Jump to content

Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

RfC: Sexual violence and the scope of the article

[edit]

Question. Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion?

Alaexis¿question? 11:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • B. Yes, in aftermath As mentioned above inclusion is obviously desirable but needs to be limited. This covers it nicely…."Include them in a brief Aftermath section (the current § Israeli counterattack section or a new one) with links to more detailed coverage in other articles."Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C / B. I don't think that the atrocities section is limited to ones that occurred on October 7th specifically; it ought to include anything that is connected to it by reliable sources (ie. stuff from the aftermath section also goes there.) And if we're mentioning the UN report we ought to provide full context for it. That said, it needs to be tweaked to use secondary sources, eg. [1][2] - in particular, the fact that Israel may have extracted confessions under torture is vital context ([3]); we mention it in the next section but ought to mention it at least briefly here as well, since it is context that the sources emphasize. Mentioning the UN report without mentioning these aspects (which have attracted significant coverage) would be misusing it as a source. One thing I would suggest is to, rather than mention the accusations against Israel in a "lol both sides" sentence cited solely to primary sources, mention them instead in the sentence about how and why Israel refused to cooperate with the probe, which ought to be moved higher up and expanded. This is the context under which they are most often covered by secondary sources, especially in the context of the October 7 attacks. (If we're rewriting this we should avoid citing the probe as a primary source at all - this is sensitive enough that we really ought to use sources capable of interpretation and analysis.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Right now the article says that both Hamas and Israel had committed sexual violence and torture which violates our policies. Per WP:Article title, the title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. This article deals with the events of October 7-8, that is, the Hamas incursion and the immediate response to it. The article may include aftermath and subsequent events when they are directly related to the October 7-8 incursion, with their inclusion and prominence guided by reliable source coverage per WP:DUE. Per WP:SS, detailed coverage of events from the broader conflict belongs in parent articles, with this article maintaining focus on its specific scope.

The sources used in this article describe sexual violence committed by Hamas militants during the incursion (UN report, summary by CNN). Our sources clearly and unambiguously state that there were abuses committed by Hamas on October 7-8 (CNN: The commission said it had "documented evidence of sexual violence" carried out by Palestinian armed groups in several locations in southern Israel on October 7 and the UN report, p. 16: In relation to the attack of 7 October in Israel, the Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that members of the military wings of Hamas and [other groups], deliberately ... committed SGBV ... in many locations in southern Israel). On the other hand, neither the UN report nor secondary sources that discuss it state that sexual violence was committed by Israeli forces during the incursion. In the pre-RfC discussion only one specific incident from this period was referenced: two civilians urinating on dead Hamas fighters and using insults. This takes a rather expansive view of what constitutes sexual violence and cannot justify general statements about sexual violence during this period.

Including allegations from the broader conflict in this article's main content would blur the distinction between the October 7-8 events and the subsequent war, potentially confusing readers about the timing and context of these events. While there were allegations of further abuses during the ongoing war, committed against both Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees, these belong in parent articles such as Israel-Hamas war or dedicated articles like Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war.

Thus, the current text found in the § Reported atrocities section (both Hamas and Israel had committed sexual violence and torture) is not supported by reliable sources for the period this article covers and should be removed. Note that while similar text may be appropriate for articles about the broader conflict, this RfC is specifically about the scope of this article. Alaexis¿question? 11:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're entering very subjective territory with statements like "urinating on dead Hamas fighters and using insults. This takes a rather expansive view of what constitutes sexual violence". In addition, is not some of the content at Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war relating to sexual violence against Palestinians captured on Oct 7-8[4]? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This RfC is malformed, as it does not address what Alaexis wants to use it for. Their goal is to remove a sentence about sexual violence against Palestinians on 7-8 October 2023, and the RfC does not refer to same. So if option A or B passes, there's no justification for removing that sentence. If Alaexis wants to remove it for whatever reason, and it can't be because of scope, the RfC has to be specifically about that, or we'd have to have yet another one.

The cited report is clear and unambiguous regarding sexual violence and torture against Palestinians are about events from 7 October to 31 December, including cases on 7-8 October The findings in this legal analysis are based primarily on events from 7 October to 31 December 2023 ... The Commission documented cases of sexual violence directed at Palestinian men by Israeli civilians. The Commission collected and verified digital footage of civilian men desecrating the bodies of two Palestinian men in Israel. A video and photograph were published on Telegram on 8 October 2023, showing the dead bodies of two Palestinian men who had been stripped naked, with their heads covered with fabric and what appear to be their military uniforms lying next to them...The digital footage shows two men in civilian clothes urinating on the bodies, one of them kicking one of the bodies repeatedly in the stomach, and a third man kicking the body in the head ... The men are speaking in Hebrew while abusing the bodies, encouraging each other to urinate on the bodies which they claim belong to Hamas militants, while also using gendered and sexualized insults, such as “slut” and “sharmuta” ..., So Alaexis' claim ...neither the UN report nor secondary sources that discuss it state that sexual violence was committed by Israeli forces during the incursion... is not true.

