Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 39

RfC on sexual violence in lead section
Should the lead section contain a few sentences concerning the sexual violence during the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023? ' If so, should the Hamas denial be included? Option A would be to include a few sentences with no denial. Option B include with a denial. Option C do not include. Restarted Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Coretheapple (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Make a closure request if desired, no need to restart it- Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed." Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only reason you restarted it was because it was archived by the bot? Can't just keep restarting an RFC for no reason or we would be here forever. There has been no comments for a while, I made a closure request here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Reinstating RfC archived by bot. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you give example sources for "the Hamas denial"? I saw one interview, but I am not sure if what I saw is what you have in mind. Irtapil (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree including it as it has been a contentious topic that has received notability. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Warning for the closer re: canvassing: ArbCom has been presented with evidence that this RfC has been canvassed by those asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view. While I am not personally aware of the nature or extent of the evidence, or the scale of canvassing, the closer should apply WP:NOTAVOTE with particular care. WillowCity  (talk)  22:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey 2

 * Option A, Failing to include the sexual violence in the lead would violate WP:LEADl and WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOTCENSORED.There are 45 million hits when you google "Hamas" and "rape" (without quotes), 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: Title: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced" It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:FALSEBALANCE  While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Note that the denial is in the body of the article, in the relevant subsection.'
 * One point re the denial that needs to be stressed. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, is not followed by a response or denial from Israel, even though Israel has indeed responded to or denied every single element of the lead. Putting in the perfunctory Hamas response to the rapes, and only that response out of everything else in the lead, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) second paragraph added. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you list a couple of these 'everything' please. NadVolum (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 540,000,000 results for "flat earth" with no quotes. The claims are more credible than that, I'm just saying I don't think those figures prove much by themselves. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A, will accept B. I do not think the denial is helpful, per WP:MANDY, but if it will help this pass I will accept that compromise. Andre🚐 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C would accept B as well, but A is a non-starter to me. The 45 million general google hits are completely irrelevant, as we arent going to start counting random blogs and twitter accounts as reliable sources all of a sudden. The USA Today article is relevant in that it reports The Israeli military official said that, just as authorities know that many women were sexually assaulted during the Supernova music festival and at their homes on Oct. 7, "we know they were raped in Hamas captivity.", somehow presented as though the USA Today is undersigning that claim from an Israeli military official in the opening comment here, but it does not. The USA Today article also includes Despite this evidence, Hamas has consistently denied accusations it used sexual violence on Oct. 7. It has claimed the allegations are part of an attempt by Israel to distract from its mass killings of civilians in Gaza. International human rights groups waited two months before finally condemning the sexual violence. Nearly all the sources that include any accusation of rape includes the denial by Hamas as well, if it is to be included it has to include the denial per NPOV. But why should it not be included? Because the rape charges are almost entirely focused on the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and the sourcing here in relation to the overall war does not show that it is a prominent controversy for this subject and not the child article on the attack. There are 16,400 news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", 14,800 for "rape" "hamas" (many overlapping), nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes (114k news results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023"). Or to "starvation" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" with 78,400 news results. "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" gets 25,900 news results. For the overall topic, this just does not have the weight in coverage to merit inclusion in the lead. For the 7 October attacks? Yes, of course it does. But for the war that is entering its 11th week and not limited to one day in October, this is not a prominent controversy to be included in the lead.  nableezy  - 05:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * C. The initial reports, endlessly recycled since, were extremely confused, internally contradictory, and endlessly touted despite numerous corrections, or dropping off the radar of serious reportage, over time. We still don't appear to know if the rape incidents reported reflect a Hamas strategy, are attributable to other militant groups, or the general flux of indiscriminate groups ranging over the landscape and wreaking violence. A large number of similar, specific reports about burning, decapitating, ovening babies etc., are now viewed sceptically, and until we have specific forensic evidence of the scale or scope of these reported crimes, any statement formulated to assert, as was done from the outset in Israeli news reports, that this was a systematic aspect of the 4 hour Hamas onslaught on the border communities, will reflect a partisan claim, not an ascertained fact. Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This dismissive rejection of overwhelming evidence and testimony comes disappointingly close to the kind of sexual violence denialism that has been deprecated and rejected worldwide over the past few decades. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This skepticism is warranted. Israelis have already been caught lying about the details of October 7th. The most notable example is the 40 beheaded babies story. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C: this war inside Gaza has been going on for 2 and a half months, the 7/10 attack last several hours. Iennes (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC
 * The duration of these events is irrelevant to our content policy. It's also false that the sexual violence occurred only on the first day.
 * The nature of the initial attack and the ongoing treatment of the hostages has received ongoing coverage in RS, and the coverage is increasing as new investigations reveal the extent of the conduct. It also has been cited as enabling Netanyahu's refusal to moderate the intensity of Israel's counterattack.
 * Pearl Harbor/WW2, Archduke assassinationi/WW1, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Tea Party, etc. were all discrete events the significance of which is not diminished by their brevity. We are continuing to see daily coverage, testimony and forensic evidence, and no credible information to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You dont need to badger people and make this an unreadable mess; if you want to discuss somebody's vote do it in the discussion section where they may ignore you at their leisure.  nableezy  - 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pearl Harbour and Archduke were precipitators of a large conflict; the sparks which ignited a fire. They are not really comparable to a handful of alleged excesses that occurred in a military invasion, but which otherwise had no further reaching consequences. JDiala (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C. This is a WP:BALASP issue and a matter of WP:DUE. Option A (including "a few sentences") is, in addition to violating NPOV and failing to follow reliable sources (by omitting the denial), totally excessive. The Israeli captives have been a larger story in relation to the war as a whole, and they have a single sentence, which is appropriate; an (as yet unconfirmed and strenuously denied) allegation of something that happened on a single day in the course of an eleven-week war should not be given more prominence. As well, as a matter of BALASP, highlighting these allegations skews the POV of the lead. I don’t want to speculate about anyone’s intent, but I get the feeling that highlighting the events of October 7 is a way to undercut the more prominent aspects of the war as a whole, namely, Israeli atrocities and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In effect, “well, Hamas also did bad things”. But we have a litany of articles about that: War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war; Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel; 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel; articles on individual October 7 attacks. This article is about the entire war. It is not just about October 7. The bottom line is that when news stories about the October 7 attack refer to sexual violence, they include attribution of the claims, and they include Hamas denials. Overwhelmingly, if not exclusively. We can’t independently weigh the evidence, determine it’s credible, and then depart from RS by failing to include attributions and denials. WillowCity  (talk)  13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A The nature and ferocity of the 10/7 attack was the predicate for the Netanyahu government's unprecedented response. The rapes and sexual mutilations have received broad ongoing coverage and increasing investigations and condemnation. No RS treats any denials as serious or credible, so MANDY applies. If mention is to be made of denials, as in option B, we would also need to convey that those denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned. But that would be excessive detail for the lead. Note that WP is not a newspaper and the fact that the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials does not tell us what we must convey as an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For Israeli atrocities, we generally mention Israeli denials even when they are not credible, eg lead of Shireen Abu Akleh.VR talk 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is factually incorrect that the press currently less frequently mentions Hamas' denials. The recent NYT investigation regarding this explicitly noted Hamas' denials in the article. Furthermore, it is not unusual to include denials of crimes in the lead even when those crimes are generally accepted to be true, especially when said crimes are done by state or quasi-state actors like Hamas. The Armenian Genocide is an example of this. We explicitly discuss Turkish denial in the lead. JDiala (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C. Lacking weight for the topic of this article.Crampcomes (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. This is important to understanding how Hamas precipitated the war. Denials are not credible and not worth including. Far more important than the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was Hamas's desired outcome resulting from the atrocities committed to provoke the war. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While I also support option A (and indicated as much below, so I hope people don't double count), strong disagree that it would be far more important than the humanitarian situation. To say "They wanted this" as innocent bystanders are killed does not make those innocent bystanders less killed. Jikybebna (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * C. but B would be acceptable. The allegations are absolutely a huge flashpoint in coverage of the war, but every RS article I read includes the denials alongside the accusations. A just doesn't make sense from a WP:DUE standpoint. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. I don't think the denials should be mentioned, considering that they are given very brief treatment by RS. However I don't see much harm in mentioning them briefly (Option B). Alaexis¿question? 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * C It can be treated a major part of the 7 October attack but it is a very minor part of the war and that's what this article is about. The lead is already a bit stuffed. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option B currently, but am fine changing to Option A if somebody shows that a plurality of reliable sources don't include the denial. It seems like enough do for it to warrant a brief mention. I am opposed to option C; I don't find the arguments in favor of it compelling. We have an article on the topic for a reason; there's an articles worth of sources about it. Enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Polite reminder as well to assume good faith and not to speculate about the intent of editors, don't think that's going to be helpful. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that while Hamas denies allegations of sexual assault or mutilation committed by members of its armed wing, it does not deny such acts performed by others who participated in the attack. Therefore, this is not an actual denial of the fact that sexual violence has indeed taken place during the attack. Marokwitz (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. Including the denial by Hamas would be a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is clear, dated, evidence of the sexual violence so mentioning the denials would create a false sense of ambiguity. If people do indeed think that there's enough uncertainty to include the denials then I would be in favor of Option C as that means that it's a he-says she-says situation that takes away from the main point of the conflict. Ergzay (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A per Hawkeye7. The war began with Hamas atrocities that shocked the world and traumatized Israel, and the Hamas denials lack credibility and inclusion would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't include Israeli denials in the lead as also observed above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. This has clearly received significant coverage in Western media. Recent articles in American, British and Australian reliable news outlets, for example. Sources tend to mention the Hamas denial briefly and only after the allegations have been made in full over several paragraphs, so I think we should keep the denial out of the lead. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C. The October 7 attack and kidnapping are the events that triggered the current invasion in Gaza. However, the rape accusations have no bearing on Israel's decision for this specific military operation. Including them is more likely to serve Israel's propaganda purposes (false consciousness) than an encyclopedic one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Supplementary comment after someone cited the New York Times article "Screams Without Words" in this discussion.) The NYT paywalled "Screams Without Words" article fails to provide justification for including the rape allegations in the article's lead. Typically, such details belong in an article about the terror attack article itself, not in the article covering the military retaliation that follows. Even for proven (not alleged) systemic sexual misconduct during war, these instances are rarely highlighted in the lead, at least I can't find any instance besides this article. Moreover, the October 7 rape allegations, which happened only in 1 day instead of during this war, only surfaced in November 2023, after northern Gaza had already been heavily bombarded by the IDF. Hence, it's unlikely that the rape allegation influenced Netanyahu's decision to attack Gaza, or "completely eradicate Hamas". While I hesitate to delve into the details of the NYT's "Screams Without Words" article, a brief review indicates a lack of concrete evidence. The article lacks testimonies from the allegedly sexually assaulted survivors, and all Israelis killed in the October 7 attack were hastily buried without autopsy. The allegations heavily rely on witnesses (e.g. "Sapir") testimonies and videos which don't show the actual process of sexual assault, but its "aftermath". All in all, supporters are trying to make a precedent over something lacking hard evidence but being politicized and weaponized. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you separate the first attacks? Or do you just mean that's where the detail belongs instead of the mean page? Irtapil (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Irtapil: I believe my previous comment is quite clear: The rape allegations were not the basis for Israel initiating this full-scale invasion of Gaza; rather, it was the killing and kidnapping incidents. As far as I can see, no reliable sources directly connect the rape allegations to Israel's military retaliation, not even NYT's Screams Without Words.[//www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html] Instead, these sources primarily focus on the October 7 attack, including Hamas' denial and claim that the allegations serve as a distraction from Israel's war crimes,[//www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/05/un-hears-accounts-of-sexual-violence-during-7-october-attacks-by-hamas Guardian] and that wouldn't justify option A which rejects Hamas' denial in the lead. If the rape allegations were to be proven true, that would be very disturbing. However, even if one could demonstrate systemic sexual misconduct during Israel's invasion, it would still be extraordinary to include such details in the lead of a war article, regardless of the side implicated in the alleged crime. The exclusion of sexual misconduct (e.g. comfort woman in Second Sino-Japanese War) from the lead aligns with Wikipedia's standard format for war articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat
 * I wrote this earlier but it didn't send.
 * I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide.
 * As far a I know there is stronger evidence of more widespread rapes in Ukraine? But they are less relevant to that conflict, because it hasn't become the "We must destroy them because!"
 * Arguably, we shouldn't amplify the Israeli propaganda narrative, but I don't think not mentioning it helps? We definitely shouldn't call the initial attacks article "Hamas Rape spree in Israel" or such, but it is a prominent issue.
 * Though I have possibly just talked myself into "not in the lead" of the main article maybe.
 * Irtapil (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Irtapil: I think the rape narrative is central to this war because of the way it is being used to justify a genocide. I would like you to cite at least one reliable source which directly use the rape narrative to justify anything related to Gaza's humanitarian crisis. If your goal is to ridicule Israel's petty excuses to collectively punish and expel Gazan Palestinians, mentioning the rape allegations in the lead doesn't help at all, but ruins the balance of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C as information that is currently both poorly verified and largely tangential to the narrative of the war as a whole, which is the topic. These claims are merely one subset of atrocity claim under investigation and do not require detailing in the lead. Much emphasis was placed by Israel on this material after the renewal of violence in Gaza, but this POV emphasis does not make it of overall due weight emphasis as lead detail: on the contrary, it might violate NPOV to do so. Option B would likewise be preferable to Option A in asserting a modicum of balance, but both are less preferable overall as undue in terms of overall weight considerations. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. Those people are Islamists and in favor of forcing women to wear hijabs, because they believe that men cannot be held responsible for their behaviour when they see unveiled women. It would be very inconsistent of them to abduct unveiled women and not rape them, so the accusations are obviously true. Given the coverage, it also belongs in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, your personal analysis is entirely irrelevant here. Zerotalk 07:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. Exceedingly well covered topic. And including Hamas's denial would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.  As per Marokwitz below, we should try to use language similar to that of the Guardian. Dovidroth (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) this user has been banned by ArbCom for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor.
 * Option A. Widely covered by WP:RS, Major controversies must be prominently featured in the lead section as per Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:LEDE). I oppose option B for the following reason: The denial of sexual violence in this context has become a fringe view, especially in light of substantial and reliable accounts that have surfaced. For example, according to The Guardian:
 * The language used in the lead could be similar to the one used by the Guardian, that is, attributing the evidence to survivors, witness testimonies and forensic staff.
 * This evidence has resulted in UN Women's explicit condemnation of the sexual violence that occurred. Hamas may deny that its fighters carried out sexual violence, but it is a fact that not only Hamas fighters participated in the attack, therefore this denial is meaningless and misleading.
 * Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that denying or downplaying these heinous acts is not only factually incorrect but also morally reprehensible. Such denial would be a profound insult to the female victims, akin to silencing their voices and negating their traumatic experiences. Applying a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the victims and perpetrators in this context not only undermines the veracity of the reported events but also perpetuates a harmful narrative that could further victimize the victims. Marokwitz (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option C - Per Nableezy and Willowcity. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C Without commenting on the sourcing: we have a separate article for the October 7th attacks. Details about the October 7th attacks go in the lead of that article, not this one. Loki (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C as these are WP:UNDUE for the lead of this article, but option B for 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as they are WP:DUE there. Many Israeli actions have received more RS coverage, as nableezy points out, but can't be given the space they deserve because of concerns surrounding length. For example, I find that gaza starvation has 95,000 results, or 8x more than hamas rape which is 12,000 results for me. Will we give 8x more sentences to the starvation of Gazans in the lead as we give to the sexual assault claims? Various other topics not mentioned in the lead all get more news hits than the rape allegations: shifa = 17,000, "indonesian hospital" gaza = 16,000, cancer gaza = 119,000 (the plight of cancer patients amidst the war) etc.VR talk 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got only 13,000 results for Gaza starvation, which would be about the same. Not sure why the discrepancy. If you switch over to plain google results, hamas rape has about 10m more results than Gaza starvation. [00:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)] I also have different results for your other links. Same number for Shifa, but for Indonesian hospital Gaza, only 6800. For cancer Gaza I have the same high number, but I suspect that not all of those results are about this. Andre🚐 00:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A sexual violence by Hamas has been condemned by dozens of leaders, senators, figures etc. A bunch of international media outlets have reported on it, and gotten testimonies. Prosecution already has collected a substantial amount of evidence over the past several months. There is footage, some of it spread by Hamas itself of women bloodied in between their legs and other things. It would be a complete wp:falsebalance to give equal weight to Hamas denial of the actions. I do think the body should include a denial. However the lead should be option A. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC) this user has been topic banned by ArbCom for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor.
 * Option A. Mentioning the topic is especially important because the very extreme violence (not just sexual) of October 7 is what later on shaped the goals, length and the extent of the campaign in Gaza. It is also important in order to understand why the 2023 Gaza War was so different than the ones in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Option B might have sufficed but due to the sheer amount of WP:RS, I think this is just WP:FALSEBALANCE. FoodforLLMs (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, "mentioning the topic is especially important because we need the atrocity propaganda to justify an ongoing genocide." Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not the propaganda arm of the Israeli government. JDiala (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:AGF please argue policy rather than making personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tone down your sarcasm and accusations, I think it's highly uncalled for. To address the substance, We are supposed to present the facts to the reader and let them formulate a narrative. For example, just as you need to see the Palestinian casualty figure to understand condemnations of Israeli actions, you need to see details of the Oct 7 attack to understand support for Israeli actions. And I think our job is to show these facts. --FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A absolutely. It would be such a gross violation of WP:NPOV to not include it in the lead. EytanMelech (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC) this user has been banned by ArbCom for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor.
 * Option C as UNDUE and unreliably sourced. I would accept Option B. The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war, despite that many of their wild claims have been found to be fabrications. All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF. It would be a violation of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to include this likely false claim in wikivoice in the lead of this article, let alone without the denial from Palestinians. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * “All reliable sources have chosen to couch reports of sexual violence by attributing it to Zionist and unreliable sources like the IOF.”
 * What does attributing it to Zionist mean? Are you referring to Israeli first responders? Could you rephrase?
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181
 * ”The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks.”
