This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women's health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The second sentence in the lead includes an extreme exaggeration which rises to the level of an inaccuracy. The second sentence states “The extent of sexual violence perpetuated by militants, or whether sexual violence occurred at all during the attacks, has been the subject of intense debate and controversy.”
The inaccurate part of the sentence is the segment that states “…or whether sexual violence occurred at all… has been the subject of intense debate and controversy”. Put plainly this sentence is attempting to argue that there is “intense debate or controversy” about--not just the extent of sexual violence--but whether sexual violence occurred *at all* during the 10/7 attack. This is not supported by the cited references.
While the cited references may discuss the fact that the *extent* of sexual violence is being debated, each of them acknowledge evidence of at least one incident of sexual violence that occurred on 10/7. None of them make the outlandish claim that there is “intense debate and controversy” regarding whether any sexual violence occurred.
The only possible argument that can be made here is from the third source (UN Report), which states that Hamas makes the self-serving statement that “Hamas military wing rejected all accusations that its forces committed sexual violence against Israeli women.” The UN Report, however, then immediately discredits this by stating “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.”
Regardless, it cannot seriously be argued that a naked, self-serving statement by the entity accused of sexual violence can be considered “intense debate and controversy”. Of course the entity accused of sexual violence is going to dispute all claims, but such a self-serving statement (or even them calling for an impartial investigation) without more cannot possibly be considered “intense debate and controversy” over whether *any* sexual violence occurred. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Moreover, not a single reference supports this fact.
Therefore, in light of the above, the sentence should be changed to state “The extent of sexual violence perpetuated by militants has been the subject of intense debate and controversy.” Alternatively the sentence can be changed to “The extent of sexual violence perpetuated by militants has been the subject of intense debate and controversy, while Hamas itself denies it committed sexual assault”. However two sentences later it makes this exact point, so the former proposed revision should be used. CuriousViperGarage (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The source of the intense debate and controversy is not Hamas and its denials, it is in the cited sources both in the lead and the body, including The Times article and in reporting by sources like The Intercept. The sentence is factually accurate and backed up by said sources.
Also – please remember that you are not extended confirmed and this article is within scope of the WP:ARBECR restrictions. What this means is that you are limited to posting edit requests, and they must follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines. You are not permitted to participate in consensus forming discussions and should leave that to extended confirmed editors. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is demonstrably false. Nowhere in the Times article does it say there is any debate about whether *no* sexual violence occurred at all, let alone “intense debate and controversy”. The article certainly discusses the extent of the sexual violence, but never once does it say there’s an entity who is arguing that no sexual violence occurred. Indeed it even discusses testimony of a rape victim (by name) and acknowledges the UN report that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe there had been rape and sexual assaults on October 7.
Similarly, nowhere in the Intercept article (which isn’t cited in the lead), does it state that there is any person, entity, or group who is actually claiming that *no* sexual violence occurred. Indeed, the article itself only addresses three claims of sexual assault, to which it acknowledges that only 2 (of the 3) are disputed. For accuracy, the sentence should be revised as proposed. CuriousViperGarage (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is nobody going to challenge CuriousViperGarage's follow-up statement? This is a very clear dissection of the Times and Intercept article which clearly show that they do not in any way suggest that rape did not take place, with the Times article even including testimony by one of the rape victims. The response by Smallangryplanet is barely a few sentences long and contains no factual statements, just a blanket "you're wrong" followed by what essentially amounts to "you're not qualified to partake in this talk page". Seems pretty ad-hominem to me. If nobody is going to challenge CVG's detailed argument, then it seems like the page should be fixed accordingly. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will challenge it. The text previously stated: "or whether sexual violence occurred at all during the attacks". I agree with the editor who reverted this as it is not backed by RS. However, the editor who rejected the initial request, @Smallangryplanet, then altered the phrasing to the following: "The extent of sexual violence perpetuated by militants, or whether there was a weaponized use of sexual violence at all during the attacks, has been the subject of intense debate and controversy."
