose, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A reportable offence. NPOV has nothing whatsoever to do with this: it does not mean providing readers with just one perspective. The argument re the need for a secondary source is fallacious since, if you believed that, you would have also removed an eminently good RS of equal status which underwrites the government’s claims, since it states in a prefatory remark that:

‘It is important to note that this position paper does not attempt or aim to meet legal thresholds.’ p.1

Technically, you are under an obligation to revert the removed material back because you made a false edit summary using spurious claims. Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal; prior to the removal we were burying the lede, that the UN was convinced widespread sexual violence occurred and is ongoing, instead providing WP:UNDUE emphasis to a minor aspect of the story.

Further, it isn’t an accurate summary; the UN makes it clear that not all video and photographic evidence had been analysed, while the summary does not. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I.e. you agree with a false edit summary. I cite the text, you give your opinion ('the UN makes it clear') The UN experts did no analysis of anything. They made inferences from material presented to them. They spent 2 weeks listening to official Israeli presentations, but had no way of independently verifying or investigating the official claims. That is what they state, at the very end. The UN wasn't convinced, Pramila Patten was. The aspect isn't minor, it has been noted as a glaring admission of methodological incoherence by Norman Finkelstein, who, unlike the rest of us, actually understands the lay of the law, forensic evidence and the history of Gaza. But this threading is pointless. If someone uses a clearly false edit summary that erases a first rate source, they are abusing their editing rights and should not be commended for the practice.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The omitted line reads: A UN report in March 2024 concluded, while stating that no tangible indications of rape from video and photo evidence could be identified, and no digital evidence for sexual violence had been forthcoming,[11] Footnote eleven goes to page 19 of [1].

With regard to the first phrase, the omitted passage from the lead did not reflect the UN report fairly. It stated:

In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified. 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.

What I put in boldface is not reflected in that summary. Likewise the second phrase, re the digital evidence, is incomplete in reflecting what the UN says. That is why we go with the secondary sources and don't try to undermine them by "cherry-hunting" through the primary sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

no tangible indications of rape could be identified. Further investigation may alter this assessment in the future … this possibility cannot be ruled out … circumstantial indicators, like the position of the corpse and the state of clothing, should also be considered. Maybe Donald Duck raped Mickey Mouse - the possibility cannot be ruled out … We should consider the possibility - investigation may reveal something one day. This is hardly the ringing endorsement of Israeli claims that editors assert. It says little more than that some of the 'horror stories' may be true - and evidence might surface eventually. This is all reminiscent of Russell's teapot, except we are expected to believe a particular narrative because the possibility that it is partly true cannot be excluded! Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why we rely on secondary sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the mass of secondary sources giving the ringing endorsements that WP editors claim, nor that the very small number of 'semi-confirmed' instances of gender-based violence somehow establishes a widespread pattern or confirms particular acts. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Another paragraph on the same page states as follows

The reviewed photos and videos revealed widespread mutilation of bodies, involving both attempted and actual decapitation, numerous gunshot wounds, and various other forms of extensive violence. The medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos revealed multiple corpses with injuries, predominantly gunshot wounds, including to intimate body parts such as breasts and genitalia. Because in most instances additional injuries were also seen on other body parts, no discernible pattern of genital mutilation could be established. Given the incomplete overview of evidence at this stage, subsequent investigation, including cross-linking of injury patterns with geographical information, may provide additional insights. Destructive burn damage in at least 100 corpses further impeded the assessment of targeted genital mutilation.

Depending upon what point I wanted to make, I could add a sentence to the lead focusing on either the widespread mutilation of bodies, involving both attempted and actual decapitation, numerous gunshot wounds, and various other forms of extensive violence. or I could cherry-pick no discernible pattern of genital mutilation could be established (omitting what it says bellow about burn damage "in at least 100 corpses" impeding their investigation). Again, that is why we should and must rely on the secondary sources here.

If you turn to the "Conclusions" on page 21 of the UN report it states as follows:

Overall, based on the totality of information gathered from multiple and independent sources at the different locations, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.

This is consistent with the secondary sources and justifies exclusion of the text in the edit in question.

Lastly, I request that you not attack other editors on the talk page of this article and accuse them of "false edit summaries" and "abusing their editing rights." This is not the place for that and it's unhelpful. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If there was burn damage, it does not mean that evidence of sexual violence was destroyed. It means that only the most detailed, skilled forensic investigation could ever have established whether any sexual violence occurred at all - in plain English it means there is no actual valid reason to believe it did, any more than believing that cannibalism occurred. The evidence hasn't 'been destroyed', there is simply no reason to believe it ever existed and almost no way now to establish whether it ever did. "No discernible pattern of genital mutilation could be established" is pretty explicit! Poor shooting, shrapnel, ricochet fire and multiple other causes may have damaged the midriffs or chests of Israeli women. Unless there is a discernible pattern to the injuries, there is simply no reason to believe that these are anything other than the ugly side effects of modern weaponry. Do we imagine that the thousands and thousands of women killed in Gaza do not suffer 'ugly' injuries to their female parts as much as to the rest of their anatomies? Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. We're talking about summary language in the lead. An editor fairly summed up summary language in reliable secondary sources. Another editors dipped into the primary source document and added text in front of it. That text was removed, and I agree with that edit. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a key admission in the Patten report that their conclusions, which we were presenting as factual, and not as an endorsement of Israeli government allegations, were not founded on an independent verification of the 'evidence': crucially, the report admitted that what they were looking at had not been corroborated by the kind of proof medicolegal and digital evidence required both in courts of law and neutral specialist analysis.

(2) a flyby edit expunged this admission's qualification with a clearly false edit summary, as proven.

(3) The editor in question did not respond. Billed Mammel mere stated that he was fine with the cancellation, regardless of the flawed motivation. Two egregiouas examnples of a defect in standard wiki method.

(4) Pincrete examined the point, affirming that the primary text states exactly what my edit pointed out.

(5) Figureofnine just presents an impression they have that the point made both by myself and Pincrete doesn't strike them as cogent. No serious argument. Just a vote for retaining the elision on the strength of an opinion. Worse still, they cite as definitive rebuttal the text of the Patten report which uses language that consistently undermines their own conclusions. 'reasonable grounds to believe,' 'credible circumstantial information' underline that they are making inferences that lead to a 'belief' (admitting that the medicolegal and digital proof required in a court of law or in serious historical analysis is lacking to change their belief into a set of facts) that there may be warrant for claiming that some forms of sexual violence did take place in several locations. That is a startlingly silly admission to make since it undercuts what they are asserting in their primary conclusion. To date we have allegations, not evidence, despite the factual insistence of our article title, and Patten's report. The removal of evidence for this in Patten's text is POV pushing for an official narrative that has yet to receive independent confirmation .Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Witness Testimony

A woman who was sexually tortured by Hamas has finally come forward. I will be adding shortly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/world/middleeast/hamas-hostage-sexual-assault.html SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning about edits

A prominent twitter user is telling people to edit this and related articles, in addition to calling out specific wiki editors. Delderd (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)