From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women in the black dress section

There is a huge amount of detail of this specific case, compared to the others. Is that simply because it the most reported case and therefore this is due? The case is not mentioned in the article on the massacre at the festival - should some of the detail be removed here and moved there? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In the long run definitely, I would consider waiting for more thorough coverage post war, but that could take time, so it sounds reasonable. FortunateSons ( talk) 09:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Another example of a piece of early evidence for such assaults collapsing

courtesy of the NYTs. Nishidani ( talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:RECENTISM rears its ugly head. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is a bit bizarre since this particular allegation had been questioned months ago. Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings or the tragic witness testimony released today. SalomeofJudea (Maria) ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Several major claims that dominated the first month of reportage collapsed. It is more than probable, as this woman's testimony states, that sexual violence occurred. Rape apart (though even there many similar reports have emerged over the decades regarding Israeli treatment of their untrialed Palestinian hostages) what she says directly mirrors what numerous Palestinian women have claimed of the way Israeli troops treat them in this war. No one is surely claimed that in either case we have a chimaera. What we ask is that, given the exposure of consistently false claims made by Israeli authorities, that editors exercise extreme caution. In this one case, a certain Mohammad (Islamic Jihad, Hamas?) raped an Israeli woman he held hostage in his house. That is way below the minimal threshold for the accusation that rape was a deliberate tactic ordered by Hamas (perhaps it was, but a wide accusation requires strong evidence). Nishidani ( talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings The trouble is threefold IMO. Firstly many of the 'investigators' are not investigating, and have not done so, what they are doing is little more than confirming that witness statements have been made. For many reasons, some totally valid, the UN, some of the Israeli medical and investigative bodies say they CANNOT check primary evidence, and forensic evidence was simply not obtained when available, or has been destroyed. The police (last I heard) refused to give numbers of what they believe occurred and some local organisations are clearly propagandist in intent, mor concerned with weaponising accusations that establishing facts/scale. So who exactly - if anyone - is establishing facts.
Secondly, any partial confirmation (some of the tentative confirmations speak of very small numbers of assaults or assault locations) is being leapt on to 'prove' that the whole 'mass rape/mass sexual violence' narrative is wholly true. Given the scale of incursion, (some of it by oppurtunist non-militants) it would be surprising if no sexual violence occurred, since we know that such normally does occur in 'conflict' situations, but the scale claimed by Israeli govt sources would also be very surprising since such kind of violence has been largely absent from the Isr-Pal conflict (though sometimes a feature of both sides propaganda), since before 1948. Establishing scale is critical to establishing how 'general' this was, but is hardly being critically evaluated at all.
Thirdly, we have little attempt to distinguish degrees of sexual violence. One woman was taken back to Gaza, tied up like a prize cow and paraded to the Gaza populace. This is very humiliating treatment with a sexual element to it, but it isn't mass-gang-rape. There are obviously reasons of sensitivity about what can be disclosed in public, particulary about living people, but the net effect of all this is a barrage of accusation, with little detail and crumbs of evidence to date, coupled with govt clearly weaponising the accusation to detract from its own actions.
We of course need to cover this within sources, but those sources are more cautious than editors here sometimes claim IMO. Pincrete ( talk) 04:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Witness Testimony

A woman who was sexually tortured by Hamas has finally come forward. I will be adding shortly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/world/middleeast/hamas-hostage-sexual-assault.html SalomeofJudea (Maria) ( talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Warning about edits

A prominent twitter user is telling people to edit this and related articles, in addition to calling out specific wiki editors. Delderd ( talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 27 March 2024

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: MOVE. Per consensus at parent page. [1] ( non-admin closure) Toadspike ( talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply


Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on IsraelSexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – The main page for this is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GnocchiFan ( talk) 16:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support The child article should align with the parent article, per WP: CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support for consistency, and to allow for inclusion of violence against hostages without being technically inaccurate. FortunateSons ( talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per Iskandar323 and FortunateSons. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose '7 October' is a term strongly connected to the Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023. As per WP:CRITERIA:
  • Recognizable – '7 October attack' is used in the media and is a common search term. Google' data shows a dramatic increase in searches for '7 October' since the time of attack- worldwide statistics.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look for and search for. (see above)
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the event, even without specifying the year.
  • Concision – The original title is clearly shorter than the suggested one.
  • Consistency - there are other titles of dramatic events that share similar patterns. September 11 attacks is one. GidiD ( talk) 16:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You are relitigating the debate from the parent page. If you think the parent page name should change and you have new evidence versus the last RM, please go and make that case there. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support Doubtful that 7 October will have lasting significance for an average audience and this issue was anyway already addressed at the parent article. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support for consistency with parent article. Also, I dare to say that hardly anybody outside the Western world has any idea what "7 October" may stand for; much like most of the population outside India has no idea what " 15 August" means. — kashmīrī  TALK 11:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support: The suggested title is consistent with the parent article. -- Mhhossein talk 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
‘’’Support’’’ per parent article. Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:37, 1 April 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.

