Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 4 June 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and a reasonable policy-based argument that the current title more accurately reflects the scope of the content and consistency with similar topics in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 18:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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".[1] 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.

References

  1. ^ "What is gender-based violence? - Gender Matters". Council of Europe.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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[1] and human rights organizations[2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Time out people. Really not the discussion of this RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but RMs can also discuss other suggestions.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "sexual violence" minus Israel's central claims of rape, sexual torture, and genital mutilation? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose It's important to match the language of the reports and articles that are widely cited on the page imo. And many if not most of those, like the UN reports, consistently refer to sexual and gender-based violence (SGVB).
Also ambiguity isn't a good argument to oppose the use of "gender-based violence", as the same applies to "sexual violence". Both cover a wide array and range of actions, from any footage taken of partially dressed bodies by bodycams to verbal humiliation up to direct sexualized violence and torture, against both men and women. If you ask editors to come up with a singular definition of "sexual violence" to cover all instantiations of it noted in the various reports and testimonies, including those on the page, you'll end up with differing definitions as well that don't cover the entire range, and it bleeds into distinctively gender-based violence that's not explicitly sexualized. That ambiguity isn't a good reason to not use the term - rather it's why SGBV should be the standard as it adds further clarity to the inherent ambiguity of both terms by themselves.
This is why feminist scholars came up with the term "sexual and gender-based violence" and it became adopted in the human and women's rights community. Here is a good piece going over the concept and the methods used to come up with distinctive empirical findings regarding gender-based violence, specifically against women and girls. Notice that it includes forms of violence that are on the page like coercion, genital mutilation, humiliation, kidnapping, and forms of violence that are not necessarily sexualized but still gendered in nature, and targeted against girls and women in particular. This is one of the major claims the page discusses, not just a targeted campaign of sexual violence, but of gender-based violence against girls and women. And again this not surprising given that it extensively cites from UN and other reports that use the same concept and methods. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sexual and gender-based violence - UNHCR Türkiye". Sexual and gender-based violence - UNHCR Türkiye. Retrieved 18 June 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Sexual and gender-based violence". Médecins Sans Frontières. Retrieved 18 June 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Oppose. The term Sexual and Gender-Based Violence is precise and inclusive. It encompasses a wide range of harmful acts. Waqar💬 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overview

[edit]

Why does this exist, specially after such a gargantuan lead? It seems like a pretty random, idle snapshot of information that does an even poorer job of summarizing anything than the lead. It therefore seems thoroughly needless, and unless someone object profusely, I'm going to remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information can be re-organised and earlier and less reliable sources can be removed when we have better ones. We need to discuss the motivation somewhere, and possibly some information from the lede can be moved to that section. I'm pinging @Keizers who wrote a big part of this section. Alaexis¿question? 21:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered moving parts from the lede to the overview after it was helpfully trimmed by @Kashmiri but that makes no sense as there already are relevant sections for each of those parts, like the detailed overview of the UN reports and criticisms of the UN. I agree with @Iskandar323, I don't really see the point of the overview section, it restates what is already in the lede. As for the Assessments of motivation, it can be put in the general body of the page. The best place for it imo is in the evidence category at the end. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok since the lede has been mostly fixed now to avoid unnecessary repetition and be concise, the Overview category was just repeating what was already there, so I moved those parts to the Evidence category where I think it fits quite well. The motivation section is at the end, and the introduction at the beginning. If there are any objections do let me know here and we can discuss it, but this should resolve the issue raised by @Iskandar323 Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of qualifier

[edit]