There is indeed an intense debate and controversy in RS over not only the extent and scope, but also the occurrence of specifically "weaponized sexual violence" by Hamas and other militants as part of the October 7 attacks, with "weaponized" meaning a systematic, planned use of it. Multiple RS, in fact the most authoritative on the matter - the two UN reports - question that there was such a weaponized, systematic, planned use of sexual violence as part of the attacks. These are cited as RS for the claim:
From the cited Times investigation reiterating this multiple times with reference to the first UN report:
"Meanwhile, the political establishment has opened a fresh battle with the UN over what the Patten report didn’t say: that sexual violence was beyond reasonable doubt, systematic, widespread and ordered and perpetrated by Hamas."
"What the report did not say was whether sexual violence was part of the battle plan. Nor did it name Hamas, given the chaotic array of actors that day."
"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."
From the second UN report:
"The Commission identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concludes that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes. The attack on 7 October enabled perpetrators to commit SGBV and this violence was not isolated but perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators. The Commission did not find credible evidence, however, that militants received orders to commit sexual violence and so it was unable to make conclusions on this issue."
"In his report, Guterres referenced Patten’s assessment, but noted that it, not being investigative in nature and given its limited duration, did not draw conclusions on attribution to specific armed groups or determine prevalence of incidents of conflict-related sexual violence during and after the attacks of 7 October. Such a determination would require a fully-fledged investigation...UN officials also pointed out that there has not yet been a full investigation of the October 7 attacks and asserted that it was not possible to determine if Hamas planned sexual crimes as part of its attack, or if they were carried out spontaneously by individuals, including Gazans who entered Israel while trailing the attacking terrorists.”
Other RS that have questioned the evidence of there having been a weaponized use of sexual violence on October 7 by Hamas and other militants include The Intercept:
"As criticism of Gettleman’s story grew both internally and externally, producers at “The Daily” shelved the original script and paused the episode, according to newsroom sources familiar with the process. A new script was drafted, one that offered major caveats, allowed for uncertainty, and asked open-ended questions that were absent from the original article, which presented its findings as definitive evidence of the systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war."
"In a response to The Intercept’s questions about Schwartz’s podcast interview, a spokesperson for the New York Times walked back the blockbuster article’s framing that evidence shows Hamas had weaponized sexual violence to a softer claim that “there may have been systematic use of sexual assault.”"
Journalist Azadeh Moaveni in the LRB: "When Patten held her press conference, five months into the war, it was clear that Israeli women had been sexually violated during the attacks, that those violations had been inhumane and that they constituted war crimes. What wasn’t clear was whether sexual violence had been part of Hamas’s strategy, whether or not the perpetrators were acting under orders (numerous armed groups participated in the attacks) and how many women had been affected."
Therefore, the current phrasing: "The extent of sexual violence perpetuated by militants, or whether there was a weaponized use of sexual violence at all during the attacks, has been the subject of intense debate and controversy", accurately reflects the cited RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. It inaccurately distorts what is unambiguously in the cited sources: There is debate and controversy over whether there was any weaponized use of sexual violence at all by Hamas and other militants during the October 7 attacks. Both UN reports clearly state they did not find evidence of this, and they are the most authoritative RS. Other RS also state this. Claims to the contrary were in initial media reports, in particular the New York Times, that were themselves heavily scrutinized by RS such as The Intercept, and shown to be inaccurate on this matter by the UN reports as is clearly noted in the RS.
I have restored it to the accurate version. If any editors disagree, obtain consensus for your preferred version, either through discussion, or if that fails, an RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the original source of this story is the New York Post, a tabloid with a bad track record on fact checking (WP:NYPOST). While other sources have reported the story all of them cite the Post's reporting as their only evidence. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, it is already mentioned twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the section entitled "prosecution". TRCRF22 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskolnikov.Rev In your edit summary, you wrote "We go by what the cited source says". But that is not what your edit does. The JPost article says "due to a lack of what it deemed to be credible evidence." However, the edit in place says "due to the lack of credible evidence." The JPost article is attributing the position to the UN. It isn't itself saying that there isn't credible evidence. The current edit is both a misrepresentation of the source, as well as expressing a view in wiki voice which can't be in wiki voice. Drsmoo (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done The source of the intense debate and controversy is not Hamas and its denials, it is in the cited sources both in the lead and the body, including The Times article and in reporting by sources like The Intercept. The sentence is factually accurate and backed up by said sources.
