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)

Another example of a piece of early evidence for such assaults collapsing

courtesy of the NYTs.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM rears its ugly head. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is a bit bizarre since this particular allegation had been questioned months ago. Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings or the tragic witness testimony released today. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Several major claims that dominated the first month of reportage collapsed. It is more than probable, as this woman's testimony states, that sexual violence occurred. Rape apart (though even there many similar reports have emerged over the decades regarding Israeli treatment of their untrialed Palestinian hostages) what she says directly mirrors what numerous Palestinian women have claimed of the way Israeli troops treat them in this war. No one is surely claimed that in either case we have a chimaera. What we ask is that, given the exposure of consistently false claims made by Israeli authorities, that editors exercise extreme caution. In this one case, a certain Mohammad (Islamic Jihad, Hamas?) raped an Israeli woman he held hostage in his house. That is way below the minimal threshold for the accusation that rape was a deliberate tactic ordered by Hamas (perhaps it was, but a wide accusation requires strong evidence).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings The trouble is threefold IMO. Firstly many of the 'investigators' are not investigating, and have not done so, what they are doing is little more than confirming that witness statements have been made. For many reasons, some totally valid, the UN, some of the Israeli medical and investigative bodies say they CANNOT check primary evidence, and forensic evidence was simply not obtained when available, or has been destroyed. The police (last I heard) refused to give numbers of what they believe occurred and some local organisations are clearly propagandist in intent, mor concerned with weaponising accusations that establishing facts/scale. So who exactly - if anyone - is establishing facts.

Secondly, any partial confirmation (some of the tentative confirmations speak of very small numbers of assaults or assault locations) is being leapt on to 'prove' that the whole 'mass rape/mass sexual violence' narrative is wholly true. Given the scale of incursion, (some of it by oppurtunist non-militants) it would be surprising if no sexual violence occurred, since we know that such normally does occur in 'conflict' situations, but the scale claimed by Israeli govt sources would also be very surprising since such kind of violence has been largely absent from the Isr-Pal conflict (though sometimes a feature of both sides propaganda), since before 1948. Establishing scale is critical to establishing how 'general' this was, but is hardly being critically evaluated at all.

Thirdly, we have little attempt to distinguish degrees of sexual violence. One woman was taken back to Gaza, tied up like a prize cow and paraded to the Gaza populace. This is very humiliating treatment with a sexual element to it, but it isn't mass-gang-rape. There are obviously reasons of sensitivity about what can be disclosed in public, particulary about living people, but the net effect of all this is a barrage of accusation, with little detail and crumbs of evidence to date, coupled with govt clearly weaponising the accusation to detract from its own actions.

We of course need to cover this within sources, but those sources are more cautious than editors here sometimes claim IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in the black dress section

There is a huge amount of detail of this specific case, compared to the others. Is that simply because it the most reported case and therefore this is due? The case is not mentioned in the article on the massacre at the festival - should some of the detail be removed here and moved there? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In the long run definitely, I would consider waiting for more thorough coverage post war, but that could take time, so it sounds reasonable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 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: MOVE. Per consensus at parent page.[2] (non-admin closure) Toadspike (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel → Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – The main page for this is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support The child article should align with the parent article, per WP: CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support for consistency, and to allow for inclusion of violence against hostages without being technically inaccurate. FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Support per Iskandar323 and FortunateSons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose '7 October' is a term strongly connected to the Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023. As per WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognizable – '7 October attack' is used in the media and is a common search term. Google' data shows a dramatic increase in searches for '7 October' since the time of attack- worldwide statistics.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look for and search for. (see above)
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the event, even without specifying the year.
• Concision – The original title is clearly shorter than the suggested one.
• Consistency - there are other titles of dramatic events that share similar patterns. September 11 attacks is one. GidiD (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You are relitigating the debate from the parent page. If you think the parent page name should change and you have new evidence versus the last RM, please go and make that case there. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Doubtful that 7 October will have lasting significance for an average audience and this issue was anyway already addressed at the parent article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for consistency with parent article. Also, I dare to say that hardly anybody outside the Western world has any idea what "7 October" may stand for; much like most of the population outside India has no idea what "15 August" means. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: The suggested title is consistent with the parent article. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

‘’’Support’’’ per parent article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 1 April 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.

NYT date format

Using Visual editor I changed the date format of "Israeli Hostage Says She Was Sexually Assaulted and Tortured in Gaza" from 2024-03-26 to 26 March 2024. After realising it was the NYT I changed it to March 26, 2024 but even though that's how it appears in Source Editor 26 March 2024 still appears in the citation. Why didn't the format change the 2nd time? Mcljlm (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that error in source-edit mode. Assuming it remains, I'd suggest broaching it at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

MondoWeiss

Note of recent closure of RfC about MondoWeiss: There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. We should not be using it for potentially defamatory remarks about crime witnesses. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take note that while anonymous wikipedians make that kind of call, the eminences grises of American foreign policy scholarship, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ( The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Outside the Box Podcast, 18 April 2024), berate the total unreliability of both the NYTs and the Wall(eared)Street Journal on the I/P world because of their almost total sidedness, and appraise positively Mondoweiss, (as well as The Greyzone and the Electronic Intifada) as important alternative sources of information. And they cite in this regard the way such media have provided serious arguments about the systematic use of invented or distorted allegations to prioritize Israel's POV. The essential difference is that they know the historical realities of the subject intimately, and perceive that the mainstream US media generally are wholly biased in favour of a univocal narrative. Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is definitely not a source we should use for such a matter. Why didn't they speak with Gali's brother and mother who had expressed no doubts that the rape happened a few days before the MW article was published? Did they think why a relatives of a victim of rape might want to deny that it happened? They were happy to use whatever fit their agenda and ignored everything else. Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to serves NPOV and balance to simply delete it. By all accounts, the controversy around this testimony is notable. To simply vanish that controversy is to lend credence to the original dubious POV accounts that imply a certain sequence of events that remains wholly unevidenced by actual empirical fact-finding. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason for using a dubious source that "should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people" per WP:RSP.

If there is a real controversy, it should be covered by RS and then we can report on it. If it's just MW it's not due.

Please note that the onus to achieve consensus is on the editors wishing to add or retain disputed content. Alaexis_¿question? 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's an NPOV/balance issue, Iskandar; I think it's a reliability issue and a BLP issue: using a borderline reliable source for material that is potentially defamatory. The concern you raise in your edit summary that deleting leaves the YNet material standing alone, which is potentially dishonouring towards a recently deceased person, is a very good point, and I'm not sure the best way to deal with that. (Possibly delete both halves, and wait until the dust has cleared before including all these details?)

While I don't disagree that the controversy around this testimony is noteworthy, I don't know if MondoWeiss' reporting on it is noteworthy: the only references to MondoWeiss specifically relating to this testimony are The Intercept, a very brief mention Middle in East Eye, a further reading list at the end of an Electronic Intifada piece, and a brief quote from The Intercept that cites MW in an opinion piece in The Nation. Apart from maybe The Intercept, those are all super-weak sources (hyperpartisan non-GREL and/or second hand in an op ed).

