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

Requested move 4 June 2024
Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity". It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.

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


 * support - See WP:PRECISION for consideration of a title that is too wordy. Whether there is gender-based violence or not should be covered in the article, not in the title, especially if there is uncertainty about the nature of the violence. Relspas (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * oppose -- both mean quite differently things actually; will feel more neutral about this if Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war is included in the discussion too. Josethewikier (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - even to the extent that the 'gender-based' violence definition is broader than 'sexual' violence, it isn't clear that any specifically 'gender-based violence occurred. Everything reported on is adequately covered by the more limited 'sexual violence' definition (ie rape, attempted rape, violent sexual abuse or such abuse under threat of violence and violence targetted specifically at someone because of their physical sex - in this instance chiefly alleged mutilation of sexual parts of women's bodies). The additional 'gender-based' term seems wholly unnecessary to describe the actual content and we even fail to say what we mean by it.Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I appreciate the more succinct character of this title, and am sympathetic to the arguments made in support, I believe that a broader title is more encyclopedic. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The page even documents cases of sexual violence against all genders so it is hard to parse what aspects of the violence are somehow specific to gender. Or if I am missing something then please let me know but it seems to me that even if there is gender based violence that wouldn't fit under the heading of sexual violence then it would be a different topic and a different page. Jorahm (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am deciding to strike my comment to neutral as I am understanding "sexual and gender-based violence" to be a technical term that is commonly used by organizations with the proper expertise on this subject matter. I am observing that this page is more about sexual violence and they are separate topics but I also see how "X and Y" are commonly linked together and there is a valid argument to be technically correct and consistent. Jorahm (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


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


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


 * Relisting comment: Relist for additional participation, sitting at 5 for to 3 against (with one alternative suggested), hoping the laundry list of wikiproject notifications I sent might help (crossing my fingers I didn't just make this much worse) ASUKITE  15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the arguments regarding consistency with the others article, and the title including both being appropriate broad while including the more common term as well. FortunateSons (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. The current title is pendantic. Even if there was gender-based violence, that is covered by "sexual." Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support to avoid WP:OVERPRECISION. The two concepts overlap – commonly, sex is gender based – and having both terms in a single title is fairly confusing. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't confusing, we have an article about it: Violence against women; if it is currently confusing this can be fixed editorially while keeping the due precision in the title. —Alalch E. 01:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as FortunateSons: consistency with the other page, and the title being accurate while also including the common designation of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV), which incidentally is also commonly used in the reports cited on the page like the UN report. - Ïvana (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sexual and Gender Based Violence is the accurate term used by experts, and for good reason as it accurately covers distinct kinds of violence both sexual and gender-based in kind (e.g. violence specifically targeted at girls and women). Lf8u2 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * violence specifically targeted at girls and women is what is usually meant by sexual violence. Nowhere in the article is there an example of specifically 'gender-based' violence, nor do we ever say what the term means, nor were editors able to agree on what it is meant to mean or include. We all had our surmisals, but couldn't say. The usual definition of 'gender-based' violence includes violence directed at trans people, because of their expressed gender. This just wasn't a factor AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear I know gendered-based violence doesn't merely or specifically refer to violence targeted at girls and women, but also to gendered violence against boys and men, and the various reports cited (like the UN reports) include both in that categorization. Gender-based violence against boys/men is the focus of the reports regarding violence against Palestinians, and includes such acts like non-sexualized humiliation, desecration of bodies, striking at their sense of honor by threatening sexual violence against their female relatives etc., covering a wide range of actions/behaviors explicitly not included under just sexualized violence, like rape and forced stripping (this is why the term is also appropriate for that page, and why as others have noted for consistency it should be used for this page as well). And there actually are specific references to non explicitly sexualized yet explicitly gender-based violence against girls and women on this page, like genital/sex-based mutilation and desecration of women by shooting in genitalia/breasts, humiliation by filming and swearing at/threatening them with non-sexualized language, kidnapping, beating/torture, not providing sanitary pads in captivity etc. These aren't necessarily described or categorized as explicitly sexualized in nature as with the cases of rape, forced stripping, threats and humiliation with sexualized language, but have rightly been included under the definition of gender-based violence against girls/women in the various reports and testimonies. So SVGB accurately covers the entire range and scope of violence that is detailed on the page. Lf8u2 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for taking the time to reply, I initially posted because I thought your post might be the result of a misunderstanding on your part, but that is clearly not the case. I can see the distinction between violence (or degrading treatment) of a gendered character, and specifically 'sexual-ised' violence or mistreatment, both of which are alleged iro both the Hamas attack and by Palestinian detainees. The UNHCR-Turkey definition of S&GbV at the foot of this page is so broad as to include almost all forms of enforced discrimination and gendered 'denial of rights', including denial of health care, forced marriage, child marriage etc, none of which really apply between either party in the Isr-Pal conflict.
 * IMO, we are using a standard term, perhaps for honourable reasons, but without being clear to ourselves or our readers what the "and gender-based" part is there for, but thanks again for taking the trouble to reply. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and thank you for the thoughtful replies as well. I agree that the term SVGB encompasses a wide range of actions/behaviors, including forced/arranged/child marriage, denial of healthcare, etc., but again keep in mind that while some of these aren't included in the case of the October 7 attacks and its aftermath, others are. For example some of the female hostages have noted they suffered from gender-based violence that wasn't necessarily sexualized in kind, like not being given proper sanitation/access to sanitary pads, lack of privacy and medical attention, humiliation and other kinds of psychological harm, and of course the kidnapping and captivity itself. The same and other forms of gender-based violence that aren't explicitly sexualized, alongside those that are, are also documented in the case of Israel against Palestinians, which is why the term is also appropriate for that article. IMO when you remove that and collapse it all into just "sexual violence", it doesn't make it more precise and clear, but rather the opposite, conflating acts and behaviors that aren't explicitly sexualized yet still gender-based forms of violence, with those that are explicitly sexualized. This is exactly one of the main problems in all of the reporting on this, that the two are so often conflated when for accuracy and precision's sake and to do justice to the victims it needs to be clarified exactly what forms of violence is being referred to in each specific case, and the page includes ample references to both. Lf8u2 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


