Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 2

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

Relisting after abortive close. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. The denial is in the body of the article and that is where it belongs. Not in the lead. As evidence accumulates, most recently with a two-month New York Times investigation, which found that Hamas "weaponized sexual assault" during the attacks, it is abundantly clear that sexual assaults did indeed take place. The Hamas denials is perfunctory and utterly lacking in credibility, and including it in the lead section, especially a lead as brief as this one, creates WP:FALSEBALANCE and is contrary to WP:LEAD. Further, it is so at variance with established fact (witness testimony, forensic evidence, outside investigations) I would suggest that placing the denial in the lead is contrary to WP:FRINGE. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is often regarded as a reliable source of news. However, in complex and prolonged conflicts, where propaganda is widespread, conducting thorough investigations can take years rather than just a few weeks. Therefore, in this particular case you mentioned, The New York Times which can not be considered as strong argument to support the removal of the passage where Hamas denies the accusations from the lead sections. The lead section aims to summarize all the relevant information in the article, and the section featuring Hamas denial is present there. Riad Salih (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that sexual assaults did indeed take place is almost certainly true - sexual violence (sadly) is a fact of life in most conflicts, as is propagandising of 'horror stories'. The extent to which sexual violence occured, whether it was deliberately/systematically 'weaponized' and whether all/most/some of the allegations are true requires care, time and forensic expertise to establish. Until then, none of us, and no source - regardless of how generally reliable it is - could possibly establish how true the allegations are. Just as multiple WP:RS have reported the accusations, equally, the majority have reported the denial(s), so should we. Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes History will decide to what extent any allegations are substantiated, until then the non-acceptance of the allegation should be neutrally recorded.Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As above. If they weren’t apparently made in seriousness, then they would be comical. I’ll point out that Hamas denials are not mentioned in the lead paragraphs of related pages covering the 10/7 attack. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel) However, 10/7 denialism in general merits its own section, and possibly its own page. The context of Hamas broader 10/7 denials should be added in the section on this page. Drsruli (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As above as well. Hamas credibility in this regard is nonexistent. Hamas leaders also refuse to acknowledge the killing of civilians, their words are wind. Telecart (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes (coming from an NPOV notice). Until Hamas is declared guilty by an international court of these crimes, including their denial is absolutely required to balance the assertion they were responsible, given that the denial has been widely reported as well. (If there were no to minimal sourcing for that, then it would be a DUE issue to include) If, as some have argued, that Hamas' claims should have zero credibility, that should be backed by reliable sources and also added to the lede (eg "While Hamas has denied responsibility, their denial has been rejected by other governments.") Otherwise, it does become original research to claim Hamas has no credibility and thus reason to remove the denial. --M asem (t) 14:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same question as on NPOVN, what is the basis for you arguments in the guidelines or policy? "international court"? You have constructed an argument to give credibility to Hamas where the default assumption for WP is "no credibility", for any organization: see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. Omit if including would unduly legitimize it or describe in proper context. The burden is on you to overcome that warning from the NPOV policy with reference to reliable sources, not construct an argument concerning 'courts', 'responsibility', 'governments', and 'guilt'. fiveby(zero) 18:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how untrustworthy the body being accused of a crime is, as long as that remains an accusation and not something determined by courts or other authorities, or some academic agreement made decades later, then we should always include the denial, that's an essential part of writing neutrally so that it does not appear we have taken one side or make the assumption that the accusation is true. WP editors cannot be ones to judge the trustworthiness of these entities, so it is improper to remove the denial on unsourced claims the entity is trustworthy. But as it appears here, many of the sources reporting on Hamas' denial also refute that denial, so it is fully reasonably to include the denial and the lack of trust from that denial from various sources. — M asem (t) 15:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By your same logic then the denial of killing civilians should also be prominently present in the lede section of articles right? I see Wikipedia does it's best in 2023 Israel–Hamas war, 7 October total includes an unknown number of deaths from friendly fire, misrepresenting one source and taking as true the reports of friendly fire by a helicopter at the musical festival. Don't see many of the Israeli denials of accusations in lede sections, why are those statements not warranted? The "essential part of writing neutrally" is not unwarranted equivocation which is not reflected in the sources, but actually making an attempt to write neutrally. Fill in the body by summarizing the best sources available, then build the introduction as MOS:LEAD instructs. fiveby(zero) 16:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes as mentioned below in the discussion section and NPOV notice board.Riad Salih (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor wrote that this implies to individuals, not necessarily organizations or groups. I think we need to look at precedents in which a majority of RS say that a sexual violence event occurred. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No The coverage of the heinous assaults is extensively covered by reliable sources. There's no policy reason that I'm aware of to "wait for history" or a some international trial. Given the amount of coverage to the contrary of the denial I'm more sympathetic to the WP:FRINGE argument. The denial can be mentioned in the body, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Nemov (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You said 'T here's no policy reason that I'm aware of to 'wait for history' or a some international trial. ' This statement reflects your personal opinion. In this context, our approach is to cite information from reliable sources representing both viewpoints. Our role is not to act as judges or take sides in the conflict. Riad Salih (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Riad Salih's statement because we should put verified information backed by independent reliable sources and the let the readers decide for themselves. We should not be a judge here and put our original researches. Bringtar (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bringtar Riad didn't give a policy reason in the response to me and I'm confused by your assertion of "original research." The article exists because it is backed by a laundry list of reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, or at least not at this time. A fully developed MOS:LEAD might or might not include the denial, but as it stands inclusion is certainly WP:FALSEBALANCE. fiveby(zero) 19:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * False Balance does not apply here at all. The page talks about 'minority view, fringe theory,' which is not the case here since two groups are involved.