 * https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20231213-evidence-mounts-of-sexual-crimes-perpetrated-by-hamas-during-oct-7-attack-in-israel
 * “Two months after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day. Prosecutors have little doubt that women were raped, tortured and some of their dead bodies mutilated. Israeli police, who opened a probe in mid-November, say they have gathered more than 1,500 testimonies from witnesses and first responders.” Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC is at this stage the government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power running reconnaissance missions over Gaza from Cyprus. As in all cases, we should be seeking reliable, secondary sources that are as independent as possible. As for the France 24 piece, that says "prosecutors" (presumably Israeli prosecutors) are confident of X - now prosecutors are specifically in the business of making a strong case rather than neutrally and impartially reflecting the facts. Their counterpart would be the defense, which isn't reflected here (if this is in reference to the ICC filing, then we may be waiting some while). In the same breath, the same source notes that the UN investigation is evidently ongoing - so we are still awaiting impartial voices on proceedings. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are both reliable secondary independent sources, that’s why we use them. Please don’t misrepresent sources, France24 wrote “evidence is mounting of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas that day”. Along with the myriad of others that also report Hamas’ murderous rape spree.
 * The argument by some editors that we should ignore reliable sources is ridiculous. The argument that we should ignore Israeli civilians and human rights organizations because they are Israeli is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the way a reliable source like the BBC turns into a government mouthpiece of an at least partly involved global power because it does not toe a pro-Hamas party line is clearly motivated reasoning. No difference to Trump calling those outlets that contradict him "fake news". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They’re not misrepresenting anything. BBC (British state media) is saying it’s “seen evidence” which is not the same as saying that something occurred. If a source said they’d “seen evidence” that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians, would you want it included in the lead that Israel is targeting civilians? And would you agree that the statement of every Palestinian civilian or human rights organization is lead-worthy?
 * I don’t think people are suggesting they be ignored outright, they belong in the body with appropriate attribution and context. But these accounts are generally filtered through Israeli government sources (prosecutors, police, the military) who have a vested interest in spin-doctoring evidence to fit the narrative of a belligerent to the conflict (one who famously lacks credibility). For example, who knows what kind of editing the video shown to BBC was subject to? How reliable was the witnesses’ perception, how much do they even remember, are they sincere? These are not issues the BBC opines on. The question is not “are Israeli civilians telling the truth”, the question is “are the reports sufficiently notable, credible and unequivocal to justify including in the lead?” The even more important question is, “do these allegations tell readers anything about the ongoing 12-week war, or would focusing extensively on a single day skew the narrative towards one POV?”
 * (also, can we all try to keep the discussion to the discussion section) WillowCity  (talk)  15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Using pejorative slurs like Zionist entity isn't an argument and railing against Zionist control of the sources (assuming they're saying all Western sources presented here are Zionist) in this discussion isn't one either. The closer should ignore this !vote since they were asked to elaborate on what a "Zionist source" is and didn't. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The repeated assertion by some that Israeli witnesses, first responders, and human rights organizations are not trustworthy due to their nationality is unacceptable.

Currently on the home page of The NY Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel” “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7”Drsmoo (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A, per SPECIFICO, Hawkeye7 and Marokwitz. The cruelty of the 7.10 attack, including the sexual violence, resulted the wide support in Israel to a harsh response. The credibility (or more accurately, the lack of credibility) of the denial should also be considered, as we describe the reality. The denial is indeed a fringe view. I think that option B, if it includes a clarification that the denials are not taken seriously and widely condemned, can also be good, and even give a better perspective, but it will be too long for the lead, so it's better not to write about the denials in the lead at all. פעמי-עליון (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we should include this information (the weight in the media does give it proper DUE weight) and leave out the denial as I do also believe it is "fringe". MaximusEditor (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making a strawman argument, as no one has argued for censoring this, and in fact, many of the Option C !votes specifically point to other places more suitable to mention this. VR talk 04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A as per Hawkeye7 and others. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A per Andre. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 02:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C Such details and denials about what happened on the first day of the attack belong to the lede of 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: From The NY Times today: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.
 * Option C I've been convinced by the argument brought up below by User:WillowCity and User:Sameboat would make Option B give undue weight to sexual violence in contrast to other conflicts. Option A is for me a nonstarter. To include it we would have to adjudicate that Israel's claims are valid, that any rebuttal is invalid, AND that including it is so factual and important that it doesn't even warrant including usual context. I think it would be a flagrant violation of NPOV.  Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading a few rather convincing arguments above from User:Marokwitz, the denial from Hamas referring only to their members, any form of option B would have to be very carefully worded. I'm not sure that option B would make much sense in that light. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A or Option B per Associated Press. “Such accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of an atrocities-filled rampage by Hamas and other Gaza militants who killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians', and took more than 240 hostages that day.” Drsmoo (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.” Drsmoo (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C It should absolutely not be discussed in the lead. The Zionist state has demonstrably produced false atrocity propaganda regarding the October 7th resistance operation, like the 40 beheaded babies lie, which incidentally the uncritical Western media has parroted. We thus have reasonable suspicion that these sexual assault allegations are likewise fabricated. The lack of forensic evidence (e.g., semen) or pregnant Israeli women is also eyebrow-raising. I understand that Wikipedia does regard Western media as WP:RS, which I accept and do not contest, so it is reasonable to include the sexual violence claims somewhere in the article. However, I think it is fair for us to exclude it from the lead, given the very real reservations regarding this. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you articulate a policy-based reason why we should ignore widespread attestation in the most reliable sources, and why we should ignore eyewitness testimony from Israelis. Your allegation that the evidence of sexual assault is fabricated because it comes from Israelis is not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit at 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) and 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never stated we should "ignore" it. I simply asserted it shouldn't be in the lead. Something being reported by a widespread number of sources is a necessary but insufficient reason to be included in a lead. It is also important to note that this legalistic focus on "policies" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia see e.g., WP:5P5. It is completely sensible for us, as an encyclopedia, to have a greater degree of scrutiny for an entity known for regularly producing bald-faced lies regarding the events of this war. This doesn't mean eschewing such claims altogether, but merely relegating them to the body of the article rather than the lead. JDiala (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-08/ty-article/israeli-police-collect-eyewitness-testimony-of-gang-rape-during-hamas-attack/0000018b-b025-d3c1-a39b-bee5ef400000 Which entity are you referring to, the testimony of eyewitnesses? I don't like putting words into peoples mouths, but your argument seems to be that not only should we ignore the wide array of highly reliable sources, but we should also ignore all Israeli eyewitness accounts, and first-responder accounts, because you think they're untrustworthy. That position would not be valid. Drsmoo (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Edit
 * Option C. Came to that decision having read the arguments of those who have already answered. A is out of the question as it's a breach of NPOV in showing bias towards one side when neither side has any credibility as regards truth. B is a "he said she said" option, which in an article based on a broader issue (where a multitude of more widely covered events that have transpired throughout the war do not make the lede) seems excessive/undue to mention. Therefore C seems the most appropriate option as it keeps to substantiated facts without giving undue weight/balance. It's the most dispassionate option. As a side issue (given it has been used as an argument), media outlets (otherwise reputable on other issues) without verified, independent information can't be used to validate claims either, as western ones have historically had a bias one way, while middle eastern ones have had an opposing slant; what's been new about this current episode of the conflict is more of the masses are not being taken in either way, thus have a more independent/unhindered view of what is happening. Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option B I think it is pretty clear that sexual assault and rape occurred during the initial attack, which is unsurprising since that's how most wars seem to go. What is unclear is the extent of the assaults, which is why most RS still include the Hamas denial; until this is clearer, the Hamas denial of its armed forces not being responsible should also be mentioned.
