Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lack of qualifier

The opening paragraph is still misleading due to the lack of a qualifier in the opening sentence. Rape during the Bosnian War saw sexual violence being committed against at least 10,000 to 50,000 women; which the opening sentence accurately qualifies it as a policy of "mass systematic violence." Meanwhile, the opening sentence here mentions "Israeli women and girls," which begs the natural question of how many? Was it systematic? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

$64,000 questions. The short answer to "how many" seems to be that nobody knows or has counted (for good and not-so-good reasons) and the short answer to 'systematic?' seems to be no evidence that it was, but still disputed. Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The UN report mentions three if I am not mistaken. If the scale and nature is disputed then that should be reflected in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I added an inline tag for the lack of quantification. This is a serious long-standing POV issue that has never been addressed, and, it seems, refuses to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The figure is unclear as @Pincrete noted, but "dozens" at the most is what has been reported by most reliable sources, and is reflected in the second paragraph of the lede citing Israeli police sources. Patten said the same: "But, she added, “I do not have numbers in the report because for me one case is more than enough,” she told reporters. “The first letter that I received from the government of Israel talked about hundreds or thousands of cases of brutal sexual violence perpetrated against men, women and children. I have not found anything like that.”

So imo just put "dozens" in the first sentence of the lede as well and that should resolve it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When I tried to do that by inserting "some" a few months ago, I was swiftly reverted. So does everyone here agree on adding "dozens" to the opening sentence? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Some" is probably too vague, but I don't see why anyone would object to dozens when that is what has been reported, including by Israeli police as noted in the second paragraph right now.

Also, to avoid needless repetition it might be best to remove the "Israeli police said dozens..." in the second paragraph of the lede if "dozens" is added to the first sentence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev: Can you please add it? We are both supporting this addition and there is no opposition to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how best to phrase this, but the fact that we really have no idea how widespread the sexual violence was, nor even how much has been claimed semms a notable feature/oddity in itself. 'Dozens' if used should be attributed in some form IMO.Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is indeed very odd. The dozens figure is the most solid reliable approximation that has been provided by the Israeli police, specifically Meni Binyamin, the head of the International Crime Investigations Unit as cited in the New York Times in December. NBC News and BBC also went with the dozens figure, citing Israeli police and officials.

Note that these articles are far from perfect, they contain claims about cases of sexual violence/rape/mutilation that were discredited by later reporting, like the Patten report, the AP and Times of London investigations. But for this specific claim they're citing Israeli police and other officials so that's as reliable as you can get as a source for the amount.

So I think the best way to resolve the quantification issue is to have the first sentence as is, then move the sentence from the second paragraph right after it: "Israeli police said dozens of women and some men were raped." And link to the NYT piece as the source for that as it names the specific official giving that figure. That shouldn't be controversial as it's already in the lede in the second paragraph, we're just moving it up.

If there are not objections I'll move ahead with this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Reportedly and civility

First, as far as a person who keeps reverting me here, I would like to refer you and everyone to "civility" in regards to wiki editing. Moreover, no one "owns" this page, and to brazingly and aggressively and even angrily demand people bend to your will "or take it to talk page" is a violation.

Reportedly by defition is (per Oxford): "according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true). "he was in El Salvador, reportedly on his way to Texas""

The rapes on October 7th happened, whether one wants to accept it or not. It is only "controversial" to people engaging in rape denialism. "Reportedly" either should be removed, OR re-added to Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war, which I will "happily" to do now - "happily" because the same UN reprot that confirmed Hamas were rapists, also confirmed Israeli soldiers committed sex crimes - so it should be BALANCED.

Per the defition of "reportedly," then it should be removed. It absolutely happened per UN and the various other investigations and VICTIMS themselves. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I can also reference dictionary definitions. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "reportedly" means "according to what many people say" or "according to what is said about something". Hardly an expression of doubt.

The word was added to the Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war article hours ago by the same editor who reverted you.

Btw, I find the contrast in wording striking. Hamas members are labeled as "rapists" (despite no UN report confirming this) while Israeli soldiers "committed sex crimes".