 * Both groups' positions should be included. There is no international court providing full information right now, so I don't see why a claim stated by a reputable newspaper like The Washington Post should be denied.
 * If you believe it is truly a case of False Balance, please provide a detailed argument to support your claim. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article reports the denial by Basem Naim, who has also stated "The operation targeted only the Israeli military bases and compounds", "There were clear instructions from the top commanders of Al Qassam Brigades to avoid targeting civilians or killing them", and "We have not killed any civilians" The author immediately follows the denial by pointing out that Earlier this month, Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau based in Qatar, also said in an interview with the BBC that “women, children and civilians were exempt” from Hamas’s attacks — despite a death toll that was made up mostly of those groups. No one is denying that Post's reporting is accurate, or that Hamas’ political office made a post on Telegram blaming a "coordination of some Western media outlets with the Zionist misleading campaigns". The WP:NPOV policy applies everywhere, and the false balance comes not from reporting the denial, but in failing to inform the reader of what that denial is worth. fiveby(zero) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I've reviewed the previous votes and didn't find any arguments showing that RS lend any credence to the denials (a token sentence about the denial doesn't count). Alaexis¿question? 19:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How would anyone expect a source to lend credence to the denials? They print them, which gives them sufficient credence, just as they attribute Israeli claims most of the time, both of which show that RS are not yet in a position to know how true either side is being about this. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is just one sentence in an article stating that Hamas denies the allegations, including it in the lede would give it undeue weight. Alaexis¿question? 09:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic we should be omitting denials/innocence pleas in reports of civil and criminal cases, since they are typically only a sentence long pre-trial, whereas accusations are typically much longer! Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There isn't much to say about Hamas denial and Hamas itself hasn't given much details. But here's a NYT article giving Subhead weight (subhead is one level below headline) to Hamas denial. VR talk 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the paragraph about the denial includes a refutation . I'd be fine with that option too (e.g., "Hamas denied the reports of sexual violence in spite of the extensive evidence confirming them"). Alaexis¿question? 21:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are choosing the most categorical statement about the available accusations. The mass of sources are more equivocal, present the evidence, cite the source of the claims and point out its 'flaws' (eg the BBC, I believe asked to see the un-edited interrogation 'confessions', and were told it was impossible, which makes them largely worthless). Very little evidence has come from forensically competent authorities so far and a great deal is surmisal. Some 'evidence' has been largely discredited. The fact of sexual violence having occurred is probable, since unfortunately, it almost always does, the scale, the extent to which it was systematic and whether the more extreme accusations are true could not even possibly be established by journalistic sources at present, the only thing they can do is report accusations, which they have done and report denials, ditto. Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Virtually every reliable source I have come across does the responsible thing and mentions Hamas's denial. In fact, after the fact that women were subjected to sexual violence, the fact of Hamas's denial is one of the most widely reported facts about these events. It is very WP:UNDUE not to include something so widely reported in the lead. Here are 23 sources: New York Times, New Yorker, Associate Press, The Guardian, The Intercept, CNN, BBC, Abc7Chicago, Reuters, Vox, NBC News, France24, Le Monde, Financial Times, Irish Times, Mother Jones, Seattle Times, Toronto City News, Al Jazeera, Telegraph, USA Today, Swissinfo, ABC Australia. Let me know if you need even more sources.VR talk 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I want to add that Hamas's specific denial includes that its fighters didn't commit the rapes, but were committed by militants from other groups as well as non-affiliated persons. I've also seen Hamas challenge the credentials of certain alleged Hamas fighters (this is from Arabic language sources, I'll have to dig it up). These are generally difficult claims to rebut as Hamas fighters typically aren't uniformed and thus hard to distinguish. How many RS specifically rebut this claim? VR talk 02:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most sources, refer directly to Hamas having committed sexual violence, adding a source. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html Homerethegreat (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't access that source, because its behind a paywall, but does that source directly refute Hamas's claim that the militants who did the sexual violence belonged to groups other than Hamas? VR talk 15:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a TOI article that reported on the NYT, though I'm not certain it summarizes everything.https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-harrowing-detail-nyt-shows-weaponization-of-rape-sexual-violence-during-oct-7/. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Homerethegreat An independent international court can decide, as requested by Hamas leaders. A United Nations investigation committee is currently examining war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas in their conflict. The committee is focusing on allegations of sexual violence linked to Hamas, despite Israeli complaints about the perceived silence of the United Nations. Tel Aviv alleges bias on the part of the committee and has declared its refusal to cooperate with the investigation. (source)
 * __
 * Therefore, both points need to be mentioned. The New York Times is a newspaper and not an international court. Otherwise, the international court wouldn't need to exist. Riad Salih (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a Wikipedia policy to support your argument that a court must decide due weight and not Wikipedia editors? Nemov (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a policy where the mention of both sides is a false undue weight? Riad Salih (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For your question please review WP:DUE which states that an article represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. This is an article about gender-based violence that happened. The denial isn't a significant viewpoint to that reality. I still await your answer to my question. Nemov (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * DUE-ness is decided neither by courts nor the personal opinions of wikipedians but by the reliable sources. In fact, WP:DUE specifically rules out "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." VR talk 20:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No per Figureofnine. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. The comments re WP:LEAD and WP:FALSEBALANCE are well-taken, and the references to criminal cases, the need for an international tribunal to determine if there really were widespread rapes, etc etc lack grounding in the reality of the overwhelming evidence that the assaults took place. The limited size of this lead also raises a WP:WEIGHT issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. RS overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, report on the denial. We may find the denials non-credible, or distasteful, or outright offensive, but it's not what we think that matters, it's what RS are reporting, and they're reporting on the denial. It's not undue if it's a piece of information that's conveyed in virtually every source. It's also worthwhile to note that Hamas has denied that their own fighters were the perpetrators of the alleged sexual violence—RS have presented evidence that sexual violence occurred, but to my knowledge, they have been much less definitive on the specific affiliations (if any) of the perpetrators. This is important context. WillowCity  (talk)  04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. At this point the consensus of reliable sources is that the violence occurred; giving such prominence to these denials despite this consensus would be to give them WP:UNDUE weight. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes per VR's rationale and sources above. A news published just a day ago states that Israeli police unable to verify 'Hamas rape' stories. As the conflict is on-going and new developments are coming up everyday (like many news outlets initially reported that 40 babies were beheaded which turned out to be false later) so it is better to be responsible and follow WP:UNDUE. --Bringtar (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even if Hamas were found guilty by some international court, it's still valuable context to know how an accused party respond(s/ed) to a charge raised against it. Zanahary (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not how the policy works. Based on WP:VOICE - this is exactly the case here. The idea that there was no sexual or gender-based violence in the October 7 attack is comprehensively debunked and such claims do not deserve any weight in the lead. Marokwitz (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea that there was no sexual or gender-based violence in the October 7 attack is not the issue. Whether some, most or all of the many claims, some made on surmisal by distressed, highly partisan, people with no forensic knowledge are true is one issue and whether the sexual violence was planned and systematic is another. Forensic assessment of individual claims and neutral collation of the bigger picture would be difficult under perfect circumstances, which these are not, but that process has barely begun. To compare scepticism about some of the sexual violence reports (until they have been rigorously tested) to holocaust denial is absurd. 75 years of scholarship, 1,000s of named witnesses (from both 'sides') and reams of documentary evidence all underpin the truth about the holocaust, but that truth may not have been immediately apparent in 1944 and the scale not apparent until later.