Therefore, given the risks, I'd argue for erring on the side of caution and removing it for now, and seeing where the story goes once the controversy dies down. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, according to the YNET article to which you link, Abdush's family first learned about the (alleged) rape from the NYT article. They are of no more value as witnesses than the rest of us. Our prejudices about which papers and which narratives we are inclined to believe are more significant than any kind of evidence either way, which appears to be nearly non-existent, despite the huge narrative around this case. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, though, we are not in the business of collecting evidence, so we don't need to assess the reliability of witnesses. Our job is simply to reflect what reliable sources find noteworthy. I notice The Intercept cites YNet so it feels like some of their reporting is due, although we don't want it to get undue prominence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We are in the business of recording & to a degree evaluating evidence. Some of the proferred 'evidence' has been wholly or largely discredited, or shown to have very little value, some of it is cyclic. Normal constraints as to what is/is not an RS hardly rise to the ocassion. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No we are in the business of evaluating reliability and verifiability. We are not ourselves a reliable source. See WP:You are not a reliable source, WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:But it's true!, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Normal constraints as to what is/is not an RS hardly rise to the ocassion. Not sure what this means: that in this particular article we should use sources considered unreliable by the community because...? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bob and Alaexis on this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

But Gal Abdush is, unfortunately, no longer alive. So I don't think the BLP stuff applies.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender-based signifier

What is the "gender-based violence" component of the content here that is distinct from and separate to the simply "sexual violence" component? On the parent talk page there is reference to the deprivations of female hygiene supplies and disproportionate impacts on women in Gaza, but I'm not sure if there is parallel relevance here. Does anyone have any thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "gender-based" wording in the article title is questionable and possibly repetitious, but I am open to evidence that it is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've expressed support for removing this in the past, though I'm more or less indifferent now. I think this comment makes a decent case that it could be relevant, but I don't see discussion of these issues in the current text. On the Palestinian version of this page it's been argued that removing it would reduce the scope, which seems fair since that article does cover other forms of abuse. I'm still not sure if its relevant on this article though, which is very focused on sexual violence. Jamedeus (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No idea, frankly. There was a brief discussion about the term sometime ago (here, comment by Pincrete), but then nobody picked it up. As I wrote there, I'd be fine with leaving out the gender part as it adds unnecessary ambiguity not supported by body. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

+ possibly needless length. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have previously supported removal, largely because I don't know what it means and -at the very least- we should say what we mean, which I think we don't at present. This article is very clearly focused on rape and other sexual assault almost exclusively alleged to have been perpetrated by Palestinian men on, mainly Jewish, women. The article does in places cover forms of 'humiliation' but these would be broadly within "sexual violence". Pincrete (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, but I noticed gender-based violence is the term many sources use, especially NGOs. E.g.:

• • The reviewed materials indicated instances of sexual and gender-based violence during the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023. (PHRI, New Israel Fund)
  • We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October. We are alarmed by the numerous accounts of gender-based atrocities and sexual violence during those attacks. This is why we have called for all accounts of gender-based violence to be duly investigated and prosecuted, with the rights of the victim at the core. (UN Women)
  • Sexual and Gender-Based Violence as a Weapon of War During the October 7, 2023 Hamas Attacks (UN)
  • Israeli women's rights and legal activists had been calling on key international organisations to publicly acknowledge reports of gender-based violence, including sexual violence, in the wake of Hamas's attacks. (BBC)
  • Investigating Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict: October 7 Victims Have a Right to Accountability and Justice (Human Rights Watch)
  • The chaos meant there were significant failings in preserving evidence of gender-based violence and what is coming to be seen as the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war by Hamas. Israel’s top police investigations unit, Lahav 433, is still poring over 50,000 pieces of visual evidence and 1,500 witness testimonies, and says it is unable to put a number on how many women and girls suffered gender-based violence. (Guardian)
  • Women’s Bodies as Targets for Aggression: Statement on Gender-Based Violence in Israel-Hamas War (Global Rights for Women)
  • EU countries on Friday put the military and special forces wings of Hamas and the armed wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad on the bloc's human rights sanctions list for their responsibility for widespread sexual and gender-based violence in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. (Reuters, Euractiv)
  • Victims of gender-based violence on Oct 7 must be given a voice (The Lancet)
  • Investigating gender-based violence by Hamas (CNN)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Good list, thank you. I would leave the title alone. This is an encyclopedia and we should be precise, even if there is some overlap. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that it is sometimes trotted out by sources as a part of a standard formulation, but in the context of the content, it doesn't appear to be usefully descriptive – few editors appear to understand what it refers to here – and in this context it would appear to be unnecessary from the perspective of the naming criteria, most notably in terms of naturalness and concision. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A further observation: it appears that these two descriptors - "sexual" and "gender-based" – may be different levels of category. The BBC source using the phrasing of "gender-based violence, including sexual violence" – and if sexual violence is a sub-category of gender-based violence then it would appear unnecessary to mention both in a title: a page is either about sexual violence only and specifically, or it is about gender-based violence in general. The Lancet source also uses "gender-based violence (GBV)" as its only terminology, also suggesting that it might be the more all-embracing (and possibly more formal (+ encyclopedic?)) way of referencing the topic. Only Reuters employ both terms alongside each other in the same sentence above, and even that does not necessarily discount that these are different levels of category. When used concurrently, it could mean sexual violence specifically and gender-based violence generally. However, we do not use multiple levels of category within the same Wikipedia title – we define what level of category the scope is on and stick to it. If the above is indeed the case then one should be chosen. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect you are broadly right about the term being more formal and more 'generic'. In the same way that 'sex' is always ambiguous (only context clarifies whether the word is referring to an activity, or a characteristic, ie maleness/femaleness). Also in this day and age, where the distinction is made between (natal/anatomical) 'sex' and (lived) 'gender', the term may be intended to cover violence targetted at a person's stated gender, as distinct from their born/anatomical 'sex'.

The bottom line imo though is that we shouldn't be using a term that we are unable to clarify (or seemingly to understand, except by surmisal). Pincrete (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree it seems that sexual violence is understood as a sub-category of gender-based violence. I get the arguments for trimming the title, but am uncomfortable, as it seems to me that those of us editing here are doing so out of interest in and familiarity with topics relating to Israel/Palestine rather than sexual or gender-based violence, and it might be good to bring in editors from that area. I'll leave a message on the talk page of Violence against women to solicit comment, and if there is none forthcoming maybe then we can go through a renaming? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think using only "gender-based" in the title is a bad idea; it is indeed a more obscure and mysterious term to the average reader. I think "gender-based violence" should go, but even if it doesn't, it's not clear enough that sexual violence is a lower category-level of gender-based violence that we should opt to remove one based on the idea that multiple category levels oughtn't be in one title. Zanahary (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 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 as the proposal failed to attract any support (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Alleged sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – I moved the page earlier today on the basis that I assumed that it would be "unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" as of WP:RM. Apparently, and confusingly, this is not the case. I think it should be moved to an article title which explicitly expresses the uncertainty of the alleged sexual and gender-based violence.

The article itself repeatedly uses the phrases "reportedly" and "alleged", as these are allegations, not facts. Israel has constantly lied throughout the war, and cannot be trusted as a reliable source, immediately casting doubt over any of the allegations they have made. The ARCCI report is frankly libel, and throughout the article there are multiple claims with no tangible proof whatsoever. The article should definitely highlight each and every quote from people making these allegations, as it just shows how ridiculous the premise is; "legs and pelvis bones were broken"? It's frankly astonishing that anyone would take these kinds of allegations seriously.