Anyways, since you offered two alternatives—removing the word here or re-adding it in the other article—and one has been fulfilled, I believe this resolves the issue. - Ïvana (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah abd Israelis committed sexual crimes including rape (per UN). And Hamas are rapists, as the UN said explicitly members of Hamas and other Palestinian militants committed sex crimes and gender-based violence and this was not isolated at all. Hope this helps! Thank you fof seeing my point and resolving the issue. :) Winter queen lizzie (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no civility issues; All my actions have been civil and in line with ensuring NPOV and respect for community consensus. If we're going to accuse editors of not following Wiki rules, then I can say that you're violating NPOV standards with your edits that are controversial before seeking consensus, which you have done consistently on this and other pages (including reverts of consensus edits). This is a case in point: If you had brought up your issues with "reportedly", I would have explained that it does not mean what you think it means (as Ïvana noted, dictionary definitions vary as the term is used in a variety of contexts, and in this one it clearly just mean "as reported by" the outlets in the references).

Furthermore, I would have done what I did, namely add the same term to the lede of the other page. I was not involved in discussions to remove that, and I don't believe it should be, because again it does not mean anything other than that something has been reported. Both pages are filled with the term being used in that way.

I'm glad the issue is resolved now. In future, if you know an edit is going to be controversial as you knew here because you were aware it led to a discussion on the other page that apparently your position lost (one in which I would have sided with you on if I had been aware of it), kindly seek consensus first before going ahead with it. That's what I always do with edits I know will lead to controversy, again per Wiki rules. That's the best way to ensure civility too as it avoids needless reverts of controversial edits and the potential feelings of conflict that comes with it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Remove duplicated link (#1/#4) in the ‘See also’ section. Polyna V. (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting us know! Alaexis_¿question? 19:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Certain relatively recently added sections on the most recent UN report and a Re'im festival testimony are too closely paraphrased. In the latter paragraph the quotes at the start are spliced differently than in the TOI article [1] but apart from that it's nearly verbatim.

For example, we say that the commission

found "no credible evidence" that Palestinian forces had been ordered to commit sexual violence, and consequently were unable to make conclusions on the matter. ... the Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradicted by other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.

The UN report (pp. 7, 19) says,

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. ... [T]he Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.

We say that

In his testimony, aware of the doubts cast on survivors of sexual violence on 7 October, D. presented medical opinions of the harm that was done to him as well as sat for a polygraph test. He also revealed that he is one of more than 100 survivors of the music festival in a major lawsuit suing the State of Israel for more than NIS 500 million ($137 million) in government support.

while TOI says,

aware that some are casting doubt on testimony of sexual violence on October 7, [D.] has presented various sources with medical opinions that testify to the harm done to him, as well as sitting for a polygraph test. His testimony is also included in a major lawsuit filed by more than 100 survivors of the Supernova festival against the State of Israel, demanding more than NIS 500 million ($137 million) in government support.(Notability of the lawsuit?)

Part of the reason I bring these here instead of fixing them myself is that I would probably also shorten them considerably and that may be unacceptable to some. ByVarying | talk 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some of the close paraphrasing you're talking about from the UN report section. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The "see also" section

I'm not clear on the relevance of several links in the "see also" section. In particular, Deir Yassin massacre seems only tangentially relevant as an example of another massacre during this conflict, and considering there are dozens of articles on similar incidents there doesn't seem to be a reason why this specific page was chosen. Sde Teiman detention camp is slightly more relevant in that both pages cover sexual violence during the same conflict, but they aren't really related to one another and aren't particularly similar so I'm not sure it merits inclusion in the See Also. The link to Accusation in a mirror is also quite concerning, as not only is it completely irrelevant, but invocations of the concept have often been used to deny Hamas atrocities by pointing out that Israel is doing the same.