 * This would not be the first time that atrocity stories were circulated by WP:RS during wartime - even possibly in good faith. I believe that UK papers were full of lurid tales of German soldiers mass-raping and systematically violating Belgian women during the early weeks of WWI, most turned out to have little substance. Pincrete (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With due respect, we should not act according to how much one personally believes Sexual violence occurred or not. We need to follow RS. RS say sexual violence occurred.
 * Regarding if denial should be mentioned in lead. On the one hand per NPOV it could be argued that it ought be mentioned. However in this case I think it would create a significant issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Per Coretheapple, Nemov and BilledMammal on falsebalance and wp:lead, I do not support inclusion (No). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is essential information about the charge itself. A reader would naturally want to know whether the accused party acknowledges, apologizes for, is proud of, denies etc. the alleged act. I’m not suggesting we add some other discredited party’s denial; I think Hamas’ should be there because they are an involved party. Zanahary (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stricken. I now oppose. Zanahary (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Not in the lede. The denial should be and is mentionted in the body of the article. WP:FALSEBALANCE Path2space (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes per NOTMANDY. In response to some of the no votes, Hamas' POV on the issue is controversial enough to include in the lead. It is not undue to briefly state that there has been a denial. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes per voorts Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No Largely per the points above. While numerous RS sources have noted Hamas' denials, virtually none have treated them as credible. The evidence and the clear consensus of reliable sources is that these crimes did in fact occur. While the denials should be noted in the body of the article, to include them in the lead would be UNDUE and lend credibility to claims that are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Virtually no sources treat some of Israel's claims as credible (that it only targets Hamas members, that its soldiery don't ignore international law by shooting dead people who are waving white flags or who are clearly civilians), but they are included precisely because they are part of the narrative, not because WP or sources find them inherently credible or otherwise. Both sides credibility will be judged eventually. That crimes occurred on Oct 7th is indisputable, who committed them and whether they were planned is less certain as yet. The 'fog of war' isn't a great place to decide who tells the truth and who 'spins' a story. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No Their denial can be placed in the body of the article, but should not be placed in the lead per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Some1 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. As mentioned by numerous other editors there is a plethora reliable sources which cover the denial. To not cover it with equal weight would be to posit that the official Israeli line is the only possibility and is taking a POV. TarnishedPathtalk 11:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes as every reliable source that discusses this includes the denials, making it a DUE violation not to do so in the lead.  nableezy  - 21:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NoThe denial when there are numerous proofs of the violence are not credible and should not be put in the lead. Hamas is a biased source of information and their statements regarding this are not relevant especially considering the body of proof to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs)
 * Yes - Vice regent has provided above more than enough reliable sources reporting on the denial, so this settles WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Whether the denial is credible is up to editors to address by simply writing content on the credibility of the denial, based on reliable sources, instead of just omitting the denial.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No - it would be UNDUE to include them in the lede. At best, they should be in the article's body, and frankly I'm not particularly convinced of that either. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When did your being convinced trump the weight sources give to it become what UNDUE means?  nableezy  - 17:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps rephrasing it in a less aggressive way that makes more grammatical sense? ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When did your being convinced be what determines weight as opposed to the fact that every source that covers any accusation of rape includes the denial? When did your judgment trump the sources? When did the coverage sources give something, and they all give coverage to the denial, not be what DUE is based on?  nableezy  - 02:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but can you at least try arguing something I've actually said, as opposed to a strawman? You understand that I'm allowed to interpret our policies differently than you do, right? I've offered my opinion, and have no interest in engaging with you further on this topic -- you do not own this RFC and your behavior is crossing the line into badgering. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You quite literally made an assertion it was undue and then claimed you need to be convinced it should even be in the body. Sources determine what is due, not partisan Wikipedia editors. Asking a question and responding to requests is not badgering.  nableezy  - 10:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's quite a misrepresentation of what I said, and the claim that I'm a "partisan" editor is wildly out of line. Now go badger someone else, we're done here. Do not interact with me further, on this RFC or elsewhere. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a literal rephrasing of what you said: it would be UNDUE to include them in the lede - an assertion it was undue. At best, they should be in the article's body, and frankly I'm not particularly convinced of that either - claimed you need to be convinced it should even be in the body. And admin or not, you dont get to ban people from interacting with you, but we are indeed done here. Toodles,  nableezy  - 14:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes per the sources mentioned by VR above. If all of the reliable sources are covering this then it can't be WP:FALSEBALANCE to mention it in the lead, even if independent sourcing so far suggests such denials may be baseless. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No per points above and Ad Orientem. Evidence and consensus of sources contradicts Hamas' denials. Still, I think they are important and should be placed somewhere in the body where they make sense. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, by Pincrete and Nableezy, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No based on the weight given by RS, the overwhelming evidence, low credibility of Hamas, as well as other arguments made above. While a finished version could theoretically include it without FALSEBALANCE, this one cannot.FortunateSons (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No (invited by the bot) The denial is just the inevitable implausible statement by the perpetrator and so while the body can carry it, it is undue for the lead. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m convinced by this, and I’m changing my vote to oppose. Zanahary (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No (invited by the bot), as above as well. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Figureofnine, I think this is premature. RfCs are time consuming for commenters and we haven't even invested very much time in this issue. The time between your initial edit and this RfC was less than an hour. I don't think we've spent sufficient time actually trying to resolve this dispute.