 * Option A. A denial is undue weight for the lede; reliable sources, such as thus extensive NYT report only mention the denials in passing and afford no credulity to them or detailed coverage. Similarly, it would be undue to exclude the tapes from the lede; they are very widely covered and the extent of said coverage is only increasing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Option A Yes as the October 7 attack was the core event starting the war, and the brutality of it has been very widely reported so we should report what reliable sources state. The Hamas denial isn't relevant per the aforementioned WP:MANDY. It's also very important to state the course of events as a fact in wiki-voice- often in these articles editors have been adding wording such as "Israel reports that Hamas carried out sexual assaults occurred on October 7" rather than the direct factual wording of "Hamas carried out sexual assaults on October 7". Reliable sources are very clear that the mass sexual assaults did unfortunately happen and the wording needs to reflect this. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 14:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option C. The lead is overdetailed in many places. The article does not explain whether or how the scale of the sexual violence during the October 7 attack factors into Israel's decision-making. Senorangel (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option C or B, I wholly endorse arguments of Messi R9 R10 CR7 Thiago LFC and WillowCity. Sexual violence - and specifically organised, weaponised, sexual violence - was a notable feature of the Bosnian war, particularly against Bosniak women, but it isn't mentioned in the lead, nor was the scale of its occurence reliably established at the time. At the present moment, the scale and extent of sexual violence on October 7th is unknown - and largely unknowable - and information about it has been highly weaponised, despite little coming from competent forensic authorities. Editors here are tending to argue that because some 'horror stories' are probably true, then all must be true. Two sad facts are that sexual violence is a normal feature of most wars and that weaponising of atrocity stories is nearly as common. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A So many words here for the obvious thing: the evidence is very precise. Legitimizing the denial of the claims of sexual violence of women in this context is against any liberal and feminist thought. The only way to include claims of denial can be in the context of bashing those who deny - similar to mentioning Holocaust denial. Agmonsnir (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia is not here to uphold liberal and feminist thought. (For the record, I hold both liberalism and feminism as noble causes). VR talk 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A this best represents the current reliable sources about the brutal attacks. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A per Marokwitz. The topic is widely covered by mainstream media, including the thorough examination of The New York Times published lately. It is one of the major controversies related to the attack, and as such it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEDE. Hamas denial, as suggested in Option B, is not helpful here, and may be considered fringe view regarding the vast coverage of the sexual violence by so many reliable sources. Noon (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A. It would be a gross failure of WP:NPOV not to include the sexual violence in. Based on the WP:RS it is very clear that the sexual violence isn't some isolated actions but it's clear that it's very related to the conflict at hand. If the RFC is made in October, there are no clear references about rapes, but at this moment we have seen multiple references about the sexual violence - and we can't ignore it. The fact that Hamas saying that "it didn't happen" shouldn't stop us from taking the information from the reliable sources - where all sources agree that it happened. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   12:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A Drsruli (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A with great obviousness. We do not need the plaintive, WP:MANDYish denials of Hamas, a terrorist organization, over what they did or did not do. A terrorist organization is not a reliable source even for itself. We go by what actual sources say about them. Zaathras (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zaathras very good point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning option C, oppose option B: This article is about the whole war, and there is a different article for the events of 7 October. It is proper that the lead of the latter should include sexual violence (it does currently). It is also proper that the section of this article on 7 October includes it (it does currently). But I don't think it needs to be in the lead. If it is in the lead, however, there's no reason to create false balance by including a denial by the perpetrators (per WP:MANDY). Although I don't think it should go in the lead, many of the option C arguments above proceed from the conviction that sexual violence didn't happen, which is a deeply problematic assumption given the clear weight of evidence, and I would hope that arguments for C based on that logic be discounted by any closer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A with a caveat. The lead has a serious problem: it omits even mentioning the atrocities by Hamas in Israel, which were the reason and the casus belli for the war. It was not merely a "surprise attack" as framed in the lead. That should be mentioned in one-two phrases, which would also include the mentioning of sexual crimes by Hamas as the key element of the atrocities. Option "B" is not viable because the denial by Hamas belongs to WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A. This is the reason the war started. Calling it a "surprise attack" is whitewashing. It was one event but without it, the war wouldn't have happened. More specifically, most news articles cover the violent rapes as one of the causative factors. The reliable sources presented here overwhelmingly consider the rapes to a) be important and b) have happened. Denying this would be like including Holocaust denial in the lede to the article on World War 2, like "millions allegedly died in genocides". Comments like Nishidani's boil down to "well reliable sources say that there were mass rapes but I don't think their standard of evidence was high enough". That's not how Wikipedia operates, we are supposed to summarize the consensus of reliable sources and not inject our own burdens of evidence to say the New York Times/BBC/The Guardian didn't do a good enough job. This argument that there's not enough evidence to make these claims would only hold if reliable sources agree that there is not enough evidence. Nableezy touches upon this by citing a single USA Today article that doesn't endorse the Israeli claims (but doesn't deny them either), but Drsmoo, Marokwitz, and Ficaia provide several other sources that do agree that Israelis were raped by Palestinians/Hamas. Nableezy also brings up various counts of news articles to try to rank the importance of various issues. This is the Wikipedia:Search engine test. We don't know how many of those news sources are reliable, the engine miscounts a lot, etc etc. It's not as useful evidence as searching reliable sources such as the NY Times or the BBC which heavily cover the rapes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C: This is primarily an Israel claim with no evidence (admitted by Israeli press) like many other extraordinary claims they routinely make. It is due in the article, but it is hardly a notable enough aspect of the conflict to be included in the lede. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no.  Marokwitz (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have a view on the best option, partly because the lead will hopefully evolve organically overtime per MOS:LEAD, so I'm not sure an RfC matters much in practice at this stage. But I wanted to say something about the various arguments being used to exclude a Hamas denial. I don't find them very compelling. Setting aside the obligation to follow RS and the fact that many include the denial, because that is what RS do, I wonder whether the MANDY, FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, NPOV etc arguments might be missing the point a bit. This is just an encyclopedia after all and the lead is meant to summarize and inform. If there is reporting by RS that X's actions likely included instances of Y, and we say that, the fact that X denies it rather than says nothing is in itself informative. Including it tells the reader something about X. Is this case substantially different from something like the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal lead? Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A per above, particularly the first reply. JM (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C As pointed out by other edtiors, it was much smaller than the other atrocities and grievances. It was not fully discovered until Israeli retaliation had already started, so it cannot be a reason for the retaliation. A few sentences would be completely UNDUE for the lead. If we must mention it, at most only add the words "sexual violence" to an existing sentence. CurryCity (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's no amount of wrongs that can make a right. Israel's bombing of al-Aqsa was not OK nor was the post Oct 7 retaliation and killing so many soldiers, civiliand, and kids. But that doesn't make what the Oct 7 attackers did right either. Jikybebna (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B Both sides of the argument should be made. There are many reliable sources that cite to the sexual abuse that occurred in the opening days of the attack. It is worth including the denial because both perspectives are important and should be included. Because many of the accounts are made by a few individuals, the counterargument (denials) should also be included and appropraitely sourced. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A There’s a lot of evidence in reliable sources that sexual assaults were an important part of the attacks that occurred on October 7 & led to the war. Including the denials seems like false balance. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A per . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C per the extremely strong argument given by and many others. Tar<b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C per others <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C The October 7 attack and kidnapping sparked the current Gaza invasion, but the rape accusations are unrelated to Israel's decision for this war. Additionally, the lack of international consensus supporting the Israel claim raises concerns about the potential propagation of propaganda. The sexual violence allegations are properly addressed in separate articles.StarkReport (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A There is substantial evidence for this claim, reproduced in multiple independent and reliable sources. It has been investigated by the New York Times for example, so cannot be easily dismissed as giving voice to propaganda. Not including this is the lead is a WP:FALSEBALANCE with denials that lack credibility. WCM email 11:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A per WP:MRDA, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and various other editors' comments above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion 2

 * Regarding the completely made up claim that the denials are not taken seriously and are themselves widely condemned and {{tq|the press initially (but now much less frequently} mentions Hamas' denials}}, sources to this day include that Hamas denies the accusations of rape, the overwhelming majority of sources that refer to any claims of rape or sexual assault include the denial. The most recent one I am aware of is USA Today writing about the Israeli military saying they know hostages were raped includes the denial. Such a series of unsubstantiated assertions as made in that comment should have evidence provided for it or it should not be taken seriously at all.  nableezy  -  16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and the denial is in the body of the article. No one is arguing that the denial should not be in the body of the article, only not in the lead. Every single thing in the lead that is adverse to Israel, without exception, has drawn a response from Israel or a denial. But such denials are not mentioned. Putting in the Hamas denial, and only the Hamas denial, would be unbalanced and not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What accusation by Hamas against Israel is included without a response?  nableezy  - 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, you keep acting like Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated as 50 50 equal players on every question, and what we do for one hand we must do equally for others. It's not a good model for NPOV or life or justice. Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. Hamas is a small group with a small quasi-territory that launched an attack against significant odds, alone, with no support, and is basically an international pariah due to the atrocities during that attack, and we don't need to act like it's possible that they didn't happen or that they weren't terrible, or that whatever denials issued by Hamas are credible, unless some credible academic or journalistic source does so. We also shouldn't act like those events didn't precipitate this entire war.
 * Israel is a large, well-armed, wealthy and powerful state backed by the US, UK, France, Australia, and basically every Western and English speaking powerful country, under quite a bit of scrutiny and being accused of all manner of things from apartheid to genocide, and we should absolutely treat those as complex both-sides type issues inasmuch as there are people debating them who are reliable (though, in my view, the genocide allegation goes too far and is inaccurate). On some issues yes, there's a complex narrative and we must balance the views of Palestinians versus Israelis, each group has separate factions, such as Fatah, or the different Israeli groups that range from Meretz and Labour to Likud to Blue&White to Shas and Yisrael Beteinu. And no, there are not credible allegations that Israelis are raping Palestinians, not like there are of Hamas. So we don't need to act like these things are the same. The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists. So not every atrocity needs a response. We should simply cover them as the majority of sources do, and not try to both-sides every issue.
 * The point is to describe in the lead what the majority of yes, Western, yes, English-speaking, sources think are the most pertinent issues. Yes, there have been widespread calls for a ceasefire and widespread reports of indiscriminate civilian deaths in Gaza. We do not try to include Israeli denials of that or whatever weak PR Israeli spokespeople put out about it trying to spin or downplay those massive civilian deaths. Because that wouldn't be credible, and it's not edifying. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As much Hamas is a small group with limited international support, Israel is also a small country with international pariah status by some metrics. What else would one call UN general assembly votes where all but three other countries agree with their position? Both entities have credibility that is in the dirt on the global stage due to the unacceptable aspects of their conduct, and the relative weight and/or credibility of either in any conflict scenario is of equally little weight relative to impartial and independent secondary, reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're mostly right except for matters of perspective and a few important aspects that are distorting. Israel is a small country geographically, worldwide. But relative to Gaza, it's quite large. About 60 times as large by land area, a little under 5x as large by population. More importantly, their relative power dynamics. And the 3 other countries are pretty large in terms of that. As far as the UN votes, you're right. Most vote for a ceasefire or to condemn Israeli settlements. My point was about the relative power dynamics at play. Israel is a state and it has to abide by things that states have. Hamas, not so much. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires that we feature all significant views; scaling said significance is a trickier matter. My point was that within the context of their globally parochial conflict, the relative weight of Israel/Hamas pales alongside their equal partiality as combatants, and the primary views of either are little more than POV commentary short of validation by independent, secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 'The victims in the Hamas attack were not soldiers, they were peaceful civilians and in many cases left peace activists.' Sure, so Hamas went and raped peace activists all along the border.