Looking at the page history, it seems that all three links were added by the same user. @FourPi, could you please explain your rationale for adding these links to the See Also section, or do they need to be removed? TRCRF22 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@TRCRF22 Considering FourPi was identified as a sock and banned, I wouldn't expect a response from them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Quantification should be included

To @Stephan rostie, you removed the reference to "dozens" in the lede though it had been the result of a consensus sought here to resolve the lack of a qualifier issue. Although the source is an Israeli government official, it's the lead official who was involved in the investigation cited in the NYT as noted in the reference, and the same figure is cited in NBC News and BBC also citing other police and other officials. So I believe this satisfies RS.

The dozens figure is moreover already included on the main body of the page in the evidence section:

In a review of evidence mainly provided by the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, NBC News stated that the evidence "suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated".

As you can see from the prior discussion in talk, dozens is the best we've got for accurate figures, so either it's included or there is no qualifier and it's left open-ended, and based on the content of the page it gives the (mistaken) impression that the figures are in the hundreds or thousands, which is grossly inaccurate and contradicts the figures given by Israeli officials in charge of the investigation.

It may be worth adding a paragraph in the main body collecting all the various figures cited from the various reports, maybe even with its own sub-section titled "Quantification". The best place for that would be in the Evidence category imo. If that is added in the main body, then a sentence can be added after the lede as it currently is along the lines of: "although the exact figures remain unclear and differ greatly per source." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Extra source

The principle should be that, while we need to create articles like this from breaking news and mainstream updates, at some point we should, as they appear, gradually replace them with studies from strong RS that review the phenomena at a distance. The Lemkin Institute is one of the best sources for covering this still obscure story about rape. This came out 9 February, and is still neglected.It both accepts that sexual violence did occur, and yet is highly critical of its weaponization. Neither this article nor the other (Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel) use it, and both should.

Nowhere is the need for these things more apparent than in the case of sexualized violence against women during Hamas’s October 7 attack on southern Israel. Accurate reporting on gender-based violence committed by Hamas militants has been hampered by the failure of emergency response personnel to document evidence of sexualized violence in the wake of October 7. Accurate reporting has been further hampered by the efforts of the Israeli state to use sexualized violence in a politicized manner to justify the genocide it is committing in response to Hamas’ attacks. Both of these hindrances have led to a situation where the reliability of evidence of sexualized violence on October 7 is either overstated or belittled.. . . This analysis has led us to conclude that ultimately it is not the absence of physical evidence that has stood in the way of a unified international outcry regarding sexualized violence on October 7, but the instrumentalization of sexualized violence by the Israeli state for propaganda purposes that seek to dehumanize Palestinian men and justify genocide.Statement on the Evidence of Sexualized Violence Against Israeli Women During Hamas' Attack on October 7, 2023 Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security10 February 2024

I suggest editors download it, and review the article in the light of its observations. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"propaganda purposes that seek to dehumanize Palestinian men and justify genocide" In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: D'oh!. This is not a new phenomenon, the Israelis have been using such propaganda for decades. And last I checked the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still within living memory. We already have United Nations findings from 1983 that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were responsible for genocide. What stops them from doing it again and again? Dimadick (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Lemkin Institute text seems pretty good to me (apart from the amount of credence it gives to a Twitter thread by Max Blumenthal, which doesn't inspire confidence in reliability), but I'm not sure how noteworthy it is given it has had zero secondary coverage and the Institute itself doesn't seem like a very solid organisation from its website or our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a secondary source, 'Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere,' so why are you asking for secondary coverage of a secondary source? One cannot mention Blumenthal as a primary source, but you can if cited in a secondary source, as he is there. The paper refers to many primary source arguments, and interprets them critically.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth checking that the account Winter_queen_lizzie may in fact be a fake account stemming back to an account, hyphen, originally created in Hebrew.

Note: I have been around Wiki for 18 years and have never seen so much twisting, misinformation, fakery and propaganda posted on our pages before. HuttonIT (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Including updates from Israeli prosecutor

There are still zero complainants in alleged cases of rapes committed by Palestinians on 7 October 2023, an Israeli prosecutor has admitted.

