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

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)

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)

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)

---

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel → Sexual 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)

Support The child article should align with the parent article, per WP: CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support for consistency, and to allow for inclusion of violence against hostages without being technically inaccurate. FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Support per Iskandar323 and FortunateSons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Support: The suggested title is consistent with the parent article. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

‘’’Support’’’ per parent article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No we are in the business of evaluating reliability and verifiability. We are not ourselves a reliable source. See WP:You are not a reliable source, WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:But it's true!, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Normal constraints as to what is/is not an RS hardly rise to the ocassion. Not sure what this means: that in this particular article we should use sources considered unreliable by the community because...? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bob and Alaexis on this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

But Gal Abdush is, unfortunately, no longer alive. So I don't think the BLP stuff applies.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Alleged sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – I moved the page earlier today on the basis that I assumed that it would be "unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" as of WP:RM. Apparently, and confusingly, this is not the case. I think it should be moved to an article title which explicitly expresses the uncertainty of the alleged sexual and gender-based violence.

The article itself repeatedly uses the phrases "reportedly" and "alleged", as these are allegations, not facts. Israel has constantly lied throughout the war, and cannot be trusted as a reliable source, immediately casting doubt over any of the allegations they have made. The ARCCI report is frankly libel, and throughout the article there are multiple claims with no tangible proof whatsoever. The article should definitely highlight each and every quote from people making these allegations, as it just shows how ridiculous the premise is; "legs and pelvis bones were broken"? It's frankly astonishing that anyone would take these kinds of allegations seriously.

If we are not referring to Israel's abhorrent attacks on the people of Gaza and the West Bank as "genocide", which it very clearly is, then why is this article given a name which implies that this is a fact that happened? With no actual evidence, are members of Hamas not "innocent until proven guilty"? With SO many photos and videos circulated of the atrocities committed, why is it that there is no footage of anything being claimed?

