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

Times of Israel and the Jerusalem Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

New testemonies

add this also

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

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

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

Background info

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

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

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

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

Witness not witnesses

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image is ridiculous

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

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

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

Please keep this article current

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

WP:RSUW in the lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on Hamas denial in lead section

Should Hamas's denial of the sexual assaults be in the lead section? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• No. The denial is in the body of the article and that is where it belongs. Not in the lead. As evidence accumulates, most recently with a two-month New York Times investigation, which found that Hamas "weaponized sexual assault" during the attacks,[5] it is abundantly clear that sexual assaults did indeed take place. The Hamas denials is perfunctory and utterly lacking in credibility, and including it in the lead section, especially a lead as brief as this one, creates WP:FALSEBALANCE and is contrary to WP:LEAD. Further, it is so at variance with established fact (witness testimony, forensic evidence, outside investigations) I would suggest that placing the denial in the lead is contrary to WP:FRINGE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

See my elaboration re WP:LEAD in the "Discussion" section, pointing out the relative unimportance given to the perfunctory Hamas denial in reliable sources such as the lengthy Wall Street Journal article today. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• The New York Times is often regarded as a reliable source of news. However, in complex and prolonged conflicts, where propaganda is widespread, conducting thorough investigations can take years rather than just a few weeks. Therefore, in this particular case you mentioned, The New York Times which can not be considered as strong argument to support the removal of the passage where Hamas denies the accusations from the lead sections. The lead section aims to summarize all the relevant information in the article, and the section featuring Hamas denial is present there. Riad Salih (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that sexual assaults did indeed take place is almost certainly true - sexual violence (sadly) is a fact of life in most conflicts, as is propagandising of 'horror stories'. The extent to which sexual violence occured, whether it was deliberately/systematically 'weaponized' and whether all/most/some of the allegations are true requires care, time and forensic expertise to establish. Until then, none of us, and no source - regardless of how generally reliable it is - could possibly establish how true the allegations are. Just as multiple WP:RS have reported the accusations, equally, the majority have reported the denial(s), so should we. Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes History will decide to what extent any allegations are substantiated, until then the non-acceptance of the allegation should be neutrally recorded.Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• No. As above. If they weren’t apparently made in seriousness, then they would be comical. I’ll point out that Hamas denials are not mentioned in the lead paragraphs of related pages covering the 10/7 attack. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel) However, 10/7 denialism in general merits its own section, and possibly its own page. The context of Hamas broader 10/7 denials should be added in the section on this page. Drsruli (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• No. As above as well. Hamas credibility in this regard is nonexistent. Hamas leaders also refuse to acknowledge the killing of civilians, their words are wind. Telecart (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes (coming from an NPOV notice). Until Hamas is declared guilty by an international court of these crimes, including their denial is absolutely required to balance the assertion they were responsible, given that the denial has been widely reported as well. (If there were no to minimal sourcing for that, then it would be a DUE issue to include) If, as some have argued, that Hamas' claims should have zero credibility, that should be backed by reliable sources and also added to the lede (eg "While Hamas has denied responsibility, their denial has been rejected by other governments.") Otherwise, it does become original research to claim Hamas has no credibility and thus reason to remove the denial. --Masem (t) 14:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question as on NPOVN, what is the basis for you arguments in the guidelines or policy? "international court"? You have constructed an argument to give credibility to Hamas where the default assumption for WP is "no credibility", for any organization: see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. Omit if including would unduly legitimize it or describe in proper context. The burden is on you to overcome that warning from the NPOV policy with reference to reliable sources, not construct an argument concerning 'courts', 'responsibility', 'governments', and 'guilt'. fiveby(zero) 18:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how untrustworthy the body being accused of a crime is, as long as that remains an accusation and not something determined by courts or other authorities, or some academic agreement made decades later, then we should always include the denial, that's an essential part of writing neutrally so that it does not appear we have taken one side or make the assumption that the accusation is true. WP editors cannot be ones to judge the trustworthiness of these entities, so it is improper to remove the denial on unsourced claims the entity is trustworthy.
But as it appears here, many of the sources reporting on Hamas' denial also refute that denial, so it is fully reasonably to include the denial and the lack of trust from that denial from various sources. — Masem (t) 15:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

By your same logic then the denial of killing civilians should also be prominently present in the lede section of articles right? I see Wikipedia does it's best in 2023 Israel–Hamas war, 7 October total includes an unknown number of deaths from friendly fire, misrepresenting one source and taking as true the reports of friendly fire by a helicopter at the musical festival. Don't see many of the Israeli denials of accusations in lede sections, why are those statements not warranted? The "essential part of writing neutrally" is not unwarranted equivocation which is not reflected in the sources, but actually making an attempt to write neutrally. Fill in the body by summarizing the best sources available, then build the introduction as MOS:LEAD instructs. fiveby(zero) 16:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes as mentioned below in the discussion section and NPOV notice board.Riad Salih (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• No The coverage of the heinous assaults is extensively covered by reliable sources. There's no policy reason that I'm aware of to "wait for history" or a some international trial. Given the amount of coverage to the contrary of the denial I'm more sympathetic to the WP:FRINGE argument. The denial can be mentioned in the body, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Nemov (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You said 'There's no policy reason that I'm aware of to 'wait for history' or a some international trial.' This statement reflects your personal opinion. In this context, our approach is to cite information from reliable sources representing both viewpoints. Our role is not to act as judges or take sides in the conflict. Riad Salih (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• No, or at least not at this time. A fully developed MOS:LEAD might or might not include the denial, but as it stands inclusion is certainly WP:FALSEBALANCE. fiveby(zero) 19:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  False Balance does not apply here at all. The page talks about 'minority view, fringe theory,' which is not the case here since two groups are involved.