"Ben Hetar was also responsible for the area of ​​sexual offenses. "Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to prove these offenses," she says. "In the end, we have no complainants. What was presented in the media compared to what will ultimately emerge will be completely different. Either because the victims were murdered, or because the women who raped them are not prepared to reveal it. We contacted women's rights organizations and asked for cooperation. They told us that they simply did not contact them. There were parents who contacted the organizations and asked what to do if something happened to their daughter, but they did not disclose the abuse. "In this matter, I would lower expectations. I know there is public expectation and understand the need to address the horrific sexual crimes and sexual assaults that have been committed, but the vast majority of them will not be able to meet the threshold of proof in court, and the criticism will ultimately come to the prosecutor's"

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14200599

Bfikree (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Have added it to the page but in the future please use the proper format for editing requests. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, this is my first time! Bfikree (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead too long + outstanding issues

The lead is currently too long, at six paragraphs, and beyond that, there is an overarching issue with the presentation of outdated or unsubstantiated material being left in situ despite subsequent issues being raised over the veracity of the purported events. A good example, which I will be addressing shortly, is the presentation in the lead of direct testimonies, via the BBC, in which the publisher makes no claims about the veracity of the statements, nor suggests that it has cross-verified them; it just un-journalistically presents the statements without qualification. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the UN report

Why only Israel's obstruction is mentioned now? The report says due to a lack of access to victims, witnesses and crime sites and the obstruction of its investigations by the Israeli authorities. Also, "but" is not found in the report. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: new WP:NYPOST article

[2]... is not a RS. Edits treating it as one should be reverted. ByVarying | talk 16:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

Add in controversies section : On January 6th 2025,former Israeli lead prosecutor on october 7th sexual violence allegations stated that:“In the end, we don’t have any complainants. What was presented in the media compared to what will eventually come together will be entirely different” Redstar0505 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur, but since this is news from Israel itself, it seems important enough to go up the top in the existing broad timeline of events in the intro section: On October 7, blah; in January 2024, it was reported that blah; in March 2024, the UN reported that blah; on 12 April, the EU sanctioned blah; and the new entry: in January 2025, Israel stated that blah.

Alternatively, maybe that whole intro section is too long and the information should be moved to other places in the article. Immibis (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A more primary source (via Google translation link): https://www-ynet-co-il.translate.goog/news/article/yokra14200599?_x_tr_sl=iw&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc&_x_tr_hist=true

The source talks about the various kinds of terrorism crimes committed by Hamas. The relevant part for this article is the paragraph containing "In the end, we have no complainers" Immibis (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See WP:MEMO please cite sources that are reliable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Second Paragraph is Inaccurate

The last sentence of the second paragraph states: "As of January 2025, the former head of the security cases division in Israel's Southern District prosecutor's office said that no case was being filed due to a lack of evidence and complainants."

This sentence is factually inaccurate and has been debunked in a news article which addresses the issue head on. At best it's highly misleading. It should be revised to the following: "As of January 2025, the former head of the security cases division in Israel's Southern District prosecutor's office said that no case was being filed due to the fact that the victims were "either murdered or some of those who were raped chose not to come forward to share what had happened."

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rjt5bbwdjx CuriousViperGarage (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Content in the lead should be a concise summary. The description accurately reflects that the prosecutor said no case was being filed due to lack of complainants and evidence. The claim for why there is such a lack has no evidence provided and is speculative, so not leadworthy. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable argument and should be rejected. Content in the lead should be concise, but it should not be inaccurate or misleading. The sentence at issue states that the Prosecutor "said that no case was being filed due to lack of evidence and complainants". You argue there is no evidence to change this sentence. This is false. In the article cited, it clearly states:

1) "Prosecutor *purposely misquoted* in propaganda effort says Hamas terrorists and Gazans who invaded Israel on Oct. 7 raped young women and murdered them, sometimes [] during the act; says *any distortion of this fact is a lie*" (This is exactly what the lead sentence is doing)

2) "Although *there is evidence* of rapes and sexual assaults, the difficulty in trial is attributing the atrocity to a particular perpetrator."