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

$64,000 questions. The short answer to "how many" seems to be that nobody knows or has counted (for good and not-so-good reasons) and the short answer to 'systematic?' seems to be no evidence that it was, but still disputed. Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN report mentions three if I am not mistaken. If the scale and nature is disputed then that should be reflected in the opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an inline tag for the lack of quantification. This is a serious long-standing POV issue that has never been addressed, and, it seems, refuses to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The figure is unclear as @Pincrete noted, but "dozens" at the most is what has been reported by most reliable sources, and is reflected in the second paragraph of the lede citing Israeli police sources. Patten said the same: "But, she added, “I do not have numbers in the report because for me one case is more than enough,” she told reporters. “The first letter that I received from the government of Israel talked about hundreds or thousands of cases of brutal sexual violence perpetrated against men, women and children. I have not found anything like that.”
So imo just put "dozens" in the first sentence of the lede as well and that should resolve it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to do that by inserting "some" a few months ago, I was swiftly reverted. So does everyone here agree on adding "dozens" to the opening sentence? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" is probably too vague, but I don't see why anyone would object to dozens when that is what has been reported, including by Israeli police as noted in the second paragraph right now.
Also, to avoid needless repetition it might be best to remove the "Israeli police said dozens..." in the second paragraph of the lede if "dozens" is added to the first sentence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskolnikov.Rev: Can you please add it? We are both supporting this addition and there is no opposition to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how best to phrase this, but the fact that we really have no idea how widespread the sexual violence was, nor even how much has been claimed semms a notable feature/oddity in itself. 'Dozens' if used should be attributed in some form IMO.Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is indeed very odd. The dozens figure is the most solid reliable approximation that has been provided by the Israeli police, specifically Meni Binyamin, the head of the International Crime Investigations Unit as cited in the New York Times in December. NBC News and BBC also went with the dozens figure, citing Israeli police and officials.
Note that these articles are far from perfect, they contain claims about cases of sexual violence/rape/mutilation that were discredited by later reporting, like the Patten report, the AP and Times of London investigations. But for this specific claim they're citing Israeli police and other officials so that's as reliable as you can get as a source for the amount.
So I think the best way to resolve the quantification issue is to have the first sentence as is, then move the sentence from the second paragraph right after it: "Israeli police said dozens of women and some men were raped." And link to the NYT piece as the source for that as it names the specific official giving that figure. That shouldn't be controversial as it's already in the lede in the second paragraph, we're just moving it up.
If there are not objections I'll move ahead with this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

[edit]

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

For example, we say that the commission

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

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

The Commission did not find credible evidence, however, that militants received orders to commit sexual violence and so it was unable to make conclusions on this issue. ... [T]he Commission found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.

We say that

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

while TOI says,

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

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

Reportedly and civility

[edit]

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

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

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

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

I can also reference dictionary definitions. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "reportedly" means "according to what many people say" or "according to what is said about something". Hardly an expression of doubt.
The word was added to the Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war article hours ago by the same editor who reverted you.
Btw, I find the contrast in wording striking. Hamas members are labeled as "rapists" (despite no UN report confirming this) while Israeli soldiers "committed sex crimes".
Anyways, since you offered two alternatives—removing the word here or re-adding it in the other article—and one has been fulfilled, I believe this resolves the issue. - Ïvana (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah abd Israelis committed sexual crimes including rape (per UN). And Hamas are rapists, as the UN said explicitly members of Hamas and other Palestinian militants committed sex crimes and gender-based violence and this was not isolated at all. Hope this helps! Thank you fof seeing my point and resolving the issue. :) Winter queen lizzie (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no civility issues; All my actions have been civil and in line with ensuring NPOV and respect for community consensus. If we're going to accuse editors of not following Wiki rules, then I can say that you're violating NPOV standards with your edits that are controversial before seeking consensus, which you have done consistently on this and other pages (including reverts of consensus edits). This is a case in point: If you had brought up your issues with "reportedly", I would have explained that it does not mean what you think it means (as Ïvana noted, dictionary definitions vary as the term is used in a variety of contexts, and in this one it clearly just mean "as reported by" the outlets in the references).
Furthermore, I would have done what I did, namely add the same term to the lede of the other page. I was not involved in discussions to remove that, and I don't believe it should be, because again it does not mean anything other than that something has been reported. Both pages are filled with the term being used in that way.
I'm glad the issue is resolved now. In future, if you know an edit is going to be controversial as you knew here because you were aware it led to a discussion on the other page that apparently your position lost (one in which I would have sided with you on if I had been aware of it), kindly seek consensus first before going ahead with it. That's what I always do with edits I know will lead to controversy, again per Wiki rules. That's the best way to ensure civility too as it avoids needless reverts of controversial edits and the potential feelings of conflict that comes with it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra source

[edit]

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

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

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

"propaganda purposes that seek to dehumanize Palestinian men and justify genocide" In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: D'oh!. This is not a new phenomenon, the Israelis have been using such propaganda for decades. And last I checked the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still within living memory. We already have United Nations findings from 1983 that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were responsible for genocide. What stops them from doing it again and again? Dimadick (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lemkin Institute text seems pretty good to me (apart from the amount of credence it gives to a Twitter thread by Max Blumenthal, which doesn't inspire confidence in reliability), but I'm not sure how noteworthy it is given it has had zero secondary coverage and the Institute itself doesn't seem like a very solid organisation from its website or our article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a secondary source, 'Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere,' so why are you asking for secondary coverage of a secondary source? One cannot mention Blumenthal as a primary source, but you can if cited in a secondary source, as he is there. The paper refers to many primary source arguments, and interprets them critically.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

[edit]

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

 Done, thanks for letting us know! Alaexis¿question? 19:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1242055395"