  Both groups' positions should be included. There is no international court providing full information right now, so I don't see why a claim stated by a reputable newspaper like The Washington Post should be denied.

  If you believe it is truly a case of False Balance, please provide a detailed argument to support your claim. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  • The Washington Post article reports the denial by Basem Naim, who has also stated "The operation targeted only the Israeli military bases and compounds", "There were clear instructions from the top commanders of Al Qassam Brigades to avoid targeting civilians or killing them"[6], and "We have not killed any civilians"[7] The author immediately follows the denial by pointing out that Earlier this month, Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau based in Qatar, also said in an interview with the BBC that “women, children and civilians were exempt” from Hamas’s attacks — despite a death toll that was made up mostly of those groups. No one is denying that Post's reporting is accurate, or that Hamas’ political office made a post on Telegram blaming a "coordination of some Western media outlets with the Zionist misleading campaigns". The WP:NPOV policy applies everywhere, and the false balance comes not from reporting the denial, but in failing to inform the reader of what that denial is worth. fiveby(zero) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. I've reviewed the previous votes and didn't find any arguments showing that RS lend any credence to the denials (a token sentence about the denial doesn't count). Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  How would anyone expect a source to lend credence to the denials? They print them, which gives them sufficient credence, just as they attribute Israeli claims most of the time, both of which show that RS are not yet in a position to know how true either side is being about this. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  If there is just one sentence in an article stating that Hamas denies the allegations, including it in the lede would give it undeue weight. Alaexis_¿question? 09:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  By that logic we should be omitting denials/innocence pleas in reports of civil and criminal cases, since they are typically only a sentence long pre-trial, whereas accusations are typically much longer! Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. There isn't much to say about Hamas denial and Hamas itself hasn't given much details. But here's a NYT article giving Subhead weight (subhead is one level below headline) to Hamas denial. VR _talk 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the paragraph about the denial includes a refutation (extensive witness testimony and documentary evidence of killings, including videos posted by Hamas fighters themselves, support the allegations). I'd be fine with that option too (e.g., "Hamas denied the reports of sexual violence in spite of the extensive evidence confirming them"). Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are choosing the most categorical statement about the available accusations. The mass of sources are more equivocal, present the evidence, cite the source of the claims and point out its 'flaws' (eg the BBC, I believe asked to see the un-edited interrogation 'confessions', and were told it was impossible, which makes them largely worthless). Very little evidence has come from forensically competent authorities so far and a great deal is surmisal. Some 'evidence' has been largely discredited. The fact of sexual violence having occurred is probable, since unfortunately, it almost always does, the scale, the extent to which it was systematic and whether the more extreme accusations are true could not even possibly be established by journalistic sources at present, the only thing they can do is report accusations, which they have done and report denials, ditto. Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Virtually every reliable source I have come across does the responsible thing and mentions Hamas's denial. In fact, after the fact that women were subjected to sexual violence, the fact of Hamas's denial is one of the most widely reported facts about these events. It is very WP:UNDUE not to include something so widely reported in the lead. Here are 23 sources: New York Times, New Yorker, Associate Press, The Guardian, The Intercept, CNN, BBC, Abc7Chicago, Reuters, Vox, NBC News, France24, Le Monde, Financial Times, Irish Times, Mother Jones, Seattle Times, Toronto City News, Al Jazeera, Telegraph, USA Today, Swissinfo, ABC Australia. Let me know if you need even more sources.VR _talk 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I want to add that Hamas's specific denial includes that its fighters didn't commit the rapes, but were committed by militants from other groups[8][9] as well as non-affiliated persons. I've also seen Hamas challenge the credentials of certain alleged Hamas fighters (this is from Arabic language sources, I'll have to dig it up). These are generally difficult claims to rebut as Hamas fighters typically aren't uniformed and thus hard to distinguish. How many RS specifically rebut this claim? VR _talk 02:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Most sources, refer directly to Hamas having committed sexual violence, adding a source. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Homerethegreat (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can't access that source, because its behind a paywall, but does that source directly refute Hamas's claim that the militants who did the sexual violence belonged to groups other than Hamas? VR _talk 15:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a TOI article that reported on the NYT, though I'm not certain it summarizes everything.https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-harrowing-detail-nyt-shows-weaponization-of-rape-sexual-violence-during-oct-7/. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Homerethegreat An independent international court can decide, as requested by Hamas leaders. A United Nations investigation committee is currently examining war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas in their conflict. The committee is focusing on allegations of sexual violence linked to Hamas, despite Israeli complaints about the perceived silence of the United Nations. Tel Aviv alleges bias on the part of the committee and has declared its refusal to cooperate with the investigation. (source)

  __

  Therefore, both points need to be mentioned. The New York Times is a newspaper and not an international court. Otherwise, the international court wouldn't need to exist. Riad Salih (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can you provide a Wikipedia policy to support your argument that a court must decide due weight and not Wikipedia editors? Nemov (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can you provide a policy where the mention of both sides is a false undue weight? Riad Salih (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  For your question please review WP:DUE which states that an article represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. This is an article about gender-based violence that happened. The denial isn't a significant viewpoint to that reality. I still await your answer to my question. Nemov (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  DUE-ness is decided neither by courts nor the personal opinions of wikipedians but by the reliable sources. In fact, WP:DUE specifically rules out "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." VR _talk 20:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• No per Figureofnine. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. The comments re WP:LEAD and WP:FALSEBALANCE are well-taken, and the references to criminal cases, the need for an international tribunal to determine if there really were widespread rapes, etc etc lack grounding in the reality of the overwhelming evidence that the assaults took place. The limited size of this lead also raises a WP:WEIGHT issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. RS overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, report on the denial. We may find the denials non-credible, or distasteful, or outright offensive, but it's not what we think that matters, it's what RS are reporting, and they're reporting on the denial. It's not undue if it's a piece of information that's conveyed in virtually every source. It's also worthwhile to note that Hamas has denied that their own fighters were the perpetrators of the alleged sexual violence—RS have presented evidence that sexual violence occurred, but to my knowledge, they have been much less definitive on the specific affiliations (if any) of the perpetrators. This is important context. WillowCity^(talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. At this point the consensus of reliable sources is that the violence occurred; giving such prominence to these denials despite this consensus would be to give them WP:UNDUE weight. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Figureofnine, I think this is premature. RfCs are time consuming for commenters and we haven't even invested very much time in this issue. The time between your initial edit and this RfC was less than an hour. I don't think we've spent sufficient time actually trying to resolve this dispute.

About ten minutes before you posted this RfC, I asked you to cite specific parts of the policies you use to back your arguments. Please do that. Wracking ^talk! 23:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Wracking. The survey seems premature and appears to be a direct attempt to push for a specific version. : : If we want a more neutral perspective, we should involve the entire community in the survey to include contributions from a diverse range of participants, and Figureofnine you make comments such as : sorry You reverted not just the ridiculous Hamas denial which makes you clearly non-neutral at all. It appears that you are taking a side, which is really unwanted in these cases. Riad Salih (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t this how consensus works? (It seems to me that I’ve been party to calls for consensus after considerably less discussion.) Drsruli (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD says: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The Hamas denial is not a prominent controversy. It is given practically zero weight in reliable sources that have examined the subject of this article in detail.

In this Wall Street Journal article out today, "Israel’s ‘Black Sabbath’: Murder, Sexual Violence and Torture on Oct. 7," https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-oct-7-murder-sexual-violence-torture-45aab439 the Hamas denial is one sentence buried well within an article of several thousand words. This is typical of the coverage in reliable sources.

From WP:LEAD on "relative emphasis": "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The "relative importance" given to the perfunctory Hamas denial in reliable sources is slight to none, as illustrated in today's Wall Street Journal article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

By contrast, the New York Times puts the denial in the Subhead (the line right below the Headline). Different sources give different weight to the denial.VR _talk 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, it seems to be a good idea than that an RFC was opened on this since different sources put different weight as said by VR and so it seems a good idea to decide what weight is given here. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. This issue was first discussed on talk at 23:07[10] and the RfC was opened at 23:41[11] a mere 34 minutes later. This is yet another violation of WP:RFCBEFORE.VR _talk 19:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Figureofnine Your examples are drawn from Western media coverage; you can find the opposite perspective in Arabic media, where they might highlight that Hamas is seeking international court involvement. Your choice of media coverage seems to align with your perspective. WP:RSUW Riad Salih (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes per VR's rationale and sources above. A news published just a day ago[12] states that Israeli police unable to verify 'Hamas rape' stories. As the conflict is on-going and new developments are coming up everyday (like many news outlets initially reported that 40 babies were beheaded which turned out to be false later) so it is better to be responsible and follow WP:UNDUE. --Bringtar (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

TNYT article

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

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

Not a shred of direct evidence

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism towards the NYT reportage

@Riad Salih note that the sources you used are not considered very reliable. Mondoweiss is considered biased and with low credibility[13][14][15], also source styles itself as anti-Zionist from what I read. Press TV, based in Iran has been accused of antisemitism [16] and also here is its score [17]. I suggest you self revert until you find better sources to support statements you added. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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