If we are not referring to Israel's abhorrent attacks on the people of Gaza and the West Bank as "genocide", which it very clearly is, then why is this article given a name which implies that this is a fact that happened? With no actual evidence, are members of Hamas not "innocent until proven guilty"? With SO many photos and videos circulated of the atrocities committed, why is it that there is no footage of anything being claimed?

Wikipedia is a bastion of knowledge in the world, but I am growing increasingly concerned that it is being used nefariously by zionists to skew coverage of the conflict to reflect Israeli views. It is well known that this kind of thing has happened in the past, it would not surprise me if it was still happening. We as Wikipedians need to stop this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I wrote elsewhere, we don't have articles Suggested Frexit, Alleged Flat Earth theory, Possible Korean reunification, or Potential World War III. Instead, we discuss these topics driectly at Frexit, Flat Earth, Korean reunification and World War III. Moreover, we try not to make judgements in article titles – opposing views, doubts and controversies about article content need to be addressed in the content. For the avoidance of doubt, I similarly object to having Alleged/Allegations in articles about Israeli crimes against Palestinians, e.g., in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you just type "Allegations of" into the search bar, you'll see there are numerous existing pages with such titles. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So? Perhaps those articles are actually about "allegations" themselves, as the Gaza 'genocide' one is, not about acts - the extent and nature of which remain highly disputed - as this one is. Even if not "Other stuff is an inherently weak argument". Pincrete (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the action taken by Israel in Gaza doesn’t amount to genocide? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The allegation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in disputed and highly controversial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, ironically, an argument against Kashmiri's view, and not my own. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as you can read there, is an essay about deletion discussions, not about page moves. In page moves, WP:CONSISTENT is an applicable policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, I didn't introduce WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS into this discussion. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tangent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think these examples are all things which could potentially happen (except for Flat Earth, which is a theory), while this article is about something unproven. For me, that's the distinction; the events described in this article are not proven to have happened, so why should we frame the article as if they definitely did? The article clearly refers to them as allegations throughout, so why does the title not reflect this? For the record, I think having an article for WW3 is a bit silly, because if it were to happen and there were any survivors (and internet) left afterwards, they'd have to re-write the whole article. Also a lot of the article refers to events and thoughts posed in the 20th century, so why is it not named something like "Post-World War II predictions of a potential World War III"? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) How is it consistent to say that the events described in this article are not proven to have happened, so why should we frame the article as if they definitely did?, while at the same time saying The article clearly refers to them as allegations throughout? If we were treating these events as proven acts, we wouldn't be referring to allegations/claims/reports etc. at all, let alone throughout You are right about the title not making EXPLICIT that these acts are unproven, but neither does the title imply that all, or even any, of the specific acts are proven/accepted to have occurred. Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, but the article is solely talking about allegations. We have other articles on disputed topics which are framed in the correct manner, including Allegations of chemical weapons use in the Sri Lankan Civil War which states clearly “No strong evidence for indicating the consistent use of such weapons during the war have been found thus far.” What is the difference between that article and this one? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Other stuff is an inherently weak argument, and I don't have time to examine every mis-named article on WP, even less to defend each one's title. I'm inclined to agree with Kashmiri, that such titles are usually to be avoided, whether on the very notional topics such as the Yeti or disputed topics such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, where the extent and effectiveness of the interference and the extent of the 'complicity' of US players has never been fully or reliably established. The topic area here is sexual violence during the 'Hamas' attack, the extent and 'systematic nature' of which is highly contested with some very dubious allegations having been made, but the allegations themselves are not the subject - as is the case with the " Allegations of genocide" article. We don't, or at least shouldn't, title things solely or mainly to cast doubt on the topic. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Btw chemical weapons were used in the Sri Lankan civil war, those references are incorrect and likely heavily biased (Indian think tanks are overtly pro Sri Lankan government). Army soldiers have even admitted it on camera at their war museum, see at 36 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-5mP9zZWQ&t=2147s Oz346 (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that @Davidlofgren1996 was topic banned and later permanently blocked for conduct. FortunateSons (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the record, I have consistently been sceptical about both the alleged scale and the alleged "systematic" nature of much of the sexual violence during the October attack and extremely sceptical about the Israeli govt's (and Israel-friendly sources) 'weaponising' those allegations. Nonetheless, that some sexual violence occurred is both predictable and almost certainly proven to have happened and that is the topic area. Many of the more extreme lurid stories have either already shown themselves to be probably atrocity propaganda, or are dubious. Nonetheless again the topic is sexual violence and the job of the article is partly to record accusations and findings and to record 'holes' in the evidence to the extent that sources do. The full extent of the sexual violence -or lack of it- may take a long time to be established with any degree of certainty. Comparisons with the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, are invalid, since the subject there is largely the accusations themselves and the 'legal case'. The topic there is not the killing of Gazans, it is about who and how people have characterised that killing as genocide or similar, and those who have rejected such characterisations. Perhaps a better title for that article could be found, but it would not be by omitting "Allegations of …". The proposed renaming here is clearly intended to 'make a point', which the proposer barely even tries to hide.Pincrete (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have slightly altered the proposed name change from “Alleged” to “Allegations of” in line with other articles regarding articles on contentious topics that cover mostly/solely allegations. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  That would change the subject entirely – from focusing on (supposed) crimes to focusing on reports. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, will retract. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Suggesting that they are just allegations is just flat-out denial of any rape that happened during the attacks. If you think this should be moved, then why not also move Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war, in which even Al Jazeera admitted it fabricated the rape allegations by the IDF? --ZKang123 (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. There is no evidence of rape during the attacks - that is the point of this proposed move. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm rather troubled to hear right from you that there's no rape in the attacks, because, besides the NYT article, there are other testimonies, even a UN report. And I see you have an agenda claiming the current article title is some "zionist" conspiracy. You claim biasedness in the article ("to skew coverage of the conflict to reflect Israeli views"), but you also proposing such a change and ignoring the other on-hand evidence is also a bias in itself.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  That’s simply untrue; the majority of the contention is focussed on it being weaponised or systemic; there is eye-witness-testimony and a plethora of circumstantial evidence, which can be found in this article. FortunateSons (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence is there, but it's of the anecdotal type, mostly below what's acceptable in court proceedings. Not that it's inherently untrue – sexual violence has been always weaponised and almost certainly it was also the case on the 7 October. We just don't have reliable sources that would rely on high-quality evidence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose there is evidence of sexual violence and Wikipedia does not usually use obfuscating words in the article title. In my opinion I could maybe argue how "gender-based violence" is wordy without adding any explanatatory value and this could simply be "sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" or "sexual violence in the October 6 attack on Israel" but "alleged" is both inaccurate and unnecessary. Jorahm (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Moving to "allegations" is not denying that anything happened, it is correctly stating that the events remain alleged and unconfirmed, which is important for accuracy's sake. The events described have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The article itself uses the words "alleged" and "reported" many times, and there are many "Alleged..." titled articles on Wikipedia. Additionally various sources on Wikipedia's reliable sources list (The Intercept, The Nation, even Wikipedia's own article about a NYT piece) describe the alleged nature of many of the claims being made in this article, with or without "alleged"/"reported" disclaimers. Not listing it as "Alleged" does a disservice to readers and arguably violates NPOV, because it is suggesting a viewpoint for the topic, rather than neutrally describing the allegations. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pincrete and ZKang123 - we have multiple reliable sources including a UN report confirming that at least some sexual violence occurred. Also note that a very similar requested move failed 2 months ago, and if anything consensus appears to have moved further against it since. Jamedeus (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Solely for the record, I have no idea whether a handful of incidents occurred in October or whether it was widespread and am highly sceptical about thin coverage and tenuous 'evidence' which has been -almost from the outset- been weaponised and presented uncritically. A smattering of 'me too' logic from sources, which encourages not looking critically and with normal scepticism at those advancing claims (who are not the actual victims mostly) means that it really isn't even possible at present to know how widespread such violence was, who perpetrated it (attackers or opportunists) etc, but the scale has probably been exaggerated and weaponised - as is common in time of war. Pincrete (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article frequently uses terms like "alleged" and "reportedly" precisely because this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of the "evidence" comes from sources proven to be fraudulent (like Zaka), from forced, tortured confessions, or from the IDF, which has nothing to support their claims except for "because we say so." The UN report that people keep citing was explicitly non-investigative, and the UN bodies that do have the capability to investigate these claims are facing deliberate obstruction from the Israeli government, whereas Hamas has stated that it welcomes an international investigation. This case has faced increasing skepticism from credible sources, including dozens of journalism professors and respected outlets such as The Intercept, the UN, NBC News, and Haaretz, which have conducted extensive investigations. Haaretz recently confirmed that there is zero evidence of any rape or genital mutilation on any of the October 7 bodies. Updating the title to "alleged" reflects the ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding the case. If new concrete evidence emerges (for example, through an independent UN investigation), then the title can revert to the original one. - Ïvana (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because there are many reliable sources asserting sexual violence took place. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Lean Support Essentially all wars include sexual and gender-based violence. Some continuing for many decades after conflict ends during occupation or protective troops in foreign lands. Some against their own troops of the opposite sex. Was there such by Hamas? I’m sure there must have been. Problem is, there were so many other allegations that turned out to be grossly exaggerated or disproved (e.g. beheaded babies). In long wars/occupations these are more common than terrorist attacks as terrorists have less time. I prefer using the word alleged whenever there has been no adjudication and many cases are still “alleged”. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Would renaming this article, but not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war suggest a viewpoint as well? I think this article arguably has more evidence than that one, and holding this to higher standards may show some viewpoint. Sleepy-rhino1 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I guess that would be a good thing to discuss there with a similar move request. IMO, with the exception of the Al Jazeera article (that is described in the article as being fabricated!), there is direct first hand video evidence of some of the acts concerned, so I guess you could make a separate article for the bits of that article that are still allegations, call it "Allegations of..." and that would at least be consistent. But not everything on that article is alleged, so it's a slightly different situation, unfortunately. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and as noted by Jamedeus, there was a Requested Move two months ago to a similar title (Allegations of...) and that failed. Some1 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as per nom, Smallangryplanet, Ïvana, and others. The current title is not neutral. I would like to draw an analogy with Allegations of Iraqi mobile weapons laboratories, where the title is actually worded correctly and neutrally, rather than uncritically rehashing the propaganda that was used to justify a war. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are legitimate questions about scale and about certain specific claims, but no question of whether sexual violence occurred overall. There is a variety of evidence, some public (maybe not videos of SA acts, but of their aftermath), and some non-public evidence described by reliable sources. The suggested title seems to entertain the fringe view that all the SA reports might be fabricated, which is a conspiracy theory along the lines of Holocaust denial, and contradicted by many reliable sources. XDanielx (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wish you would strike your comparison to Holocaust denial. Use of the extremely commonly used word "alleged" may or may not make sense here; but in no manner compares to the Holocaust or denial of its place in history. Overuse of the word Holocaust weakens its special meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree - I think there's a very real distinction between Holocaust denial (which actively tries to convince people that the brutal events - for which some of the perpetrators were tried and found guilty - of the Holocaust did not happen) and adding an "Alleged" to this article's title, considering the article deals with events that are as of this writing still alleged. This does not mean that the reports of SA are "fabricated", but that they are still allegations. It is more neutral than accepting the reports prima facie, or rejecting them outright. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear I think it's absolutely fine to refer to most individual claims of sexual violence as allegations. Questioning claims about scale is fine too.

  But some cases are rather incontrovertible, with public videos showing what is clearly the aftermath of some kind of sexual violence (such as declothed corpses).

  Denialism of all Oct 7 sexual violence is a (fringe) narrative that exists, and I think it's valid to compare it to other extreme forms of denialism. The comparison also relates to the worst case of violence against Jews since the Holocaust, so this seems like a far cry from Holocaust trivialization.

  I believe the intent of the MR was to clarify that certain sexual violence claims are unconfirmed, but the suggested title may also be interpreted by some readers as entertaining this antisemetic conspiracy theory, which is problematic. XDanielx (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  A lot of the evidence and testimony comes from the IDF (which is not a neutral source), Zaka (which has been proven to fabricate stories and are not a forensic or medical team), Anat Schwarz and her team (who found no conclusive proof of rape-the Screams Without Words article has already been debunked), forced tortured confessions which are inadmisible, etc. The UN, NBC News and Haaretz saw the exact same pictures that supposedly show signs of sexual violence and have said they don't show that at all. Israel has consistenly refused efforts by the UN to have an independent investigation and experts have noted the lack of forensic evidence. I'm not denying that sexual violence happened, but when most of the instances described end up being either disproved, proven to be grossly exagerated, or cannot be corroborated then we should call them what they are—allegations. Which is what multiple reliable sources are already doing. - Ïvana (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say Screams Without Words has been "debunked". There were plenty of attempts to poke holes in it, which is to be expected for a damning report. The NYT stands by the report, calling it "rigorously reported, sourced and edited". XDanielx (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  "But some cases are rather incontrovertible, with public videos showing what is clearly the aftermath of some kind of sexual violence (such as declothed corpses)."

  Are we capable of making that determination? I am not denying that sexual violence happens in war, or that war is brutal, but this feels like bordering on original research - that we as Wikipedia are making a determination that because a victim of violence appears to be declothed, they must have been a victim of sexual violence too. This strikes me as a NPOV issue as well as potentially disrespectful to the dead, since we have no idea what they went through and cannot authoritatively say one way or the other, hence the need for the "alleged" tag.

  We can argue all day about the intent of the MR, and which views it would prop up / deny, but the ultimate impact - if successful - would be to both accurately depict the things we know and don't know, and to respect the victims of the violence. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  The AP piece that just broke literally described an incident involving a partially unclothed body where that state was induced by Israeli soldiers dragging the body to check for bombs. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again it's fine to question certain specific claims of sexual violence. You identified one mistaken claim, and there are likely others.

  I'd rather not get into details, but there are (public) videos showing much more than a single article of clothing being pulled or torn. In some of these cases it's quite obvious that some form of sexual violence occurred. XDanielx (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, the MR docs don't have anything about how we handle primary sources in MR discussions. I'm inclined to think that most of these public videos are as yet unconfirmed to show specifically sexual violence as opposed to violence in general (or that videos that DO show sexual violence have not been made public, for good reason). Do you - or does anyone viewing this - know how we've used primary but unconfirmed sources in similar discussions in the past? Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that we shouldn't be trying to interpret evidence ourselves. Screams Without Words is an example of a reliable source which supports the view that sexual violence definitively occurred.

  (They even go farther, stating in pretty definitive terms that "the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence", but that stronger claim is not needed for my point.)

  I think WP:OR also works in the other direction - are there reliable sources which support the view that it is not clear whether any sexual violence occurred? XDanielx (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  That article isn't a reliable source. If you haven't familiarised yourself with the criticisms around it, do so. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've already responded to similar comments in several other subthreads. XDanielx (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's the problem. Things that might appear obvious to the intrained are meaningless. The only truly relevant analysis here is of the forensic kind. The further question being whether evidence open to forensic interpretation has been contaminated before examination. Guesstimations are useless. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again it's fine to question certain specific claims of sexual violence.

  Actually, that's not how a gish gallop works, but nice try. When even a single element of a gish gallop is found suspect, it weakens the evidentiary status of all other associated claims, as the nature of a gish gallop is that it tries to substitute quantity for quality. And if Israel's atrocity propaganda is not a gish gallop I don't know what is: no matter that at this point countless hysterical claims have been debunked, there are always ten times as many more hysterical claims. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  A Gish gallop is something a person does, and "Israel" is not a person. Reports of sexual violence come from a bunch of different witnesses, few of whom share any common organization. XDanielx (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding your WP:OR point, there are plenty of reliable sources which support the view that some sexual violence definitively did occur. Screams Without Words is a well-known example. It covers a variety of cases, and some cases are described in more definitive terms than others, but it's pretty unequivocal in its conclusion that sexual violence did occur. XDanielx (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that article about the NYT article - Screams Without Words - uses "alleged" multiple times, and even has a chart showing the places where the claims in the article do not match reality. I am trying to avoid a "battleground" situation, but if we're going to believe the NYT article full-stop regardless of the issues Wikipedians have included in our own article about the artcle, how is that not a WP:NOTADVOCACY and/or WP:CRYSTAL issue, regardless of my or your personal stance on the matter? Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WP:RSP lists NYT as generally reliable and Wikipedia as generally unreliable.

  The Screams Without Words article in particular needs a lot of cleanup. Most of the "red" rows in that table are improper WP:SYNTH and marked as such. Really only the first row raises questions without relying on synthesis, and that merely comes down to two relatives "express[ing] doubt Gal was raped", while several other relatives believe that she was. XDanielx (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, but if you look at the extensive sources cited in the wiki article (the sources themselves, not just their citations ;)), it's clear that at the very least Screams Without Words is excellent evidence for why this MR makes sense. We are dealing with something extremely controversial and in which evidence is flying fast and furious in every direction. Even the 'paper of record' appears to have gotten it very badly wrong, or at least wrong enough that many reputable people are calling for an investigation. If Wikipedia puts its finger on the scale here we are extremely blatantly violating NPOV. I guess you could argue indeed that WP:NOTSOURCE means that's okay here, but we are talking about a topic that is being used to justify military action and I think it is worth going the extra mile, so to speak. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a piece of NYT work that is so fundamentally flawed that it has threatened to drag the entire publication into disrepute. Journalism professors have banded together to sign statements rubbishing it. It's unreliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're thinking of this letter, which was not "rubbishing" the article. It didn't really discuss the content of the article at all, but just raised a few questions about the author's experience and so forth, and recommended an "independent review". XDanielx (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it links to three reports that these professors affirm question the integrity of the piece. For details, see those pieces, or the recent AP one. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Corpses can be declothed for any number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with sexual assault. That this is the strongest evidence the believers in the "mass sexual assault campaign by Hamas" narrative has says a lot about their intentions as well as the probable truth, or lack thereof, of such allegations. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: allegations are what is involved here (or in some cases just propaganda) - none of the material surrounding these events is definitive, let alone amounting to clear-cut evidence that would be legally admissable. This is perhaps why the recent ICC application has ignored October 7 altogether and focused solely on the subsequent claims of the sexual abuse of hostages. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and move protect. The sexual assaults are historical fact, and the repeated move requests are tendentious and need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt we are really going anywhere with this. The person who raised the proposed move after all was anti-Israel and some supporters have also expressed similar views how the rape allegations are all "Israeli propaganda", despite the amount of other evidence to the contrary. I think there should be some banner or explanation of why the title is more likely going to stay as-is.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see anyone who says 'all propaganda', apart perhaps from the nominator, personally I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, but am distinctly unimpressed by some of the 'evidence' (a non-doctor reports that some bodies appeared to have pelvic damage/fractures and concludes vicious multiple rape, not blunt force injury?).

  But, that the assaults have been used on the world stage to justify unrelated Israeli actions is practically indisputable. It happens in times of war, 'the Hun' was said to be raping nuns in Belgium in the early days of World War I, when the dust had settled 9/10s of the stories turned out to false or exaggerated. Ocassionally the opposite happens, Serb cruelty in former Yugoslavia and IS treatment of captive women was at least as bad as reported. Some 'atrocity' stories in the present conflict have been shown to be highly dubious or clear fabrications, so a degree of scepticism is both inevitable and apt. Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  What I am seeing in talk pages is that some editors have continually repeated the fringe view questioning whether the rapes happened at all. Hence the repetitive move requests, and sometimes "bold" moves, to add "alleged" to this article's title. The constant effort by some editors to engage in that type of behavior needs to be addressed. It concerns me that administrators just sort of sit back during repetitive move requests and do nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's more likely they are monitoring (given how the admin SFR has censured and eventually banned the OP proposing the move) and see how this discussion goes before a decision is made.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I think a banner is a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I support that FortunateSons (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ZKang123: this comment is almost entirely an attack on other editors, rather than being addressed towards content. I suggest you better internalise WP:NPA and strike your comments about the OP. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: I apologise if my words have taken offence. But I wish to highlight how our support/opposes are still aligned or based on our own biasedness. I'm more personally appalled to hear from the support side the flat-out denial and disregard of such rapes, when the article itself also documented such evidence.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sincere question: what would you cite as proof that the assaults are in the historical record? Since I got involved in this discussion I've been looking but I can't find anything that authoritatively makes that claim, I can find a lot of articles and then other articles explaining why those articles are suspect (from sources on the Wikipedia reputable sources list), which is why I support the MR to "Alleged." Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a bunch of WP:AGF WP:CIV WP:PA violations in this sub-thread. The fog of war results in many claims that turn out to be false. Wait for the dust to settle. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. u:Iskandar is correct that the best evidence we have concerns the treatment of the hostages. RS do not call the abuses they have suffered "alleged". This is clearly in the scope of this article and we should follow RS. Alaexis_¿question? 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Except it's not really in the scope – what has happened to the hostages after this attack is a part of the Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis, which is in the aftermath of the subject we have here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is in the scope de facto and also it makes sense since taking hostages was a part of the "Hamas-led attack on Israel" which did not end on October 7 (rockets were launched against Israel until December). I would support changing the title to "... violence in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war" to avoid potential confusion. Alaexis_¿question? 19:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  That BBC article is not commenting on the veracity of the stories, merely that these are the stories they are being told. "BBC hears" is their equivalent of "alleged." Here is another article that uses a similar framing but refers to the events themselves as "alleged." But we're getting into the weeds here. RS continues to refer to these events as alleged, and the ICC prosecutor is clear to say that the stories they include in their warrant request happened after October 7 (so after the events in this article). Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you're interpreting the BBC article correctly. They said that they saw and heard evidence of rape. Alaexis_¿question? 19:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Alaexis:"The BBC has not been able to independently verify this account, and Israeli media reports have questioned some testimony from volunteers working in the traumatic aftermath of the Hamas attacks". How does this equate to the BBC verifying these stories? - Ïvana (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above מתיאל (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
• Oppose. It's a mistake to conflate issues with specific incidents with the overwhelming evidence of rape. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  But there is no "overwhelming" evidence of rape. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There can be a discussion about the extent of the phenomenon, but there is enough evidence for its existence, including testimonies from the perpetrators. SigTif (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  The BBC specifically asked to see the unedited videos of the "testimonies from the perpetrators" for some early videos, to establish whether there was any coercion, 'coaching' or 'deal making' to solicit the testimonies - they were refused. These edited, selective, videos have about the same legal value as Stalin-era 'confessions'. They fail the first obvious test of both being freely made and of veracity. Pincrete (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jamedeus and others. Follow mainstream RSs. Noon (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kashmiri, Pincrete and others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia editors are not forensic evidence experts. Multiple articles from reliable sources, the UN report (mentioned even in Britannica), Scream Without Words etc. state that rapes and other gender based crimes were committed by Hamas militants on 7 October. That should be enough for Wikipedia. GidiD (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  > Wikipedia editors are not forensic evidence experts

  On the flipside though, wouldn't that also be a good reason to move it to alleged, since we can't possibly evaluate if all of those articles are reliable? Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Evaluating whether articles are reliable is the foundation of what we do here. By that reasoning, we should append "Alleged" to every article title. Zanahary (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  In some (most?) circumstances it is possible to evaluate if an article is reliable. In this case the majority of the articles are unreliable, so it makes sense to add "Alleged." I guess we could go through and remove citations to articles like "Scream Without...", but I guarantee that'll put us into an edit war situation. Would be much simpler to add "Alleged" to this article's title. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:46, 28 May 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.

Film

Richard Sanders (dir), The truth about October 7, interview with Peter Oborne Al Jazeera. Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Times examination of rape claims

https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-times-magazine/article/israel-hamas-rape-investigation-evidence-october-7-6kzphszsj Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a misleading summary of the article. This is what Pramila Patten said in March

“ There were, she said, “reasonable grounds” to believe there had been rape and sexual assaults on October 7, particularly at the Nova festival ground, and “clear and convincing information” — a higher standard of evidence — of rape and sexual torture of hostages held in Gaza. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 18:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's read on: The report would prove confusing to the Israeli political establishment. On the one hand, it gives substantial and substantiated credence to the sexual assault claims; on the other it does not show them to be systematic and specifically says Israel has been unable to produce evidence it has claimed to possess of Hamas’s written orders to rape. Patten also asked that Israel investigate “credible allegations” of rape and sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls gathered by the UN’s legal mandate mission in the Palestinian territories. Israel swiftly rejected Patten’s request The quote illustrates well how misleading many Israeli claims are. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we mention written orders in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Are people still talking about the non-investigation that wasn't allowed to be an investigation because Israel refuses to allow the UN to investigate. Patten's trip to Israel is more useful as an example of Tel Aviv's political conniving to muddy the waters – to be included alongside its other disinformation efforts – than it is any form of useful input on the subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I rather think this topic was intended for discussion of the article and whether it merits inclusion in itself, rather than another discussion of the merits of Patten's report. Unfortunately, I can't comment on this as I don't subscribe to this paper. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This Times article is very good, carefully asseses lots of the evidence and reporting, gives a good account of the UN investigation. It definitely merits inclusion in itself and in relation to Patten's report. The title of this section is a very bad summary of its contents. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Screams Without Words

@Pincrete and Makeandtoss: re Screams Without Words, could you elaborate on your objection to "controversial"?

It doesn't seem neutral to say especially widely criticized with no mention the other side of the controversy, like the NYT's denial of several The Verge's claims, and their statement that We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s investigation which was rigorously reported, sourced and edited. The NYT is fairly credible and has a decent track record for issuing corrections or retractions when it's appropriate, so this seems quite far from fringe territory.

If there's some major objection to more neutral language like "controversial", another way to restore balance would be to mention both sides of the controversy and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, but it would be better if we can fix the NPOV issue without such detail in the lede. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this phrasing has been in place since 24th May, when it replaced the text "especially widely challenged", which was newish text at that time, so the WP:ONUS is on those who want it amended to achieve agreement to amend, not on its defenders.

Having said that, I actually start out from the premise that why the NYT piece was criticised/challenged would theoretically be the best starting off point, otherwise there is no sense to saying it was 'controversial'. The NYT piece has been very widely criticised on all sorts of grounds and from 'friend' and 'foe' alike, both in what they say and what they discovered, but failed to say and who the writers were (including a key contributor having very limited journalistic experience, and a history of highly partisan comments). However I don't see a way to summarise such criticism succinctly. Crudely speaking though, the criticism is that an inexperienced and partisan team 'echoed' and 'amplified' uncritically every claim they were spoon-fed, despite a total absence of 'qualified' or forensic evidence and failed to report anything which contradicted the picture they sought to present. To the best of my knowledge, the NYT is the only one now defending the piece, so I don't see any 'controversy' to report. An accurate summary is that the NYT printed the piece and subsequently came under considerable criticism for poor, partisan and uncritical journalism. But the details are in the WP article about the NYT piece.

The London Times has also produced a detailed investigative piece, (linked to above) which is 'chalk and cheese' to the NYT piece. The Times piece is mainly about the weaponisation of sexual violence claims, but is broadly sympathetic to the idea that sexual violence occurred, but that who perpetrated it and the scale is now near-impossible to assess with any certainty. Also that there really is no evidence of such violence being systematic - a central claim of both the NYT piece and the Israeli govt. Further, the Times says that inexperienced and unreliable first responder actions and testimony, and subsequent Israeli govt actions and 'weaponisation' of the sexual violence claims have actually impeded rather than aided investigation. That Times piece doesn't directly challenge the NYT piece, but it does come to wholly different conclusions about the same topic, using much the same available evidence. The UN report comes to similar conclusions to the Times piece, that detailed investigation should now, and should have been carried out if any reliable picture is to emerge of the full scale or nature of the sexual violence.