 * To repeat, we are caught up in the furor of reports from 7-8 Oct of rape, mutilation, beheadings, burning babies. rare later reports tell us forensic doctors and police are sifting through these reports meticulously and exhaustively, but that so far we have no statistical evidence other than an indication from interviews with hostages who have been returned that slightly under 10% reported experiencing some form of sexual molestation.
 * This is what Hadas Ziv, policy and ethics director for Physicians for Human Rights–Israel stated 10 days ago, guardedly>-
 * "“What we know for sure is that it was more than just one case and it was widespread, in that this happened in more than one location and more than a handful of times. . .What we don’t know and what the police are investigating is whether it was ordered to be done and whether it was systematic.” Sam Mednick  New signs emerge of ‘widespread’ sexual crimes by Hamas, as Netanyahu alleges global indifference Associated Press 15 December 2023"
 * That means that we have some sparse facts of sexual violence befalling a number of the several hundred civilians, and extensive allegations that this was systematic and specific to Hamas policy. Not enough for the lead, as yet.Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, one side does something completely out of proportion to what ever happened before. you mean like displace 2 million people, kill 20,000 in 10 weeks, starve a civilian population? And when you think something goes to far and is innaccurate that means we shouldn’t include it? Genocide accusations have a ton more coverage than rape accusations, but you think one of those should be included unanswered and the other just brushed aside? Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then.  nableezy  - 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no. That's happened before, and worse things have happened before. In fact actual genocide has happened before, with 6 million Jews exterminated by Nazis, many LGBT and Romani, etc., or other documented genocides such as the Armenians. As far as the genocide accusations they certainly don't have more coverage or at least not by much, and I haven't seen that source survey. There's also a legal definition of genocide not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. So, no, it's not the same, it's a false equivalency. The rapes have documentary and photographic evidence. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That happened in Gaza? Was it Hamas? As far as source survey: 25k results for "genocide" "gaza" "israel" "2023" vs 14,800 for "rape" "hamas". Do you hear yourself on not to mention it's a crime, and we have special treatment for crimes of living people. You are saying we cannot accuse Israel of a crime (genocide) because of living people and special rules, but we can accuse Hamas of a crime (rape) because reasons?  nableezy  - 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because that event has been proven shown more likely true than not"[added as "proven" was inexact/incorrect legallyAndre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 ] by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. So to act like it's still in doubt or deny it happened or downplay it is problematic. Whereas genocide has a number of legal elements that haven't been shown. Apartheid, as I said, is defensible, and arguable, and I might agree that it exists in Israel. The West Bank settlers are also violating international law and have been guilty of several illegal and atrocious things. We don't need to dance around them. If there's clear evidence and nobody can really dispute it except for a basic denial, it should be treated as more likely than not if that's what the sources support. Of course, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV demand balance, but balance isn't, "include the denial of everything that someone/group is accused of." Balance means reading all the sources, balance them out, and distill the mainstream positions in a proportionately accurate way. If 75% or 95% of sources agree and you discount the remaining 5 or 25% for some reason (such as WP:MANDY or a contradiction or the fact that the claimant is a terrorist group with poor credibility on that particular point), that's how I balance it out. WP:FRINGE and WP:BALASP exist to avoid giving too much platforming to ideas that are not mainstream. The idea that the rapes didn't occur is exactly that kind of flat-eartherism in my view. Whether genocide is occurring is debatable at best, but I'd say that the elements aren't there. We don't need to debate that though, because it's a larger topic and doesn't belong on this page. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but youre just making things up exaggerating the evidence and the certainty of the sources. There is no video footage or photographs or documentary evidence, there are eyewitness accounts and there are denials. You can believe the same organizations that made up a baby in the oven or 40 beheaded babies if you want, but please dont misrepresent what the evidence is here. There are no videos, that is not true. And 75-95% of sources do not agree that this happened. Because they dont say it in their own words that it happened, they say who has said it happened and what evidence they have presented for it. They also say who has said it did not happen. You can and others can misrepresent what the sources actually say, but Ive read them and I dont need to just pretend that this misrepresentation is accurate at all. You can say Hamas is a terrorist group with poor credibility, and my response is Israel as a state is an established liar, over decades and in this conflict, and if you want to believe everything they say you can do that, but I dont think that is appropriate for a serious source to accept as fact the claims of a party engaged in active armed conflict and who has provably lied over and over again. And neither do the sources who relay Israeli accusations as Israeli accusations.  nableezy  - 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not misrepresented sources. In one photo, a burned body appears to project anguish. In another, a woman lies naked from the waist down, her underwear hanging from her leg. In interviews, first responders haltingly describe finding naked female corpses tied to beds and survivors recount witnessing a gang rape at the music festival...Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, ZAKA, an organization that has been repeatedly found to have manufactured acts of barbarism like burning a baby to death in an oven, has made these reports. Yes, there are eyewitnesses saying they saw rapes. There are no videos of sexual assault or rape, and no photographs of sexual assault or rape. Your own source repeatedly attributes the accusations to Israeli military and government sources.  nableezy  - 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They're photos which are evidence of rape. They're videos of young women being kidnapped, and videos showing the aftermath of rape. Arabic documents telling Hamas how to say "take off my pants." You can argue whether this evidence was "made up" or "manufactured" but the fact remains that you claimed the evidence didn't exist, and that I made it up, which is incivil. No, I read it in NBC News, an apparently reliable source that is not reliable enough for you. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Im going to believe the military that presented a calendar as a terrorist schedule on what they found. Yes you absolutely made up that there has been proven by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, video footage, photographs, and testimony from the witnesses, showing that the event occurred. and despite your asking an admin to chastise me for it I have no problem repeating that. There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim. They have said that there is a body of evidence that increasingly suggests that it did happen. You are the one claiming that this has been proven by video, and that is false.  nableezy  - 23:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, substitute the word proven with "substantiated to show it is more likely than not," it's still incivil to say I made it up. You can quibble on the semantics but that's not going to take away the civility violation. You can believe it was all made up. That's your prerogative. But you can't tell me that I am making it up. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have to substitute something that completely transforms your statement to resemble the truth then your original statement was not true. If you feel I’ve been uncivil you can discuss that on my talk page or report it. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the article so why don’t we focus on the article here?  nableezy  - 23:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured. And no reliable source makes such a claim" - Nableezy
 * Andre provided you a reliable source saying that they directly saw and reviewed photographic evidence that rape occurred. NBC News is on the reliable source list, so it's a reliable source. They said they saw photographs of naked bodies strongly implying sexual violence happened. They did in fact make such a claim. Unless you're going to try to say that NBC is not a reliable source then what you've said here is obviously false.
 * "Over the last several weeks, NBC News has reviewed five interrogations of captured Hamas fighters, an Arabic-language document that instructed Hamas how to pronounce “Take off your pants” in Hebrew, six images of naked or partially naked deceased female bodies, seven eyewitness accounts of sexual violence including both rape and mutilation, 11 testimonies of first responders, and two accounts from workers in morgues who handled the bodies of women after they were recovered from the massacre." - NBC news.
 * I'd just like to hear some type of policy based justification as to why we should ignore this. Do you have an argument from WP:RS or WP:NPOV? If you're going to say that 75-90% of sources conclude that rape did not occur (or more weakly, that they don't conclude that it did occur), then where is your list of sources that you looked at to come to that conclusion? I'm just kind of hesitant to take that at face value given the quote I started this post with. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What they say is that this suggests rapes occured, not that it proved it. And there is no video. And no, I have not said sources conclude rapes did not occur, I say they have not yet concluded rapes did occur. And the sources are those like NBC who are still reporting it as an accusation, not a proven fact.  nableezy  - 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is video evidence; to be clear there is not video evidence of an in-action rape. There is video of young women being kidnapped, such as kidnapping of Noa Argamani. There is video of the interviews as well. See the BBC Video testimony of an eyewitness at the Nova music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim. Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers. Videos filmed by Hamas include footage of one woman, handcuffed and taken hostage with cuts to her arms and a large patch of blood staining the seat of her trousers. In others, women carried away by the fighters appear to be naked or semi-clothed. Multiple photographs from the sites after the attack show the bodies of women naked from the waist down, or with their underwear ripped to one side, legs splayed, with signs of trauma to their genitals and legs. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are videos of violence against women, and there are videos of testimonies. That is not video proving rape. This is getting in to the weeds a bit, suffice it to say I do not think there is no evidence, I objected to the claim that the sources say the evidence proves anything, or that there are videos proving it. As far as the interrogations, what NBC says is NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations.  nableezy  - 00:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no video or photographic evidence that has proven rape occured" is what you said, not "There is no video evidence that has proven rape occured". Do you consider photos of naked bodies of Israeli's killed by Hamas militants proof that they were raped? I'm not sure why Hamas would be undressing women them after killing them without sexually assaulting them, but if you have some theory on that I'd be happy to hear it.
 * If you could, just let me know what your standard of proof for inclusion here would be. What exactly would you need to see, specifically, from a reliable source before you'd be fine including a brief mention in the lede of what seems to be a prominent topic in the reliable sources about this war? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries, we can mention it in the lead. Of course Hamas's denial should be mentioned in the body of the article, but it is undue in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources concluding something occurred is the bare minimum requirement for saying something occurred. If you think that it's enough evidence to convict somebody in most Western countries removes that requirement then you should re-read WP:V.  nableezy  - 14:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting reports of videos existing. The one report that I personally somewhat trust (wouldn't count for wiki, just someone who claims they saw the early videos) describes "a German woman" at the music event. It described something disrespectful, but not a rape. A lot of videos have been described but never surfaced, and the stories have been distorted in repeated retellings, because most people do not want to watch that stuff. If Israel know of any video evidence they need to give it to an expert third party who investigates war crimes, not just describe it in the media. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned, there are reliable sources stating that these rapes occurred. 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you give them as specific citations please, ping me? Like is being being said below I've mostly heard it as "Israel says". The day became a violent mess, so all types of violence seem possible, but all the specific evidence I've seen is weak or biased. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they report that Israel has said this and that eyewitness accounts have said this. They have not concluded that they have occurred. Attributing accusations and denials is not concluding the veracity of either.  nableezy  - 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And to add to the above, weighing the evidence for yourself and then engaging in independent fact-finding is WP:SYNTH. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  15:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. Please review the policy detail at that link. Also, as stated on WP:TPG, P.S. I love your user name.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the policy on several occasions, and I would refer to the second sentence: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In this case, combining summaries of Israel's evidence from The Guardian (and/or other sources) to reach the definitive conclusion, and state in wikivoice, that sexual violence occurred. According to Dovidroth, RS are stating that these rapes occurred; but the sources, to my knowledge, have not said so definitively; they attribute the evidence to sources within Israel and note that the claim is denied by Hamas.
 * As well, I certainly do not dispute that users are allowed to state their belief regarding what occurred, but our individual beliefs (as legitimately expressed on a talk page) do not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS such that they should be included in a given article. (Also: thank you for the compliment!!) WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  16:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not what SYNTH is. First of all, it doesn't apply to talk page arguments. Secondly, see WP:SYNTHNOT. Synth is not any synthesis, it's only an original novel synthesis that doesn't appear explicitly. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 22:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) SYNTHNOT is an essay, not a core policy; (2) I’m saying that it would be SYNTH if it appeared in the article, which is the issue here and why it’s being discussed on a talk page at all; (3) see above, using an article’s discussion of the evidence to state, in wikivoice, that sexual assault did occur is absolutely synth, because it’s an original novel synthesis that doesn’t appear explicitly. It would be like if I cited a source that said “experts allege that Israel’s prosecution of the war satisfies the legal definition of genocide” based on XYZ evidence, to state, in wikivoice, that Israel is committing genocide. That would be taking the source’s content a step further than the source itself is willing to go, i.e., original research/synthesis. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the topic of the RFC. The RFC is should there be a few sentences, with or without denial, explaining the sexual violence. The exact language should hew closely to the sources, not synthetically, but exactly as framed in the reliable sources, with attribution as attribute. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're hewing closely to RS, and discussing the issue exactly as framed by them, then Option A should be written off, because RS overwhelmingly if not exclusively refer to the denial. It is also unclear from the wording of the RfC whether Option A would mean stating the allegations as fact; some !voters seem to be suggesting we should, and I am explaining why that would be synthesis. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC doesn't prescribe a specific wording. No RFC can obviate the need to abide by V, RS, SYNTH, etc., so regardless of what comes out, we'll need to make sure that the wording in the article is properly couched and qualified to be accurate to the sources - the RFC doesn't touch on that. If Option A succeeds, the statements will be included without denials, but they will still need to hew closely to the original source. Option B will include the denial, Option C will exclude altogether. Sounds like you might be leaning Option B, which to me isn't a bad outcome, but I can't make your !votes for you. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my !vote remains Option C, as a matter of WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources saying such and such video proves rape occurred. The same standard for all statements of fact on Wikipedia" - @Nableezy
 * I get where you're coming from, and I can understand where some your frustration here after fully reading a lot of the talk page.
 * I might be misreading the room here (chime in if you think I am), but I don't think anybody is arguing for including a "statement of fact"? I'm reading the options as adding something the allegations of rape by Hamas militants, as it is a prominently discussed topic in the sources currently. If we're going to make a statement of fact that "sexual violence was committed by members of Hamas", then we'd need reliable sources saying definitively that sexual violence was committed, on that I 100% agree with you.
 * If you'd argue that we need sources definitively saying that rape occurred to include something like "evidence/allegations of sexual violence by hamas militants, which hamas denies" (except not so poorly worded), then you'd also have to argue that we need RS's definitively saying that "Israel committed X war crime" everytime we say "Israel has been accused of *INSERT WAR CRIME HERE*". I don't think you'd argue for that right?
 * Just one final thing; I also don't think that to make a statement of fact we would require video evidence, or any evidence in particular from the sources. If a plurality of major reliable sources say that rape occurred definitively, then we could say that as a statement of fact. That seems to be the position clearly endorsed by WP:NPOV; we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" . If an overwhelming majority of sources said that rape occurred, then it'd be fine per NPOV to just say that rape occurred as a factual statement. We wouldn't start analyzing the validity of their conclusions; given how divided editors are here on their views doing that would kind of just invite us to throw out each other's sources everytime and just start nitpicking them. Those are basically my thoughts here; I think I've said all that I really have to say and am going to step back from this conversation. It's getting unreadable as is. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests. And yes, the same is true for war crimes. I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either.  nableezy  - 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I dont think I, or anybody else, has inserted "Israel indiscriminately bombed civilians" or "Israel performed summary executions" or "Israel is actively starving a civilian population" as a fact either."
 * I think you missed my point there. I'm referring to this in the lede: "leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water." We don't require the majority of sources saying that "We've proved that Israel used starvation as a weapon" to include that. We just need sources discussing the accusations. Similarily, we wouldn't need a source saying "We've proved that Hamas militants raped Israeli women during the attack" to say "There have been accusations of rape by Israel, denied by Hamas" or something to that effect.
 * "Yes if most sources agree rapes occurred then yes our article should say that too. I don’t think most sources have concluded that though, they still say things like evidence suggests."
 * My final paragraph was more just trying to make my position clear that we wouldn't need the sources to provide or discuss any evidence in particular, as long as they say it occurred we can say it occurred. If an RS said it occurred solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony that they reviewed, then we could say it occurred. I took issue with your statement that you'd need a source saying there was video that proved it, as that isn't really needed per NPOV. Just explaining what my last paragraph was actually a response to. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with most of that, the issues I have here are twofold. A, I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article. But here, I dont think it has the weight. Second, I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. Your beef with my comment was about my responding to a claim that video has proven rapes occurred. I was challenging that here, because that is not true. I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it. Because that is what was being offered as justification for including it without a denial. And that remains untrue.  nableezy  - 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I dont think rapes are discussed as a topic of this war to such an extent that it merits being included in the lead. It does absolutely merit inclusion in our article on the 7 October attacks, as that has been a prominent and noteworthy controversy about those attacks and per NPOV and LEAD it belongs in the lead of that article."
 * I get where you're coming from there Nableezy, I'm kind of leaning towards the side of it being a prominent enough controversy in the war in general for it to merit a very brief inclusion (with the denial) not exceeding a sentence in the second paragraph? The one that starts with "The war began"? I certainly don't think it deserves several sentences on it, that would be undue.
 * The main reason that I currently think it deserves a sentence is that we mention the water topic in the third paragraph ("leading to accusations that Israel was using starvation as a weapon and forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, salty water."), and that controversy has been discussed less in the RS's than the rape allegations (just doing a google search I see far less RS's discussing it than I do the rape allegations).
 * So if the articles "prominence of a controversy" threshold allows that controversy (about accusations of Israel using hunger/water as a weapon) in the lede (per the MOS, lede should summarize prominent controversies), then shouldn't it also allow a more prominent (in terms of how often it comes up in the RS's) controversy in the lede?
 * That's kinda where my heads at right now.
 * "I think when sources attribute an accusation and include a denial we have to follow both parts of that. "
 * Strongly agree.
 * "I was not saying that was required to reach a conclusion in our article if anything happened, only for the conclusion that rapes have proven it."
 * Thanks for the clarification, glad we can agree on that. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW, someone has tried to insert those statements about the summary executions into the article several times. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they inserted that Israel was said to have done such things and eyewitness accounts said such things, and even that was removed despite the OHCHR also documenting the killings. They did not include that it happened as a fact in our narrative voice.  nableezy  - 23:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, you are correct, and my prior message should have explained it uses the word "allegedly," (MOS:ALLEGED), and "reportedly," and ascribes it to both a confirmation on an official Twitter account, and to witness accounts circulated by media. It was removed with a rationale stated of NOTNEWS, as it's quite thinly sourced to a recent AJ piece and a Democracy Now piece, aside from the SELFPUB/PRIMARY tweet. So, I personally agree with the removal, and you are correct it was not as a fact in wikivoice, and I wasn't trying to lazily imply that it was. But does it have WEIGHT - I say no. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, since we’re not a court of law, we don’t have to weigh circumstantial evidence and determine whether it definitively supports the inference Israel wants us to draw. I’ve said above, the opinions of individual editors do not matter, it matters what sources are reporting, which is that (1) Israel and Israeli sources have made allegations (2) Hamas denies the allegations and (3) Israel has produced evidence that they view as supportive of their position. I’m not aware of any independent, external investigation confirming Israel’s view of events as fact. More importantly, I'm not aware of a preponderance of independent RS treating them as fact or omitting the denials. And whether or not it happened (which is not the subject of this RfC) none of this addresses what is really the core question: whether the sexual violence claims are necessary to understand (and specifically, to summarize) the entire war . This issue didn’t come to international attention until earlier this month, and RS prevailingly discuss it in relation to the October 7 attacks, not in relation to the war as a whole. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To address the argument that we should include these claims because the October 7 invasion was “ferocious” or “shocking” or “traumatic”: our purpose here is not to validate trauma. We’re here to discuss a war. The argument that sexual violence is necessary to understand Israel’s response is, frankly, bizarre, because (1) Israel was absolutely pummeling Gaza weeks before they investigated these allegations; and (2) sexual violence does not justify unlawful collective punishment. This story is not necessary to understand the war as a whole, it may be necessary to understand October 7 and the ex post facto justifications of Israeli atrocities, but this article is about neither of those things. If we devote a few sentences of the lead to events that have not yet been verified by independent, external sources, we are effectively saying that Israeli allegations are as or more important than the deaths of 8,000 Palestinian children. Child mortality has received vastly more coverage (i.e., 180,000 search results on Google News, if that's a worthwhile metric, compared to the numbers identified by nableezy above for sexual violence), but it receives only a single clause in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead. This is the very definition of a BALASP issue and the reason BALASP is part of the NPOV policy. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  17:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "B or C (but)" - If included in the lead (undecided on that) we should probably include the denial, it is a "they said", not a fact, but that's sufficiently communicated by describing it as a "denial". (Out of interest, but I doubt are sources? 3 other groups also claimed the attacks as a whole, did they deny the sexual violence? Were they asked?) The overall level of evidence should also be discussed - I have avoided reading too much graphic detail, but there does seem to be debate - but that belongs in the body. Alternatively, instead of the denial, we could put a general these claims were disputed in the lead with refs citing Hamas and any notable third parties. The body should also contain a fairly strong statement about how (depressingly) this is ubiquitous in war because that points to the plausibility of the claims (verges on synth, but very important context for someone who might be unfamiliar with how horrible war is). Irtapil (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) edited Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If anything, the tragic ubiquity of wartime sexual violence weighs against inclusion in the lead of this article. I would note, to the extent this matters, that including sexual violence so prominently in the lead would depart markedly from most other wiki articles on wars. Sexual violence is not mentioned in the leads of the articles on World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the First and Second Chechen Wars, the Iraq War, the Libyan civil war (2011), the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Myanmar civil war (2021–present). Wartime sexual violence is either notably alleged or extensively documented in all of these conflicts. It is tragic in every case, not just when the victims are Israeli or the alleged perpetrators are Palestinian. WillowCity  <sup style="color: #9932CC;">(talk)  16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To reinforce your argument, Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) doesn't mention comfort woman (aka "forced female sex slaves for foreign army", a hotly discussed topic in China and Korea even in 2023) in the lede either. Searching its talk page and archives, no one debated over its inclusion in the lede at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bombing and shooting are ubiquitous, we don't leave those out of the lead? And the comment about ubiquitous hours in the body. Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because bombing and shooting are fundamental aspects of any military operation. Rape is not. Excesses unfortunately occur in wartime, and rape is one such excess. This does not mean it's significant enough to include in the lead. I also feel that the highly charged, emotive nature of a rape allegation in the lead will undermine WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * B but specify who denied it - Reflecting on my previous answer. Specify which individual(s) denied it, not just "Hamas". The guy who denied it (if we are thinking of the same denial?) was in Qatar when it happened. We shouldn't be talking about Hamas as if it is a single individual or a hive-mind. If more than one person denied it then specify as succinctly as possible "Hamas leaders" or "spokespersons outside Gaza", etc. The denial is relevant to whether it was part of the plan, but says very little about whether it happened. (For the sake of declaring my bias, my personal opinion is that it was not part of any faction's plan, there's negligible evidence of anything systematic, but they created a chaotic situation where some sexual violence, and other horrible things, were almost inevitable. If there's a last minute open-invite for "let's invade Israel" a city of 2 million will have at least one Ted Bundy / Richard Ramirez / Ivan Milat who will join in.) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I sort of said before, to me there is a lot of ambiguity in WHO did it. There were 4 factions who claimed the attacks, and one of the small secular factions is arguably more violent than Hamas, but no reliable sources say which faction ended up where. There are also controversial reports that some non-militant criminals showed up opportunistically. (Which obscenely are being spun as "it was civilians, so kill all civilians!" would you bomb Milwaukee just because Jeffrey Dahmer was there?) Irtapil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It'd be like writing a story about the Iraq and Afghanistan war without mentioning 9/11 or bin Laden. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be like writing an article about the war in Afghanistan and not including box cutters on one of the planes in the lead of the article on the war.  nableezy  - 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That comment, unconstructive for this page, is also deeply offensive to every volunteer editor on this site who cares about gender issues of denial and entitlement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What is going on above? I used the reply button but my comment has appeared in a boy that is dated for the day before yesterday??? Irtapil (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's an admin's hat for offtopicking comments. I'll move it. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

New investigation and independent confirmation from The NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html “A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) Revision as of 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, much of the initial reportage, univeresally circulated for weeks, came from ZAKA. For which see The Short String,  ZAKA is not a trustworthy source for allegations of sexual violence on October 7 Mondoweiss 30 December 2023 Nishidani (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s an opinion piece in a source considered at RSP as biased and with no consensus on reliability. Plus, I don’t see the relevance to the article from the NYT? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mondoweiss is a far-left publication that publishes op-eds saying the attacks were justified. It should not be relied upon for facts. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chess I must say I was surprised to see the NYT prominently feature ZAKA's Yossi Landau in their piece. To my mind he's completely discredited as a reliable source. He is the "ZAKA volunteer" referred to here in Haaretz (he is mentioned by name in one of the embedded videos) who was responsible for numerous lurid, false reports. See also article by France 24 and others. Andreas  JN 466 10:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A pertinent update to this is that the NYT had received considerable flak for its coverage, and particularly the featuring of lurid claims from Zaka's Yossi Landau, leading it to cancel a related podcast it had planned – as itself covered as a story due to the unusual last minute nature of the cancellation. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA involvement
I can see no references whatever to reports that UNRWA staff participated in the 10/7 attack, provided logistical support and held hostages captive, besides diverting aid intended for Gazan civilians to Hamas. I'm unable to cite direct references after the story has disappeared from legacy media, but the fact that many nations have suspended funding of UNRWA as a result suggests strongly that the claims are factual. Why this omission? Chrismorey (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * See UNRWA October 7 controversy, there is an investigation into the claims, which are not as yet proven. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Funding suspension was a temporary PR measure, not a punishment. Over the years, thousands of UN officers have engaged in a host of criminal activities (sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers, theft, criminal negligence that caused 10,000 deaths, etc. etc.), however these instances never resulted in funding cancellation. I'm quite sure that funding for UNRWA will restart soon. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very likely to be factual, I'd be rather surprised if none of them were associated with Hamas, but as far as I know Israel hasn't supplied any evidence yet. That means that any investigations will go into limbo and countries that have stopped supporting the organisation are unlikely to restart anytime soon as they'll say UNRWA aren't investigating properly. Pretty dismal for Gaza unless others fill the breach in funding. NadVolum (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally or not, I came across this article today.https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-military-compound-found-beneath-u-n-agency-headquarters-in-gaza-7e29c758?mod=djem10point. I don't believe you can say Israel hasn't supplied evidence when it's let Western journalists visit the sites and see for themselves. I wouldn't propose this article is written up stand-alone, but if there's anyone at Wikipedia with a regard for balanced presentation, it could be part of a section on UNRWA. I'm confident there will be many more revelations to come.