Wikipedia is a bastion of knowledge in the world, but I am growing increasingly concerned that it is being used nefariously by zionists to skew coverage of the conflict to reflect Israeli views. It is well known that this kind of thing has happened in the past, it would not surprise me if it was still happening. We as Wikipedians need to stop this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I wrote elsewhere, we don't have articles Suggested Frexit, Alleged Flat Earth theory, Possible Korean reunification, or Potential World War III. Instead, we discuss these topics driectly at Frexit, Flat Earth, Korean reunification and World War III. Moreover, we try not to make judgements in article titles – opposing views, doubts and controversies about article content need to be addressed in the content. For the avoidance of doubt, I similarly object to having Alleged/Allegations in articles about Israeli crimes against Palestinians, e.g., in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you just type "Allegations of" into the search bar, you'll see there are numerous existing pages with such titles. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So? Perhaps those articles are actually about "allegations" themselves, as the Gaza 'genocide' one is, not about acts - the extent and nature of which remain highly disputed - as this one is. Even if not "Other stuff is an inherently weak argument". Pincrete (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the action taken by Israel in Gaza doesn’t amount to genocide? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The allegation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in disputed and highly controversial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, ironically, an argument against Kashmiri's view, and not my own. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tangent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think these examples are all things which could potentially happen (except for Flat Earth, which is a theory), while this article is about something unproven. For me, that's the distinction; the events described in this article are not proven to have happened, so why should we frame the article as if they definitely did? The article clearly refers to them as allegations throughout, so why does the title not reflect this? For the record, I think having an article for WW3 is a bit silly, because if it were to happen and there were any survivors (and internet) left afterwards, they'd have to re-write the whole article. Also a lot of the article refers to events and thoughts posed in the 20th century, so why is it not named something like "Post-World War II predictions of a potential World War III"? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) How is it consistent to say that the events described in this article are not proven to have happened, so why should we frame the article as if they definitely did?, while at the same time saying The article clearly refers to them as allegations throughout? If we were treating these events as proven acts, we wouldn't be referring to allegations/claims/reports etc. at all, let alone throughout You are right about the title not making EXPLICIT that these acts are unproven, but neither does the title imply that all, or even any, of the specific acts are proven/accepted to have occurred. Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, but the article is solely talking about allegations. We have other articles on disputed topics which are framed in the correct manner, including Allegations of chemical weapons use in the Sri Lankan Civil War which states clearly “No strong evidence for indicating the consistent use of such weapons during the war have been found thus far.” What is the difference between that article and this one? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Other stuff is an inherently weak argument, and I don't have time to examine every mis-named article on WP, even less to defend each one's title. I'm inclined to agree with Kashmiri, that such titles are usually to be avoided, whether on the very notional topics such as the Yeti or disputed topics such as Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, where the extent and effectiveness of the interference and the extent of the 'complicity' of US players has never been fully or reliably established. The topic area here is sexual violence during the 'Hamas' attack, the extent and 'systematic nature' of which is highly contested with some very dubious allegations having been made, but the allegations themselves are not the subject - as is the case with the " Allegations of genocide" article. We don't, or at least shouldn't, title things solely or mainly to cast doubt on the topic. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Btw chemical weapons were used in the Sri Lankan civil war, those references are incorrect and likely heavily biased (Indian think tanks are overtly pro Sri Lankan government). Army soldiers have even admitted it on camera at their war museum, see at 36 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-5mP9zZWQ&t=2147s Oz346 (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that @Davidlofgren1996 was topic banned and later permanently blocked for conduct. FortunateSons (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the record, I have consistently been sceptical about both the alleged scale and the alleged "systematic" nature of much of the sexual violence during the October attack and extremely sceptical about the Israeli govt's (and Israel-friendly sources) 'weaponising' those allegations. Nonetheless, that some sexual violence occurred is both predictable and almost certainly proven to have happened and that is the topic area. Many of the more extreme lurid stories have either already shown themselves to be probably atrocity propaganda, or are dubious. Nonetheless again the topic is sexual violence and the job of the article is partly to record accusations and findings and to record 'holes' in the evidence to the extent that sources do. The full extent of the sexual violence -or lack of it- may take a long time to be established with any degree of certainty. Comparisons with the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, are invalid, since the subject there is largely the accusations themselves and the 'legal case'. The topic there is not the killing of Gazans, it is about who and how people have characterised that killing as genocide or similar, and those who have rejected such characterisations. Perhaps a better title for that article could be found, but it would not be by omitting "Allegations of …". The proposed renaming here is clearly intended to 'make a point', which the proposer barely even tries to hide.Pincrete (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have slightly altered the proposed name change from “Alleged” to “Allegations of” in line with other articles regarding articles on contentious topics that cover mostly/solely allegations. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  That would change the subject entirely – from focusing on (supposed) crimes to focusing on reports. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, will retract. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Suggesting that they are just allegations is just flat-out denial of any rape that happened during the attacks. If you think this should be moved, then why not also move Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war, in which even Al Jazeera admitted it fabricated the rape allegations by the IDF? --ZKang123 (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. There is no evidence of rape during the attacks - that is the point of this proposed move. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm rather troubled to hear right from you that there's no rape in the attacks, because, besides the NYT article, there are other testimonies, even a UN report. And I see you have an agenda claiming the current article title is some "zionist" conspiracy. You claim biasedness in the article ("to skew coverage of the conflict to reflect Israeli views"), but you also proposing such a change and ignoring the other on-hand evidence is also a bias in itself.