I don't know if there has been any developments, but the NYT piece was reported as having prompted criticism even within the paper itself. Pincrete (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Pincrete says. The NYT piece is clearly controversial and widely regarded as flawed and we give it too much space here. We really should mention the London Times article, which is an important contribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT in this situation has a conflict of interest, so of course it would be defending its coverage and consequently its editorial reputation *coughs Judith Miller coughs*. Thus, there is no controversy among RS, there is only criticism directed at NYT, even from its own staff. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's basically the last source that should be used on this page, and frankly it's completely unnecessary, since there's now been so much analysis of the piece that the due aspects of it will at this point be reflected in other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

Small grammatical mistake in the first line of the fourth paragraph: "Ha'aretz summarise the media coverage". It should be "Ha'aretz summarised the media coverage". TheMittroSeventy (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Also changed spelling to 'summarized', matching the rest of the article's -zed US spelling -- macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Overview

Why does this exist, specially after such a gargantuan lead? It seems like a pretty random, idle snapshot of information that does an even poorer job of summarizing anything than the lead. It therefore seems thoroughly needless, and unless someone object profusely, I'm going to remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The information can be re-organised and earlier and less reliable sources can be removed when we have better ones. We need to discuss the motivation somewhere, and possibly some information from the lede can be moved to that section. I'm pinging @Keizers who wrote a big part of this section. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I considered moving parts from the lede to the overview after it was helpfully trimmed by @Kashmiri but that makes no sense as there already are relevant sections for each of those parts, like the detailed overview of the UN reports and criticisms of the UN. I agree with @Iskandar323, I don't really see the point of the overview section, it restates what is already in the lede. As for the Assessments of motivation, it can be put in the general body of the page. The best place for it imo is in the evidence category at the end. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok since the lede has been mostly fixed now to avoid unnecessary repetition and be concise, the Overview category was just repeating what was already there, so I moved those parts to the Evidence category where I think it fits quite well. The motivation section is at the end, and the introduction at the beginning. If there are any objections do let me know here and we can discuss it, but this should resolve the issue raised by @Iskandar323 Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 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: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and a reasonable policy-based argument that the current title more accurately reflects the scope of the content and consistency with similar topics in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 18:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity". It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.

References

TRCRF22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

support - See WP:PRECISION for consideration of a title that is too wordy. Whether there is gender-based violence or not should be covered in the article, not in the title, especially if there is uncertainty about the nature of the violence. Relspas (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

oppose -- both mean quite differently things actually; will feel more neutral about this if Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war is included in the discussion too. Josethewikier (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - even to the extent that the 'gender-based' violence definition is broader than 'sexual' violence, it isn't clear that any specifically 'gender-based violence occurred. Everything reported on is adequately covered by the more limited 'sexual violence' definition (ie rape, attempted rape, violent sexual abuse or such abuse under threat of violence and violence targetted specifically at someone because of their physical sex - in this instance chiefly alleged mutilation of sexual parts of women's bodies). The additional 'gender-based' term seems wholly unnecessary to describe the actual content and we even fail to say what we mean by it.Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. While I appreciate the more succinct character of this title, and am sympathetic to the arguments made in support, I believe that a broader title is more encyclopedic. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Support The page even documents cases of sexual violence against all genders so it is hard to parse what aspects of the violence are somehow specific to gender. Or if I am missing something then please let me know but it seems to me that even if there is gender based violence that wouldn't fit under the heading of sexual violence then it would be a different topic and a different page. Jorahm (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am deciding to strike my comment to neutral as I am understanding "sexual and gender-based violence" to be a technical term that is commonly used by organizations with the proper expertise on this subject matter. I am observing that this page is more about sexual violence and they are separate topics but I also see how "X and Y" are commonly linked together and there is a valid argument to be technically correct and consistent. Jorahm (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, as this article is currently WP:CONSISTENT with Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. There's very little discussion of gender-based violence in this article and it doesn't seem to included in the scope. I also don't see the other article Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war as being editors want to pertinent to this discussion. That's its own topic, and if editors want to propose a similar chance at that article then they're free to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Palestine, and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist for additional participation, sitting at 5 for to 3 against (with one alternative suggested), hoping the laundry list of wikiproject notifications I sent might help (crossing my fingers I didn't just make this much worse) ASUKITE 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the arguments regarding consistency with the others article, and the title including both being appropriate broad while including the more common term as well. FortunateSons (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is pendantic. Even if there was gender-based violence, that is covered by "sexual." Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support to avoid WP:OVERPRECISION. The two concepts overlap – commonly, sex is gender based – and having both terms in a single title is fairly confusing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't confusing, we have an article about it: Violence against women; if it is currently confusing this can be fixed editorially while keeping the due precision in the title. —Alalch E. 01:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as FortunateSons: consistency with the other page, and the title being accurate while also including the common designation of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV), which incidentally is also commonly used in the reports cited on the page like the UN report. - Ïvana (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sexual and Gender Based Violence is the accurate term used by experts, and for good reason as it accurately covers distinct kinds of violence both sexual and gender-based in kind (e.g. violence specifically targeted at girls and women). Lf8u2 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  violence specifically targeted at girls and women is what is usually meant by sexual violence. Nowhere in the article is there an example of specifically 'gender-based' violence, nor do we ever say what the term means, nor were editors able to agree on what it is meant to mean or include. We all had our surmisals, but couldn't say. The usual definition of 'gender-based' violence includes violence directed at trans people, because of their expressed gender. This just wasn't a factor AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear I know gendered-based violence doesn't merely or specifically refer to violence targeted at girls and women, but also to gendered violence against boys and men, and the various reports cited (like the UN reports) include both in that categorization. Gender-based violence against boys/men is the focus of the reports regarding violence against Palestinians, and includes such acts like non-sexualized humiliation, desecration of bodies, striking at their sense of honor by threatening sexual violence against their female relatives etc., covering a wide range of actions/behaviors explicitly not included under just sexualized violence, like rape and forced stripping (this is why the term is also appropriate for that page, and why as others have noted for consistency it should be used for this page as well). And there actually are specific references to non explicitly sexualized yet explicitly gender-based violence against girls and women on this page, like genital/sex-based mutilation and desecration of women by shooting in genitalia/breasts, humiliation by filming and swearing at/threatening them with non-sexualized language, kidnapping, beating/torture, not providing sanitary pads in captivity etc. These aren't necessarily described or categorized as explicitly sexualized in nature as with the cases of rape, forced stripping, threats and humiliation with sexualized language, but have rightly been included under the definition of gender-based violence against girls/women in the various reports and testimonies. So SVGB accurately covers the entire range and scope of violence that is detailed on the page. Lf8u2 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thankyou for taking the time to reply, I initially posted because I thought your post might be the result of a misunderstanding on your part, but that is clearly not the case. I can see the distinction between violence (or degrading treatment) of a gendered character, and specifically 'sexual-ised' violence or mistreatment, both of which are alleged iro both the Hamas attack and by Palestinian detainees. The UNHCR-Turkey definition of S&GbV at the foot of this page is so broad as to include almost all forms of enforced discrimination and gendered 'denial of rights', including denial of health care, forced marriage, child marriage etc, none of which really apply between either party in the Isr-Pal conflict.