The RfC also does not include reference to the article's mention of the Patten report & its reference to the hostages, which actually does refer to these incidents in the 'broader conflict.' Patten also reported receiving "clear and convincing information" that some of the hostages held by Hamas had suffered rape and sexualized torture and that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe such abuses were "ongoing". I have done my best to WP:AGF throughout this conversation but now that we see the RfC and Alaexis' statement for what they want to use it for, this feels like an attempt to backdoor a particular POV via an RfC, rather than an attempt to resolve the question that's central to the RfC itself. I have offered a simple compromise to resolve the debate without creating a new rule for specifically this article – remove the Patten report reference as its outside the scope of October 7-8 per Alaexis' reasoning - but this was rejected. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

current version

[edit]

Alaexis, just a heads-up about a possible WP:RELTIME issue regarding the word current in two places in the Rfc question: hopefully no one will change those portions of the article addressed by the Rfc while the Rfc is underway, but if that does occur, there might be some confusion around the use of the word current that could alter !votes, unless you specify which version you mean. I wouldn't change anything now, but maybe you could monitor article changes just to make sure that the question wording remains accurate as the Rfc progresses. If an adjustment becomes necessary, you could specify the version explicitly using a permaink. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the content that is subject to an RfC is generally discouraged. But I agree, adding a permalink could be a good idea. Alaexis¿question? 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why write an unnecessary subheading in the middle of a discussion for a minor non issue? Seems like shouting. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard move in refactoring to promote discussion flow (and wasn't in the middle) but it certainly does not belong as part of the Survey section, so I've moved it to its own subsection below the Discussion. Hope this meets with your approval, and that discussion, and especially !voting, may now resume. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't in the survey section, it was just a floating subheading introduced by your self that disturbed the flow of discussion. Anyway, I don't want to enter into a discussion about your non discussion, do try and stay on topic. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades

[edit]

Remove the claim that the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades were militarily involved from the "units involved" list and "belligerents" section. AethyrX (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AethyrX do you have confirmation somewhere that the brigades were not involved? Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem with the way y'all are handling these pages. I give an explanation for why twice, one gets ignored the other gets removed for not being only the request so I post only the request and people ask me for the explanation. Idk what y'all from me AethyrX (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AethyrX yes, we need both. WP:ERSAMPLE / WP:CHANGEXY for more. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PFLP was involved in October 7, assaulting the military base near erez
https://www.bbc.com/arabic/articles/czr21dz8nv8o.amp The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and Sexual Assault "reportedly occurred"

[edit]

The current language states that rape and sexual assault "reportedly occurred," but this wording inaccurately suggests uncertainty about whether these crimes took place. Extensive evidence, including victim testimonies, forensic reports, and official investigations, has confirmed that sexual violence and rape occurred during the October 7 attacks. While the exact number of cases is still being determined, it is clear that such atrocities took place. Additionally, Hamas officials have not merely denied involvement—they have falsely denied it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I propose revising the sentence as follows:

"Numerous cases of rape and sexual assault occurred during the attacks, as documented by forensic evidence and witness testimony, though Hamas officials have falsely denied the involvement of their fighters." SHURATHADINLETTEROFTHELAW (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Reportedly occurred means it was, well, reported to have occurred. It does not suggest uncertainty. The same language is used on both the main pages regarding sexual violence against Israelis and Palestinians. This edit request re: "numerous cases" is not supported by reliable sources (Israeli officials initially claimed dozens, then said they could not provide a figure (see here)), and some have contested it altogether such as the cited Times investigation... and we do not put in Wikivoice that the denial by Hamas is true or false. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MDY date format

[edit]

An RM was closed about two months ago with a conclusion to use "October 7" instead of "7 October" in the title of this article, but does that include a consensus to generally change all dates in the article to MDY format? Someone tagged the article nearly two weeks ago to use MDY, but a lot of dates within it are still DMY. I have a script installed which would easily change all the dates, but I want to make sure there's a general agreement to do that before I use it. There seems to be hundreds of DMY dates in the citations – probably more than 500. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After no reply, I went ahead and performed the MDY conversion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

[edit]

Verify citation 21 2603:8002:BF0:14A0:C2A1:D2BC:B2A:F1A8 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Verify citation 21" mean specifically? You can see the multiple places it is used in the article. You can access the 3 sources that make up citation 21. You can verify whether the information in this article matches what the sources say. If you see a mismatch, you can post an edit request per WP:EDITXY. So, what specifically are you asking Wikipedia editors to do? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&oldid=1275438325"