 * About ten minutes before you posted this RfC, I asked you to cite specific parts of the policies you use to back your arguments. Please do that. Wracking  talk! 23:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


 * From WP:LEAD on "relative emphasis": "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The "relative importance" given to the perfunctory Hamas denial in reliable sources is slight to none, as illustrated in today's Wall Street Journal article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By contrast, the New York Times puts the denial in the Subhead (the line right below the Headline). Different sources give different weight to the denial.VR talk 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, it seems to be a good idea than that an RFC was opened on this since different sources put different weight as said by VR and so it seems a good idea to decide what weight is given here. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This issue was first discussed on talk at 23:07 and the RfC was opened at 23:41 a mere 34 minutes later. This is yet another violation of WP:RFCBEFORE.VR talk 19:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Figureofnine Your examples are drawn from Western media coverage; you can find the opposite perspective in Arabic media, where they might highlight that Hamas is seeking international court involvement. Your choice of media coverage seems to align with your perspective. WP:RSUW Riad Salih (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Following a 17-day visit to Israel, the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict reported on Monday that she and a team of experts had found “clear and convincing information” of rape, and sexualized torture being committed against hostages seized during the 7 October terror attacks.
 * Comment - Why is this an RfC, and why do people think their personal opinion of who may or may not have done what to whom trumps Wikipedia policy? WP:LEAD. Lead summarises body. It really is that simple. Accusations and allegations have been made. Denials have been made. Investigations are underway. All of that is covered in the article. All of that should be summarised in the lead. Again - it really is that simple. I am not participating in an RfC that appears to be about overturning longstanding policy. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment A UN report yesterday stated as follows, according to its executive summary:

Pramila Patten added in a press release issued along with the report, that there are also reasonable grounds to believe that such violence, which includes other “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”, may be continuing against those still being held by Hamas and other extremists in the Gaza Strip.

The report from her Office, arose from an official visit to Israel at the invitation of the Government, which included a visit to the occupied West Bank, between 29 January and 14 February.

In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.

The team also found a pattern of victims, mostly women, found fully or partially naked, bound and shot across multiple locations which “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.

In some locations, the mission said it could not verify reported incidents of rape. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217 Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That should also be in the summary of the article. Aka the lead. But even sources reporting on this continue to include the Hamas denial. Eg NY Times includes: Hamas leaders denied the accusations, and the U.N. report, noting the array of fighters who took part in the Oct. 7 attacks, said its experts could not determine who was responsible for the sexual assaults. Every article that discusses these accusations includes the denial, making it necessary for any reasonable summary of the topic to also include them.  nableezy  - 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But not in the leads of the articles but in the text, which is precisely what this RfC involves. It does not deal with removal of the denial in toto but just from the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the article, things that are in the body are supposed to be summarized in the lead.  nableezy  - 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nearly 2 years ago, the woman behind this report, Pramila Patten, stated that Russian soldiers were given  Viagra  before they were sent into Ukraine -this was taken as "proof" that mass rape of Ukrainians was a "Russian policy". This was reported in all the western press.  The problem is that she later admitted that  she had exactly zero proof of this, she based her statement solely on Ukrainen sources (Including one who was later dismissed due to fabricating storyes about rape of babies, etc).
 * And now we get a new report from her, this time solely based on Israeli sources? Hmmm.
 * (Btw, if anyone remembers back to 2011: allegations that Muammar Gaddafi forces were using Viagra/rape as a tactic was also spread there: AFAIK; they have later found zero evidence for that.) Huldra (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine seems like a more suitable venue for the dirt you're dishing on Ms. Patten. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or Pramila Patten for that matter. If she's a fabricator as you appear to believe, doesn't that kind of information belong in those texts? Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not dirt, it is fact. Btw. ms Patten had nothing to do with the lies about rape in Libya in 2011.