3) "Moran Gez said in an interview with Ynet's sister publication Yedioth Ahronoth that it was hard to prosecute the rapes and sexual assault committed by the terrorists because many of the victims of the atrocities did not survive and therefore could not come forward."

4) "Unfortunately, we have no victims. They were either murdered or some of those who were raped chose not to come forward to share what had happened" she said.

(Emphasis added).

The sentence at issue in the lead is a gross distortion of the truth. The above evidence from the article makes clear that the reason no complaints were filed is because, according to the prosecutor, a) the victims were murdered during the act of rape; or b) those who were raped chose not to come forward. Instead the sentence in the lead makes it seem like the reason no complaints were filed is because there was no evidence of rape or victims at all. But this is clearly not the case as plainly corrected by the prosecutor who the sentence is about and, for which, the article clearly describes as propaganda.

Moreover, you appear to be seeking evidence to prove the underlying issue (i.e., whether the women were *actually* murdered while they were being raped), but this is not at issue here. The only question is whether there is evidence as to the reason *why* the prosecutor did not file rape charges, and that she clearly identifies in the above article -- i.e., that the women were either murdered or too ashamed to come forward; not because there is no evidence of rape. CuriousViperGarage (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with @CuriousViperGarage. The cited source in the lede also clarifies this point: "Moran claimed that the failure to gather evidence could be because the victims are dead or unwilling to approach women's rights organisations." This is important and relevant information to include. I have updated the lede accordingly. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead includes a fabricated claim.

The last sentence of the lead (fourth paragraph) states: "In 23 April 2024, the UN refused to include Hamas in the blacklist of state and non-state parties guilty of sexual violence in 2023 due to the lack of credible evidence."

The fabrication in this sentence is the last part which makes the claim that the reason Hamas was not included in the blacklist was "due to lack of credible evidence." This is a fabrication that is contradicted by the sources.

Indeed, the sources do mention credible evidence of rape but state an entirely different reason for why Hamas was not included in the blacklist:

"The document, titled 'Conflict-related sexual violence,' and published as a 'Report of the Secretary-General,' noted there is evidence that sex crimes were committed during the Palestinian terror group Hamas’s devastating October 7 attack on Israel, *but did not specifically attribute responsibility to Hamas.*"

The sources then go on to explain the reason why the report does not specifically attribute responsibility to Hamas:

"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*.' "

Another one of the sources emphasises this point:

"Additionally, the sources explained that since this is not a *comprehensive investigation* and it is *impossible* to attribute the offense to a specific operation, it cannot be determined whether the acts were planned by Hamas as part of the attack, carried out by invaders afterward, or committed randomly."

(Emphasis added).

As stated above, none of the sources ever state that the reason Hamas was not blacklisted was because of the lack of "credible evidence" but rather the reason for not including Hamas is because there has not been a "full[]-fledged" or "comprehensive" investigation such that specific attributions could be made or prevalence could be determined. Moreover, there is a universe of difference between making a claim that there is "no credible evidence" when in reality the real reason (as clearly stated in the sources) is because there has not been a comprehensive investigation to even determine whether there is "credible evidence" in the first place.

As such, the last sentence in the lead should be revised to the following: "In 23 April 2024, the UN refused to include Hamas in the blacklist of state and non-state parties guilty of sexual violence in 2023 due to lack of a full-fledged investigation where specific attribution or prevalence could be determined." CuriousViperGarage (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"The fabrication in this sentence is the last part which makes the claim that the reason Hamas was not included in the blacklist was "due to lack of credible evidence." This is a fabrication that is contradicted by the sources."

This is inaccurate. The first cited source explicitly states: "The United Nations omitted Hamas from its blacklist of state and non-state parties guilty of sexual violence in 2023, due to a lack of what it deemed to be credible evidence."

However, as that and the other sources note, this credible evidence is obtained through a full and legally mandated investigation, and I have added that for clarification. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)