NYT date format

Using Visual editor I changed the date format of "Israeli Hostage Says She Was Sexually Assaulted and Tortured in Gaza" from 2024-03-26 to 26 March 2024. After realising it was the NYT I changed it to March 26, 2024 but even though that's how it appears in Source Editor 26 March 2024 still appears in the citation. Why didn't the format change the 2nd time? Mcljlm ( talk) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing that error in source-edit mode. Assuming it remains, I'd suggest broaching it at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

MondoWeiss

Note of recent closure of RfC about MondoWeiss: There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. We should not be using it for potentially defamatory remarks about crime witnesses. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should take note that while anonymous wikipedians make that kind of call, the eminences grises of American foreign policy scholarship, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ( The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Outside the Box Podcast, 18 April 2024), berate the total unreliability of both the NYTs and the Wall(eared)Street Journal on the I/P world because of their almost total sidedness, and appraise positively Mondoweiss, (as well as The Greyzone and the Electronic Intifada) as important alternative sources of information. And they cite in this regard the way such media have provided serious arguments about the systematic use of invented or distorted allegations to prioritize Israel's POV. The essential difference is that they know the historical realities of the subject intimately, and perceive that the mainstream US media generally are wholly biased in favour of a univocal narrative. Nishidani ( talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Mondoweiss is definitely not a source we should use for such a matter. Why didn't they speak with Gali's brother and mother who had expressed no doubts that the rape happened a few days before the MW article was published? Did they think why a relatives of a victim of rape might want to deny that it happened? They were happy to use whatever fit their agenda and ignored everything else. Alaexis ¿question? 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure how to serves NPOV and balance to simply delete it. By all accounts, the controversy around this testimony is notable. To simply vanish that controversy is to lend credence to the original dubious POV accounts that imply a certain sequence of events that remains wholly unevidenced by actual empirical fact-finding. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not a valid reason for using a dubious source that "should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people" per WP:RSP.
If there is a real controversy, it should be covered by RS and then we can report on it. If it's just MW it's not due.
Please note that the onus to achieve consensus is on the editors wishing to add or retain disputed content. Alaexis ¿question? 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's an NPOV/balance issue, Iskandar; I think it's a reliability issue and a BLP issue: using a borderline reliable source for material that is potentially defamatory. The concern you raise in your edit summary that deleting leaves the YNet material standing alone, which is potentially dishonouring towards a recently deceased person, is a very good point, and I'm not sure the best way to deal with that. (Possibly delete both halves, and wait until the dust has cleared before including all these details?)
While I don't disagree that the controversy around this testimony is noteworthy, I don't know if MondoWeiss' reporting on it is noteworthy: the only references to MondoWeiss specifically relating to this testimony are The Intercept, a very brief mention Middle in East Eye, a further reading list at the end of an Electronic Intifada piece, and a brief quote from The Intercept that cites MW in an opinion piece in The Nation. Apart from maybe The Intercept, those are all super-weak sources (hyperpartisan non-GREL and/or second hand in an op ed).
Therefore, given the risks, I'd argue for erring on the side of caution and removing it for now, and seeing where the story goes once the controversy dies down. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Alaexis, according to the YNET article to which you link, Abdush's family first learned about the (alleged) rape from the NYT article. They are of no more value as witnesses than the rest of us. Our prejudices about which papers and which narratives we are inclined to believe are more significant than any kind of evidence either way, which appears to be nearly non-existent, despite the huge narrative around this case. Pincrete ( talk) 07:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Luckily, though, we are not in the business of collecting evidence, so we don't need to assess the reliability of witnesses. Our job is simply to reflect what reliable sources find noteworthy. I notice The Intercept cites YNet so it feels like some of their reporting is due, although we don't want it to get undue prominence. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We are in the business of recording & to a degree evaluating evidence. Some of the proferred 'evidence' has been wholly or largely discredited, or shown to have very little value, some of it is cyclic. Normal constraints as to what is/is not an RS hardly rise to the ocassion. Pincrete ( talk) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with Bob and Alaexis on this. Figureofnine ( talkcontribs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women in the black dress section