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  That’s simply untrue; the majority of the contention is focussed on it being weaponised or systemic; there is eye-witness-testimony and a plethora of circumstantial evidence, which can be found in this article. FortunateSons (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence is there, but it's of the anecdotal type, mostly below what's acceptable in court proceedings. Not that it's inherently untrue – sexual violence has been always weaponised and almost certainly it was also the case on the 7 October. We just don't have reliable sources that would rely on high-quality evidence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose there is evidence of sexual violence and Wikipedia does not usually use obfuscating words in the article title. In my opinion I could maybe argue how "gender-based violence" is wordy without adding any explanatatory value and this could simply be "sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" or "sexual violence in the October 6 attack on Israel" but "alleged" is both inaccurate and unnecessary. Jorahm (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Moving to "allegations" is not denying that anything happened, it is correctly stating that the events remain alleged and unconfirmed, which is important for accuracy's sake. The events described have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The article itself uses the words "alleged" and "reported" many times, and there are many "Alleged..." titled articles on Wikipedia. Additionally various sources on Wikipedia's reliable sources list (The Intercept, The Nation, even Wikipedia's own article about a NYT piece) describe the alleged nature of many of the claims being made in this article, with or without "alleged"/"reported" disclaimers. Not listing it as "Alleged" does a disservice to readers and arguably violates NPOV, because it is suggesting a viewpoint for the topic, rather than neutrally describing the allegations. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pincrete and ZKang123 - we have multiple reliable sources including a UN report confirming that at least some sexual violence occurred. Also note that a very similar requested move failed 2 months ago, and if anything consensus appears to have moved further against it since. Jamedeus (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Solely for the record, I have no idea whether a handful of incidents occurred in October or whether it was widespread and am highly sceptical about thin coverage and tenuous 'evidence' which has been -almost from the outset- been weaponised and presented uncritically. A smattering of 'me too' logic from sources, which encourages not looking critically and with normal scepticism at those advancing claims (who are not the actual victims mostly) means that it really isn't even possible at present to know how widespread such violence was, who perpetrated it (attackers or opportunists) etc, but the scale has probably been exaggerated and weaponised - as is common in time of war. Pincrete (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article frequently uses terms like "alleged" and "reportedly" precisely because this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of the "evidence" comes from sources proven to be fraudulent (like Zaka), from forced, tortured confessions, or from the IDF, which has nothing to support their claims except for "because we say so." The UN report that people keep citing was explicitly non-investigative, and the UN bodies that do have the capability to investigate these claims are facing deliberate obstruction from the Israeli government, whereas Hamas has stated that it welcomes an international investigation. This case has faced increasing skepticism from credible sources, including dozens of journalism professors and respected outlets such as The Intercept, the UN, NBC News, and Haaretz, which have conducted extensive investigations. Haaretz recently confirmed that there is zero evidence of any rape or genital mutilation on any of the October 7 bodies. Updating the title to "alleged" reflects the ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding the case. If new concrete evidence emerges (for example, through an independent UN investigation), then the title can revert to the original one. - Ïvana (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because there are many reliable sources asserting sexual violence took place. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Lean Support Essentially all wars include sexual and gender-based violence. Some continuing for many decades after conflict ends during occupation or protective troops in foreign lands. Some against their own troops of the opposite sex. Was there such by Hamas? I’m sure there must have been. Problem is, there were so many other allegations that turned out to be grossly exaggerated or disproved (e.g. beheaded babies). In long wars/occupations these are more common than terrorist attacks as terrorists have less time. I prefer using the word alleged whenever there has been no adjudication and many cases are still “alleged”. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Would renaming this article, but not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war suggest a viewpoint as well? I think this article arguably has more evidence than that one, and holding this to higher standards may show some viewpoint. Sleepy-rhino1 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) I guess that would be a good thing to discuss there with a similar move request. IMO, with the exception of the Al Jazeera article (that is described in the article as being fabricated!), there is direct first hand video evidence of some of the acts concerned, so I guess you could make a separate article for the bits of that article that are still allegations, call it "Allegations of..." and that would at least be consistent. But not everything on that article is alleged, so it's a slightly different situation, unfortunately. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and as noted by Jamedeus, there was a Requested Move two months ago to a similar title (Allegations of...) and that failed. Some1 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, as per nom, Smallangryplanet, Ïvana, and others. The current title is not neutral. I would like to draw an analogy with Allegations of Iraqi mobile weapons laboratories, where the title is actually worded correctly and neutrally, rather than uncritically rehashing the propaganda that was used to justify a war. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are legitimate questions about scale and about certain specific claims, but no question of whether sexual violence occurred overall. There is a variety of evidence, some public (maybe not videos of SA acts, but of their aftermath), and some non-public evidence described by reliable sources. The suggested title seems to entertain the fringe view that all the SA reports might be fabricated, which is a conspiracy theory along the lines of Holocaust denial, and contradicted by many reliable sources. XDanielx (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wish you would strike your comparison to Holocaust denial. Use of the extremely commonly used word "alleged" may or may not make sense here; but in no manner compares to the Holocaust or denial of its place in history. Overuse of the word Holocaust weakens its special meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree - I think there's a very real distinction between Holocaust denial (which actively tries to convince people that the brutal events - for which some of the perpetrators were tried and found guilty - of the Holocaust did not happen) and adding an "Alleged" to this article's title, considering the article deals with events that are as of this writing still alleged. This does not mean that the reports of SA are "fabricated", but that they are still allegations. It is more neutral than accepting the reports prima facie, or rejecting them outright. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: allegations are what is involved here (or in some cases just propaganda) - none of the material surrounding these events is definitive, let alone amounting to clear-cut evidence that would be legally admissable. This is perhaps why the recent ICC application has ignored October 7 altogether and focused solely on the subsequent claims of the sexual abuse of hostages. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and move protect. The sexual assaults are historical fact, and the repeated move requests are tendentious and need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt we are really going anywhere with this. The person who raised the proposed move after all was anti-Israel and some supporters have also expressed similar views how the rape allegations are all "Israeli propaganda", despite the amount of other evidence to the contrary. I think there should be some banner or explanation of why the title is more likely going to stay as-is.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see anyone who says 'all propaganda', apart perhaps from the nominator, personally I cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, but am distinctly unimpressed by some of the 'evidence' (a non-doctor reports that some bodies appeared to have pelvic damage/fractures and concludes vicious multiple rape, not blunt force injury?).

  But, that the assaults have been used on the world stage to justify unrelated Israeli actions is practically indisputable. It happens in times of war, 'the Hun' was said to be raping nuns in Belgium in the early days of World War I, when the dust had settled 9/10s of the stories turned out to false or exaggerated. Ocassionally the opposite happens, Serb cruelty in former Yugoslavia and IS treatment of captive women was at least as bad as reported. Some 'atrocity' stories in the present conflict have been shown to be highly dubious or clear fabrications, so a degree of scepticism is both inevitable and apt. Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)