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


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


 * Initial support but with adding "alleged" as well, considering most importantly, the recent Times coverage that has cast doubt on, even refuted, many of the central claims of the alleged systematic campaign of sexual violence. 08:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Makeandtoss (talk)
 * This topic has been gone over several times before, and the consensus is currently that "alleged" should not be added to the title. This does not change simply because one newspaper has cast doubt on claims of sexual violence, especially given the recent UN report which concludes unequivocally that members of the military wing of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups targeted women, including by wilful killings, abductions, and physical, mental and sexual abuse...women were subjected to Gender Based Violence during the course of their execution or abduction. The Times article itself also states that sexual violence did occur: the report...gives substantial and substantiated credence to the sexual assault claims. Simply because the sexual violence was not systemic does not mean the title needs to be renamed. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes as the reliable sources change, so nothing prevents this from being rediscussed. Why did you seemingly selectively quote the Times article, which continues to explicitly say: "on the other it does not show them to be systematic and specifically says Israel has been unable to produce evidence it has claimed to possess of Hamas’s written orders to rape. "? Patten's UN report also was not investigative, relied on Israeli sources and did not conclude anything of a systematic nature; it even also refuted many of the central claims. So adding "alleged" sounds like a very normal thing to do when most RS are reporting that there were tons of debunked propaganda. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not refer to Patten's report, but to the more recent report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which found as I have stated, and also concluded unequivocally that these incidents were not isolated but part of a pattern. I did not selectively quote the Times article (deliberately); I merely pointed out the article concedes that sexual violence did take place, even if some specific allegations were proven false. Merely saying that "there isn't any evidence that Hamas ordered rape" doesn't make a case for changing the title, because this allegation is not made in the title, and whether or not it's true doesn't reduce the documented cases of sexual violence to mere allegations. The RS as a whole have not changed significantly to my knowledge, as you can only point to one new article which adds little to the discussion that was not already known. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems also selective to me because it continues to say that: "The Commission has reviewed testimonies obtained by journalists and the Israeli police concerning rape but has not been able to independently verify such allegations, due to a lack of access to victims, witnesses and crime sites and the obstruction of its investigations by the Israeli authorities. The Commission was unable to review the unedited version of such testimonies. For the same reasons, the Commission was also unable to verify reports of sexualized torture and genital mutilation. Additionally, the Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment." [page 27] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, they still concluded unequivocally that there was a wide pattern of sexual violence during the event even if some specific claims are unverified or false, so it is not a mere "allegation". TRCRF22 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just cited from the report how they explicitly stated that they were unable to independently verify rape, sexualized torture and genital mutilation; nor were they able to verify Israel's claim of orders to commit such acts. So which wide pattern of sexual violence are you talking about here, and what do you mean by sexual violence? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * According to paragraph 25 of the report, Hamas military wing rejected all accusations that its forces committed sexual violence against Israeli women. However, the Commission documented cases indicative of sexual violence perpetrated against women and men in and around the Nova festival site, as well as the Nahal Oz military outpost and several kibbutzim, including Kfar Aza, Re’im and Nir Oz. It collected and preserved digital evidence, including images of victims’ bodies displaying indications of sexual violence, a pattern corroborated by independent testimonies from witnesses. The report also identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concludes that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes (paragraph 95). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "wide" as it does not appear (although they do say in paragraph 95 that this violence was not isolated but perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators). The definition used in the report is "acts of a sexual nature against a person or causing a person to engage in such an act, by force, or by threat of force or coercion"; a relatively standard definition of sexual violence. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Time out people. Really not the discussion of this RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but RMs can also discuss other suggestions.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So "sexual violence" minus Israel's central claims of rape, sexual torture, and genital mutilation? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: per WP:CONCISE and previous discussions in which noone could hazard a guess as to what, if anything, the extra words add in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sexual and gender-based violence is just another way to say "sexual violence and other violence against women", and the parts of this article and some of the sources, including the quotes specifically added to some of the references, discus precisely violence against women, and that's not the same as "sexual violence" as not all of the violence may be primarily or exclusively sexual (murder, kidnapping, etc.).—Alalch E. 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note - it also needs to be updated to match the name of the page 7 October attacks, so Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attacks or Sexual violence in the 7 October attacks. MWQs (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * I'd say that it's a misleading summary of the article. This is what Pramila Patten said in March
 * There were, she said, “reasonable grounds” to believe there had been rape and sexual assaults on October 7, particularly at the Nova festival ground, and “clear and convincing information” — a higher standard of evidence — of rape and sexual torture of hostages held in Gaza.
 * Alaexis¿question? 18:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Let's read on: The report would prove confusing to the Israeli political establishment. On the one hand, it gives substantial and substantiated credence to the sexual assault claims; on the other it does not show them to be systematic and specifically says Israel has been unable to produce evidence it has claimed to possess of Hamas’s written orders to rape. Patten also asked that Israel investigate “credible allegations” of rape and sexual violence against Palestinian women and girls gathered by the UN’s legal mandate mission in the Palestinian territories. Israel swiftly rejected Patten’s request The quote illustrates well how misleading many Israeli claims are. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we mention written orders in the article. Alaexis¿question? 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell. Are people still talking about the non-investigation that wasn't allowed to be an investigation because Israel refuses to allow the UN to investigate. Patten's trip to Israel is more useful as an example of Tel Aviv's political conniving to muddy the waters – to be included alongside its other disinformation efforts – than it is any form of useful input on the subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I rather think this topic was intended for discussion of the article and whether it merits inclusion in itself, rather than another discussion of the merits of Patten's report. Unfortunately, I can't comment on this as I don't subscribe to this paper. TRCRF22 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This Times article is very good, carefully asseses lots of the evidence and reporting, gives a good account of the UN investigation. It definitely merits inclusion in itself and in relation to Patten's report. The title of this section is a very bad summary of its contents. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024
Small grammatical mistake in the first line of the fourth paragraph: "Ha'aretz summarise the media coverage". It should be "Ha'aretz summarised the media coverage". TheMittroSeventy (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Also changed spelling to 'summarized', matching the rest of the article's -zed US spelling -- macaddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Screams Without Words
re Screams Without Words, could you elaborate on your objection to "controversial"?