 * I'm unsure why you introduced the concept of 'punishment' when no one is suggesting that as a motive for Western governments' and agencies' actions. Nor do I accept that UN personnel having been responsible historically for multiple crimes and delinquencies means UNRWA should get a free pass in 2024. Report them all, I say.Chrismorey (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The entrance was near to the UN building rather than in it. Twenty minutes walking along tunnels to get there? What is that supposed to prove even if it was below the building? As UNRWA says “UNRWA... does not have the military and security expertise nor the capacity to undertake military inspections of what is or might be under its premises”. NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confident there will be many more revelations to come What's that based on, hope? Israel lets journalists see what Israel wants them to see, they can only go with escort. And we have already been down the "evidence" route several times with Israel, their track record is dismal. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Attributing an editor’s words to “hope” (as opposed to a legitimate or fact-based view of affairs) is not fair or helpful. Zanahary (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia's coverage of the UNRWA scandal needs to keep perspective, which is that UNRWA has a staff of over 30,000 and has been around for 75 years, while Hamas has ruled Gaza for almost 20 years, so connections between the two aren't really surprising to anyone. By way of comparison, it wasn't surprising that among the January 6 attack defendants are US police and military and employees of all sorts of large companies -- but nobody really holds the police, the military, or the large companies responsible for the actions of its personnel. In any population of tens of thousands of people, there will be corruption and misconduct by some. And I think this perspective-of-scale is well covered by the RS that cover the UNRWA scandal. With that perspective, I think the UNRWA thing is a significant-enough WP:ASPECT to include in the article ... but very carefully, accurately summarizing the best RS on this, and providing the context/perspective that the RS provide. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (...)but nobody really holds the police, the military, or the large companies responsible for the actions of its personnel(...) This is not true. At least one of the Capitol police officers who took selfies with the rioters in the Capitol building received disciplinary action. Paul D. Irving, Michael C. Stenger and Steven Sund all resigned as a result of their failure to contain the Jan 6 riot. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right but nobody defunded the entire police department. Nobody held the organization responsible for the actions of its personnel. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can give you a much simpler answer: This article is about the war in Gaza, not the single-day attack on October 7, 2023. Whether the accusation against UNRWA is truthful or not bears no weight on this article. Although having said that, I agree this info can be included if we are to mention the deepening of starvation and other humanitarian crises as a result of donations for UNRWA being pulled by US-led countries. However, it should be framed within the broader context of the humanitarian situation in Gaza rather than solely focusing on the accusations against UNRWA. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the UNRWA accusation bears no weight on this article. The first battle of a war is part of the war, and if a UN relief agency was involved in the first battle of war, that's also part of the war. Like the UNRWA accusatiosn, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is also part of the war (and of course mentioned in this article), but the framing should be the same framing as reliable sources. To take one example, AP's story about the tunnels, AP frames the UNRWA tunnel accusation as "the latest chapter in Israel’s campaign against the embattled agency," a campaign the AP article describes in some detail, but the humanitarian crisis and UNRWA's humanitarian work gets barely two sentences of mention. Neutrality doesn't mean (to me) that when we say something negative about one side we also have to say something negative about the other side, it means we present neutral summaries of what the sources say. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We can safely assume that most people who took part in hostilities, on both sides, worked somewhere. Had an employer. It would be absurd to implicate all their employers in the hostilities only because an employee of theirs took part. We don't do that for other conficts, we don't enumerate companies whose employees happened to take part in, say, Russian invasion of Ukraine. For 40,000 UNRWA employees, 12 are said to have followed Hamas – let's remember, a lawful government organisation in Gaza.
 * The UNRWA story is being blown out of proportion by propaganda, and only shows how vulnerable UNRWA is to such blackmail. I can't fathom that US Army would fire their employees on the spot on a mere accusation of disloyalty (think Jack Pereira or Edward Snowden) and that the US government would immediately suspend its funding. It's all politics, folks, let's try not to fall for manipulation. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  16:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You did not just say that it's safe to assume that Gazans have an employer :-P Please re-think that :-) Levivich (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You did not just say that no Gazan business employs people or that all Gazans survive solely on "generous" humanitarian aid? This must be a hoax, then? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  21:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot safely assume that most people who took part in hostilities, on both sides, worked somewhere because Gaza has some of, if not the, highest unemployment in the world... 45% in 2022 according to the IMF. Any logical conclusion predicated on an assumption that Gazans are employed is going to be wrong. I don't think it's at all a safe assumption that Hamas fighters have another job, and I think it's a safer assumption that Hamas fighters are likely recruited from the ranks of the unemployed.
 * More to the point, don't kid yourself that UNRWA personnel or equipment being used by Hamas is not a big deal. It's not proven, it may be a false allegation, it may be propaganda, but whether true or false, it's a big deal, as evidenced by widespread coverage of it in RS. Levivich (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And we don't include the beheaded babies allegation in this article simply because it was a "big deal". Your way of reasoning is very worrying. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Levivich: Well, it's perfectly legitimate even for an UN employee in an occupied country to take to arms and fight the oppressor. Do you think that Ukrainian UN employees did not take up arms and fight against Russian invasion? Sure they did when their goverment called them up. Yep, the 7 October uprising in Palestine unfortunately turned into a carnage of innocent Israeli civilians, at least in some places. Whether any UN staff member took part in atrocities or not, we don't know; if so, laws of war are clear about it. However, I argue that the mere fact of workers taking arms against an occupying power should not be viewed as "something big" for the employer; it's normal under an occupation. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  23:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The legitimacy of uprising is hardly relevant to our task here, which is to summarize reliable sources, not pass judgment on people's choices. :-P I don't think anybody thinks anything should be in the article because of "the mere fact," but rather because it's a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic. UNRWA, Israel's allegations against it, its defunding, the fallout from that, all receive enough coverage in RSes that I think they're significant WP:ASPECTs and should be covered in this article. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you're serious that you specifically picked a report about the allegation by Israel, when AP also runs stories about the effects on humanitarian aid efforts in Gaza by defunding UNRWA[//apnews.com/search?q=unrwa#nt=navsearch]. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your question was so derailed by forum posts about the war and tit-for-tat proposals, I'd say the reason it's unmentioned as of now is that it's a relatively minor story of the war and the article is already bloated as it is. XeCyranium (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is an internationally important story, and we have a big separate page about it, UNRWA October 7 controversy. I think we need a brief subsection about it on this page. However, the point here is not October 7, but the role of UNRWA as an organization in general. The accusations, investigations and consequences are not limited by the events on October 7.My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

IDF casualties different in article and infobox
Are the casualty figures different in the infobox and article? Article says 225, Infobox says 645 Ben Azura (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The discrepancy is because 225 have reportedly been killed in the invasion of Gaza, while the 650 dead include the soldiers killed during the initial attacks in Israel. XeCyranium (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletions by User:BanyanClimber

 * can you explain this deletion? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hostages are already mentioned in second paragraph of lead. Please pay attention next time. – (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "whom it sought to free by taking hostages" is a different thing from taking hostages. And in this edit you added "personnel" to the "373 security forces..." while it is not in the given source. Why?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is practically the same information, obviously. There is no need to mention hostages twice in the same paragraph, specially in lead which is supposed to be a summary. Also the people killed were members or personnel of the security forces, not the "security forces" themselves which are institutions (police, military, Shin Bet, etc). I feel I shouldn't have to explain such basic concepts to an editor. – (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, please. Both of these comments and your edit summary are needlessly hostile. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BanyanClimber has been blocked as sock. NasssaNsertalk 15:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Looting
Looting by Israeli soldiers ransacking houses for souvenirs, money, books, mirrors, silverware, hoovers, motor-bikes, you name it, is endemic. Very similar to what happened in the first wave of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. There is no mention of the practice here. The halakhic status of such pillaging has also been discussed by the rabbinate. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No sources provided, definitely no inclusion. It's an inflammatory claim to make without sources, so it definitely can't go in the article without them. JM (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure sources about this exist as I, too, have heard about it in Al-Jazeera.
 * some sources that I've found online by doing a simple search:
 * Videos show Israeli soldiers in Gaza burning food, vandalizing a shop and ransacking private homes, CNN
 * Israeli Soldiers' Looting in Gaza Is Part of the Revenge, HAARETZ
 * Gazans horrified to find homes ransacked and graffitied by Israeli troops, The National
 * Israeli soldiers boast about looting from Gaza, Al-Jazeera
 * Israeli army committed unjustified looting, demolition of homes in Gaza: Analyst, Anadolu Agency  Abo Yemen ✉  03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of asserting that the very idea is 'inflammatory' (which only suggests unfamiarity with the topic, since it is commonplace) why didn't you google, something which would have confounded your dismissal within seconds? I didn't provide a link because the computer I was using, unlike this one, did not allow one to copy and past. I had read Oren Ziv, Rugs, cosmetics, motorbikes: Israeli soldiers are looting Gaza homes en masse +972 magazine 20 February 2024. The list above is more than sufficient to warrant an entry under this heading.Nishidani (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hitchen's razor: I am not obligated to find sources to support the unsourced claims you make. When you comment that something is not mentioned, yet provide no sources showing it occured let alone justifying it being mentioned, you can't fault me for refusing to do research for you and dismissing your claim out of hand. JM (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of sources on this. Many of them based on videos uploaded by Israeli soldiers documenting their own acts. I agree this should be included in the article, just not sure where.  nableezy  - 14:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the war crime section?  nableezy  - 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah and maybe we can create an article about it  Abo Yemen ✉  14:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe actually create some content. Seems reasonable to add it here first.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a bit.  nableezy  - 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Open-air prison
Would it be worth describing Gaza as an open-air prison in the background? JDiala (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not in wikivoice. JM (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

New Israeli assessment of October 7th
According to a new assessment mentioned in the Israeli media but which I couldn't find in English, there were 600 IDF soldiers and 12 tanks on the border on October 7th, 3k militants stormed in from 60 entry points, and about 1,609 militants were killed during fighting in southern Israel, substantially higher than the 1,000 figure now in the infobox and closer to the original 1,500 figure. The infobox should be updated and this should be included in the article where necessary.--RM (Be my friend) 07:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)