 * Also, I saw on one web-page dedicated to Oct7 (was it https://www.october7.org?) pictures of a (presumely) dead women, face down, with her trousers lowered to her knees. That picture turned out to be a few years old, of female Peshmerga soldiers. The web-site later removed it.
 * And pictures of one of the female Israeli soldiers, before she was taken to Gaza with a blodied groin, taken as a "proof" that she had  been raped(!) To me, as a cis-woman, it was a proof, eh, an indication that the woman had her period, and had no opportunity to change her tampon/pad.
 * I am on a wiki-break at the moment, otherwise I would have looked into the articles you mention (and a thousand others), There has just been so many lies told about Oct 7; I think utmost care should be taken. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your position on this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Some"
I added the word "some" before this sentence in the opening paragraph "Israeli women and girls were reportedly", which was swiftly removed. The edit history seems too messy to take a look and try to find out who. Are we really going to imply with this that all women have been assaulted? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I doubt that any sane reader would understand it as "all". — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But they wouldn't understand it as some either. So better to clarify. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary and 'some' is so vague as to be pointless IMO.Pincrete (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Makeandtoss The word "some" is unnecessary. No reader would ever assume that all Israeli women were raped. This word just seems to downplay the severity of the events, with no obvious reason. TimeEngineer (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How does the inclusion of this word downplays the severity of the events and the lack of doesn’t overplays it? We need a numerical explanation otherwise this is just purposefully vague and left for the reader to assume what had happened. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no "numerical explanation" yet. By this logic, we can also say "most" women. But we don't know, except it is likely that the current hostages are being sexually abused and there was systematic rape committed, per U.N. and the Israeli Rape Crisis Center. "Some" is unnecessary. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think "reportedly" is unnecessary. It is fact that women and girls were raped, whether one wants to justify or close their eyes. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that "some" doesn't add anything and is unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please suggest an alternative as middle ground, otherwise that would be kept vague and readers will overestimate the size of this, contrary to RS which have stated that a number of incidents have happened. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A large number of incidents, and par the UN repott, probably a lot larger than we realize. There is no "middle ground" because we do not know the exact number. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see that some adds anything here especially in the context it was added. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1212854231] I mean if the intention was to say that only some of the victims of the attacks suffered sexual abuse, the modification doesn't convey that any more than the original version does. Even if we were to modify it so it specifically refers to victims of the attack, WP:SOME is just too vague to convey any meaningful info IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a reasonable alternative that is descriptive and does not downplay or overplay the allegations. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Israeli NYT journalist who reported on the "sexual violence" of Hamas liked post calling for the transformation of Gaza "into a slaughterhouse"
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/r19j6pfna

Should definitely be noted in the article. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Democracy Now reported on this. It's a better source than ynetnews. Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * good criticism of this bunk: https://twitter.com/daniela127/status/1764393496327135321 Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Really bad criticism that tries to say that "turn the strip into a slaughterhouse" is a comparably biased and disqualifying statement to "how can anyone justify this?" OwlbearArmchair (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only is it just a twitter account the first critique plays off that the fact there is 0 forensic evidence of mass rape.
 * If that's cool with you then accept you're aim is to not to be objective, but to be an ideologue. Teenyplayspop (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

New article from the Intercept, "Between the Hammer and the Anvil" The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that provides a RS for a lot of information that has only been available on sites which I assume are not admissible e.g. Mondoweiss. I just added information about the "woman in the black dress" using the article as the main RS but also citing the Mondoweiss and Ynet original sources as backup. I need to get back to my day job, but there is also stuff in Intercept about other witnesses, I will add something about Schwartz right now too, and when I get time I can add more.Keizers (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mondo is OK too, with attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus was reached in the recent RSN RfC on Mondo, which was archived without a close. As this is an extremely sensitive topic, we should avoid it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Close has been requested. And I see no reason to avoid it if it adds to the story here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both, that the NYT article was unsceptical, careless, vague and not backed by solid evidence was fairly self-evident already, but that that article falls to pieces so soon and so spectacularly is a surprise. This colours our whole coverage of the topic.Pincrete (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The unravelling of the New York Times’ ‘Hamas rape’ story AJ Listening Post video. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Kibbutz Be’eri Rejects Story in New York Times October 7 Exposé: “They Were Not Sexually Abused” Selfstudier (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)