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

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


 * Firstly, this phrasing has been in place since 24th May, when it replaced the text "especially widely challenged", which was newish text at that time, so the WP:ONUS is on those who want it amended to achieve agreement to amend, not on its defenders.
 * Having said that, I actually start out from the premise that why the NYT piece was criticised/challenged would theoretically be the best starting off point, otherwise there is no sense to saying it was 'controversial'. The NYT piece has been very widely criticised on all sorts of grounds and from 'friend' and 'foe' alike, both in what they say and what they discovered, but failed to say and who the writers were (including a key contributor having very limited journalistic experience, and a history of highly partisan comments). However I don't see a way to summarise such criticism succinctly. Crudely speaking though, the criticism is that an inexperienced and partisan team 'echoed' and 'amplified' uncritically every claim they were spoon-fed, despite a total absence of 'qualified' or forensic evidence and failed to report anything which contradicted the picture they sought to present. To the best of my knowledge, the NYT is the only one now defending the piece, so I don't see any 'controversy' to report. An accurate summary is that the NYT printed the piece and subsequently came under considerable criticism for poor, partisan and uncritical journalism. But the details are in the WP article about the NYT piece.
 * The London Times has also produced a detailed investigative piece, (linked to above) which is 'chalk and cheese' to the NYT piece. The Times piece is mainly about the weaponisation of sexual violence claims, but is broadly sympathetic to the idea that sexual violence occurred, but that who perpetrated it and the scale is now near-impossible to assess with any certainty. Also that there really is no evidence of such violence being systematic - a central claim of both the NYT piece and the Israeli govt. Further, the Times says that inexperienced and unreliable first responder actions and testimony, and subsequent Israeli govt actions and 'weaponisation' of the sexual violence claims have actually impeded rather than aided investigation. That Times piece doesn't directly challenge the NYT piece, but it does come to wholly different conclusions about the same topic, using much the same available evidence. The UN report comes to similar conclusions to the Times piece, that detailed investigation should now, and should have been carried out if any reliable picture is to emerge of the full scale or nature of the sexual violence.
 * I don't know if there has been any developments, but the NYT piece was reported as having prompted criticism even within the paper itself. Pincrete (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with what Pincrete says. The NYT piece is clearly controversial and widely regarded as flawed and we give it too much space here. We really should mention the London Times article, which is an important contribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * NYT in this situation has a conflict of interest, so of course it would be defending its coverage and consequently its editorial reputation *coughs Judith Miller coughs*. Thus, there is no controversy among RS, there is only criticism directed at NYT, even from its own staff. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's basically the last source that should be used on this page, and frankly it's completely unnecessary, since there's now been so much analysis of the piece that the due aspects of it will at this point be reflected in other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)