There is a huge amount of detail of this specific case, compared to the others. Is that simply because it the most reported case and therefore this is due? The case is not mentioned in the article on the massacre at the festival - should some of the detail be removed here and moved there? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In the long run definitely, I would consider waiting for more thorough coverage post war, but that could take time, so it sounds reasonable. FortunateSons ( talk) 09:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Another example of a piece of early evidence for such assaults collapsing

courtesy of the NYTs. Nishidani ( talk) 09:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:RECENTISM rears its ugly head. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is a bit bizarre since this particular allegation had been questioned months ago. Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings or the tragic witness testimony released today. SalomeofJudea (Maria) ( talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Several major claims that dominated the first month of reportage collapsed. It is more than probable, as this woman's testimony states, that sexual violence occurred. Rape apart (though even there many similar reports have emerged over the decades regarding Israeli treatment of their untrialed Palestinian hostages) what she says directly mirrors what numerous Palestinian women have claimed of the way Israeli troops treat them in this war. No one is surely claimed that in either case we have a chimaera. What we ask is that, given the exposure of consistently false claims made by Israeli authorities, that editors exercise extreme caution. In this one case, a certain Mohammad (Islamic Jihad, Hamas?) raped an Israeli woman he held hostage in his house. That is way below the minimal threshold for the accusation that rape was a deliberate tactic ordered by Hamas (perhaps it was, but a wide accusation requires strong evidence). Nishidani ( talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Which doesn't invalidate the UN findings The trouble is threefold IMO. Firstly many of the 'investigators' are not investigating, and have not done so, what they are doing is little more than confirming that witness statements have been made. For many reasons, some totally valid, the UN, some of the Israeli medical and investigative bodies say they CANNOT check primary evidence, and forensic evidence was simply not obtained when available, or has been destroyed. The police (last I heard) refused to give numbers of what they believe occurred and some local organisations are clearly propagandist in intent, mor concerned with weaponising accusations that establishing facts/scale. So who exactly - if anyone - is establishing facts.
Secondly, any partial confirmation (some of the tentative confirmations speak of very small numbers of assaults or assault locations) is being leapt on to 'prove' that the whole 'mass rape/mass sexual violence' narrative is wholly true. Given the scale of incursion, (some of it by oppurtunist non-militants) it would be surprising if no sexual violence occurred, since we know that such normally does occur in 'conflict' situations, but the scale claimed by Israeli govt sources would also be very surprising since such kind of violence has been largely absent from the Isr-Pal conflict (though sometimes a feature of both sides propaganda), since before 1948. Establishing scale is critical to establishing how 'general' this was, but is hardly being critically evaluated at all.
Thirdly, we have little attempt to distinguish degrees of sexual violence. One woman was taken back to Gaza, tied up like a prize cow and paraded to the Gaza populace. This is very humiliating treatment with a sexual element to it, but it isn't mass-gang-rape. There are obviously reasons of sensitivity about what can be disclosed in public, particulary about living people, but the net effect of all this is a barrage of accusation, with little detail and crumbs of evidence to date, coupled with govt clearly weaponising the accusation to detract from its own actions.
We of course need to cover this within sources, but those sources are more cautious than editors here sometimes claim IMO. Pincrete ( talk) 04:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Witness Testimony

A woman who was sexually tortured by Hamas has finally come forward. I will be adding shortly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/world/middleeast/hamas-hostage-sexual-assault.html SalomeofJudea (Maria) ( talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Warning about edits

A prominent twitter user is telling people to edit this and related articles, in addition to calling out specific wiki editors. Delderd ( talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 27 March 2024

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: MOVE. Per consensus at parent page. [1] ( non-admin closure) Toadspike ( talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply


Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on IsraelSexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – The main page for this is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GnocchiFan ( talk) 16:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support The child article should align with the parent article, per WP: CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support for consistency, and to allow for inclusion of violence against hostages without being technically inaccurate. FortunateSons ( talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per Iskandar323 and FortunateSons. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose '7 October' is a term strongly connected to the Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023. As per WP:CRITERIA:
  • Recognizable – '7 October attack' is used in the media and is a common search term. Google' data shows a dramatic increase in searches for '7 October' since the time of attack- worldwide statistics.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look for and search for. (see above)
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the event, even without specifying the year.
  • Concision – The original title is clearly shorter than the suggested one.
  • Consistency - there are other titles of dramatic events that share similar patterns. September 11 attacks is one. GidiD ( talk) 16:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You are relitigating the debate from the parent page. If you think the parent page name should change and you have new evidence versus the last RM, please go and make that case there. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support Doubtful that 7 October will have lasting significance for an average audience and this issue was anyway already addressed at the parent article. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support for consistency with parent article. Also, I dare to say that hardly anybody outside the Western world has any idea what "7 October" may stand for; much like most of the population outside India has no idea what " 15 August" means. — kashmīrī  TALK 11:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support: The suggested title is consistent with the parent article. -- Mhhossein talk 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
‘’’Support’’’ per parent article. Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:37, 1 April 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.