  IMO, we are using a standard term, perhaps for honourable reasons, but without being clear to ourselves or our readers what the "and gender-based" part is there for, but thanks again for taking the trouble to reply. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  No problem at all, and thank you for the thoughtful replies as well. I agree that the term SVGB encompasses a wide range of actions/behaviors, including forced/arranged/child marriage, denial of healthcare, etc., but again keep in mind that while some of these aren't included in the case of the October 7 attacks and its aftermath, others are. For example some of the female hostages have noted they suffered from gender-based violence that wasn't necessarily sexualized in kind, like not being given proper sanitation/access to sanitary pads, lack of privacy and medical attention, humiliation and other kinds of psychological harm, and of course the kidnapping and captivity itself. The same and other forms of gender-based violence that aren't explicitly sexualized, alongside those that are, are also documented in the case of Israel against Palestinians, which is why the term is also appropriate for that article. IMO when you remove that and collapse it all into just "sexual violence", it doesn't make it more precise and clear, but rather the opposite, conflating acts and behaviors that aren't explicitly sexualized yet still gender-based forms of violence, with those that are explicitly sexualized. This is exactly one of the main problems in all of the reporting on this, that the two are so often conflated when for accuracy and precision's sake and to do justice to the victims it needs to be clarified exactly what forms of violence is being referred to in each specific case, and the page includes ample references to both. Lf8u2 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per FortunateSons, Ïvana, Lf8u2: The phrase "sexual and gender based violence" is technical terminology that may appear overlong and unnecessary, but in fact covers the essential dynamics of sexualized and gendered forms of violence that take place in conflicts. That is why it is used by international bodies like the UN and human rights organizations. The page contains extensive references to both specifically sexual but also gender-based forms of violence, so having just one or the other distorts its content. It ends up being less precise, not more, as those arguing for the change are claiming. In fact it's the exact opposite: it creates imprecision and confusion where none need be. - Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with what FortunateSons, Ïvana, Lf8u2, and Smallangryplanet said. Consistency with other wikipedia articles and using the technical terminology is important. I believe that "gender-based" should be included in the title because the alleged violence was gender-based. it was disproportionately against women, and the article specifically mentions gendered body parts and items (vagina, breasts, bra, dress). also, much of the discourse about the issue has been centered on women. for example, one citation is entitled: "October 7 massacre proves #MeToo doesn't apply to Jewish women". the article also mentions: "Israel accused international women's rights and human rights groups of downplaying the assaults". Rainsage (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Initial support but with adding "alleged" as well, considering most importantly, the recent Times coverage that has cast doubt on, even refuted, many of the central claims of the alleged systematic campaign of sexual violence. 08:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Makeandtoss (talk)

This topic has been gone over several times before, and the consensus is currently that "alleged" should not be added to the title. This does not change simply because one newspaper has cast doubt on claims of sexual violence, especially given the recent UN report which concludes unequivocally that members of the military wing of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups targeted women, including by wilful killings, abductions, and physical, mental and sexual abuse...women were subjected to Gender Based Violence during the course of their execution or abduction. The Times article itself also states that sexual violence did occur: the report...gives substantial and substantiated credence to the sexual assault claims. Simply because the sexual violence was not systemic does not mean the title needs to be renamed. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus changes as the reliable sources change, so nothing prevents this from being rediscussed. Why did you seemingly selectively quote the Times article, which continues to explicitly say: "on the other it does not show them to be systematic and specifically says Israel has been unable to produce evidence it has claimed to possess of Hamas’s written orders to rape. "? Patten's UN report also was not investigative, relied on Israeli sources and did not conclude anything of a systematic nature; it even also refuted many of the central claims. So adding "alleged" sounds like a very normal thing to do when most RS are reporting that there were tons of debunked propaganda. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not refer to Patten's report, but to the more recent report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which found as I have stated, and also concluded unequivocally that these incidents were not isolated but part of a pattern. I did not selectively quote the Times article (deliberately); I merely pointed out the article concedes that sexual violence did take place, even if some specific allegations were proven false. Merely saying that "there isn't any evidence that Hamas ordered rape" doesn't make a case for changing the title, because this allegation is not made in the title, and whether or not it's true doesn't reduce the documented cases of sexual violence to mere allegations. The RS as a whole have not changed significantly to my knowledge, as you can only point to one new article which adds little to the discussion that was not already known. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems also selective to me because it continues to say that: "The Commission has reviewed testimonies obtained by journalists and the Israeli police concerning rape but has not been able to independently verify such allegations, due to a lack of access to victims, witnesses and crime sites and the obstruction of its investigations by the Israeli authorities. The Commission was unable to review the unedited version of such testimonies. For the same reasons, the Commission was also unable to verify reports of sexualized torture and genital mutilation. Additionally, the Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment." [page 27] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, they still concluded unequivocally that there was a wide pattern of sexual violence during the event even if some specific claims are unverified or false, so it is not a mere "allegation". TRCRF22 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I just cited from the report how they explicitly stated that they were unable to independently verify rape, sexualized torture and genital mutilation; nor were they able to verify Israel's claim of orders to commit such acts. So which wide pattern of sexual violence are you talking about here, and what do you mean by sexual violence? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

According to paragraph 25 of the report, Hamas military wing rejected all accusations that its forces committed sexual violence against Israeli women. However, the Commission documented cases indicative of sexual violence perpetrated against women and men in and around the Nova festival site, as well as the Nahal Oz military outpost and several kibbutzim, including Kfar Aza, Re’im and Nir Oz. It collected and preserved digital evidence, including images of victims’ bodies displaying indications of sexual violence, a pattern corroborated by independent testimonies from witnesses. The report also identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concludes that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes (paragraph 95). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "wide" as it does not appear (although they do say in paragraph 95 that this violence was not isolated but perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators). The definition used in the report is "acts of a sexual nature against a person or causing a person to engage in such an act, by force, or by threat of force or coercion"; a relatively standard definition of sexual violence. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Time out people. Really not the discussion of this RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but RMs can also discuss other suggestions.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So "sexual violence" minus Israel's central claims of rape, sexual torture, and genital mutilation? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: per WP:CONCISE and previous discussions in which noone could hazard a guess as to what, if anything, the extra words add in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Sexual and gender-based violence is just another way to say "sexual violence and other violence against women", and the parts of this article and some of the sources, including the quotes specifically added to some of the references, discus precisely violence against women, and that's not the same as "sexual violence" as not all of the violence may be primarily or exclusively sexual (murder, kidnapping, etc.).—Alalch E. 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Note - it also needs to be updated to match the name of the page 7 October attacks, so Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attacks or Sexual violence in the 7 October attacks. MWQs (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It's important to match the language of the reports and articles that are widely cited on the page imo. And many if not most of those, like the UN reports, consistently refer to sexual and gender-based violence (SGVB).

Also ambiguity isn't a good argument to oppose the use of "gender-based violence", as the same applies to "sexual violence". Both cover a wide array and range of actions, from any footage taken of partially dressed bodies by bodycams to verbal humiliation up to direct sexualized violence and torture, against both men and women. If you ask editors to come up with a singular definition of "sexual violence" to cover all instantiations of it noted in the various reports and testimonies, including those on the page, you'll end up with differing definitions as well that don't cover the entire range, and it bleeds into distinctively gender-based violence that's not explicitly sexualized. That ambiguity isn't a good reason to not use the term - rather it's why SGBV should be the standard as it adds further clarity to the inherent ambiguity of both terms by themselves.

This is why feminist scholars came up with the term "sexual and gender-based violence" and it became adopted in the human and women's rights community. Here is a good piece going over the concept and the methods used to come up with distinctive empirical findings regarding gender-based violence, specifically against women and girls. Notice that it includes forms of violence that are on the page like coercion, genital mutilation, humiliation, kidnapping, and forms of violence that are not necessarily sexualized but still gendered in nature, and targeted against girls and women in particular. This is one of the major claims the page discusses, not just a targeted campaign of sexual violence, but of gender-based violence against girls and women. And again this not surprising given that it extensively cites from UN and other reports that use the same concept and methods. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The title "Sexual and gender-based violence" correctly summarizes the types of crimes executed by Hamas militants on October 7th. There is a large body of evidence for sexual crimes (rapes , gang rapes,...) but also to gender based crimes (genital mutilation of female bodies, threatening young female soldiers in getting them pregnant against their will etc.). GidiD (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Oppose. The term Sexual and Gender-Based Violence is precise and inclusive. It encompasses a wide range of harmful acts. Waqar💬 20:11, 2 August 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.