NYT date format

Using Visual editor I changed the date format of "Israeli Hostage Says She Was Sexually Assaulted and Tortured in Gaza" from 2024-03-26 to 26 March 2024. After realising it was the NYT I changed it to March 26, 2024 but even though that's how it appears in Source Editor 26 March 2024 still appears in the citation. Why didn't the format change the 2nd time? Mcljlm ( talk) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing that error in source-edit mode. Assuming it remains, I'd suggest broaching it at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

MondoWeiss

Note of recent closure of RfC about MondoWeiss: There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. We should not be using it for potentially defamatory remarks about crime witnesses. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should take note that while anonymous wikipedians make that kind of call, the eminences grises of American foreign policy scholarship, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ( The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Outside the Box Podcast, 18 April 2024), berate the total unreliability of both the NYTs and the Wall(eared)Street Journal on the I/P world because of their almost total sidedness, and appraise positively Mondoweiss, (as well as The Greyzone and the Electronic Intifada) as important alternative sources of information. And they cite in this regard the way such media have provided serious arguments about the systematic use of invented or distorted allegations to prioritize Israel's POV. The essential difference is that they know the historical realities of the subject intimately, and perceive that the mainstream US media generally are wholly biased in favour of a univocal narrative. Nishidani ( talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Mondoweiss is definitely not a source we should use for such a matter. Why didn't they speak with Gali's brother and mother who had expressed no doubts that the rape happened a few days before the MW article was published? Did they think why a relatives of a victim of rape might want to deny that it happened? They were happy to use whatever fit their agenda and ignored everything else. Alaexis ¿question? 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure how to serves NPOV and balance to simply delete it. By all accounts, the controversy around this testimony is notable. To simply vanish that controversy is to lend credence to the original dubious POV accounts that imply a certain sequence of events that remains wholly unevidenced by actual empirical fact-finding. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not a valid reason for using a dubious source that "should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people" per WP:RSP.
If there is a real controversy, it should be covered by RS and then we can report on it. If it's just MW it's not due.
Please note that the onus to achieve consensus is on the editors wishing to add or retain disputed content. Alaexis ¿question? 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's an NPOV/balance issue, Iskandar; I think it's a reliability issue and a BLP issue: using a borderline reliable source for material that is potentially defamatory. The concern you raise in your edit summary that deleting leaves the YNet material standing alone, which is potentially dishonouring towards a recently deceased person, is a very good point, and I'm not sure the best way to deal with that. (Possibly delete both halves, and wait until the dust has cleared before including all these details?)
While I don't disagree that the controversy around this testimony is noteworthy, I don't know if MondoWeiss' reporting on it is noteworthy: the only references to MondoWeiss specifically relating to this testimony are The Intercept, a very brief mention Middle in East Eye, a further reading list at the end of an Electronic Intifada piece, and a brief quote from The Intercept that cites MW in an opinion piece in The Nation. Apart from maybe The Intercept, those are all super-weak sources (hyperpartisan non-GREL and/or second hand in an op ed).
Therefore, given the risks, I'd argue for erring on the side of caution and removing it for now, and seeing where the story goes once the controversy dies down. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Alaexis, according to the YNET article to which you link, Abdush's family first learned about the (alleged) rape from the NYT article. They are of no more value as witnesses than the rest of us. Our prejudices about which papers and which narratives we are inclined to believe are more significant than any kind of evidence either way, which appears to be nearly non-existent, despite the huge narrative around this case. Pincrete ( talk) 07:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Luckily, though, we are not in the business of collecting evidence, so we don't need to assess the reliability of witnesses. Our job is simply to reflect what reliable sources find noteworthy. I notice The Intercept cites YNet so it feels like some of their reporting is due, although we don't want it to get undue prominence. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We are in the business of recording & to a degree evaluating evidence. Some of the proferred 'evidence' has been wholly or largely discredited, or shown to have very little value, some of it is cyclic. Normal constraints as to what is/is not an RS hardly rise to the ocassion. Pincrete ( talk) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with Bob and Alaexis on this. Figureofnine ( talkcontribs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook