Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede

I'm fine with fact that Hamas has been accused of rape in the initial attack on Israel being included in lede, but why should it be there without the appropriate denial by Hamas? Hamas has not admitted themselves that they committed such attacks (even if individual fighters have, the organization as a whole on Telegram denied it), and it is certainly not a fair POV to include allegations and not a single response by the alleged party themselves. If the international press and journalists dispute such denials then their refutations can be included after. Was going to re-insert the denial to the article with this source but I decided to bring it to talk first: [1]

Tagging @Nableezy who added the denial and @SPECIFICO who removed it. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is an absurd abuse of NPOV to not include the denials. I await a reason to be offered before reverting the removal. nableezy - 19:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My edit summary gives a few of the reasons. Please present your rebuttal, not another edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The rebuttal is that numerous sources include Hamas has denied the claims. nableezy - 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Who other than Hamas has denied the claims? Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does that matter? What matters is the weight sources give that denial, and by including it when they discuss the accusation then it has the weight to include with the accusation. nableezy - 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And RS that report the denial give it no weight. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Journalists are in the habit of reporting knee-jerk denials. Mainstream discussion of the denials consistently deprecates and rejects them. While we could assemble a section on the denials and the overwhelming condemnations of the denials, I think that all gets a bit far afield of the topic here. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Accusation in the mirror is a precursor to genocide, and we have a whole lot more actual evidence of Israel's intent to commit gender violence than any Palestinian group. Right now there's a young girl in a hospital in the West Bank having some pretty gory bottom surgery for what IOF has done. Big fat preceding section. Pictures. It's gonna be beautiful. I love Wikipedia. One flaw though, in a genocide, all the RS runs dry--leaving everyone with their favorite flavor of delulu fuel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What is with this comment fantasizing about people being exposed to medical gore? "It's gonna be beautiful"? What the hell? Salmoonlight (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: What is your basis for "the appropriate denial" when non-Israeli RS have not treated those denials as credible and have instead continued to report extensive, diverse, and independently gathered and verified evidence of these actions? NPOV does not say that we publish what amounts to the FRINGE allegation that such attacks did not occur. If you have substantial, recent, top-tier RS that take such denials seriously then please present them. Also per my edit summary, the denial bit is not in the article text and we don't initiate such content from the lead down. But the same NPOV principles demonstrate that any text within the article body would be far different from what was inserted in the lead and would need to report on the denials not having been seriously considered by the WEIGHT of RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Something covered by reliable sources is not FRINGE, and editing in a way that removes significant POVs is tendentious. nableezy - 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

POV editing. On the theory given in edit summary, all the "Israel disputes this" trot we have on hundreds of articles should be removed as well. Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good to point out now to the manual of style, MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Based on this I will be boldly editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph should simply define the war and why is significant. The Hamas attack and Israeli bombings should be in the second paragraph onwards. VR _talk 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If the response is not presented then per NPOV the charge should not be either. I removed the sentence from the lead entirely. I also dont think it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead either. nableezy - 19:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and more has to be done to keep the opening paragraph general and neutral. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well it has been returned, with a politician now quoted but Hamas denying it absent. Coretheapple why should Blinken be quoted in the lead? Why should Hamas denying the claims not be? You also violated the 1RR for the record. nableezy - 20:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong on all three counts. I returned to the version of that paragraph that included the Hamas denial. So I didn't remove the Hamas denial. It wasn't a reversion as I added the Blinken quote in addition to reinstating the Hamas denial. (It is false to say Blinken is a "politician" but rather Secretary of State of the United States.) I added the Blinken quote because there is a large quantity of sourcing substantiating that there was sexual violence, and therefore I think that a "he said, she said" approach would be a grave NPOV issue. Why did you say that I removed the Hamas denial? I clearly did not remove that denial and indeed I added it back in. Why did you call this a reversion when I did not simply revert, but added additional text to what I added back in? Indeed, why do you say I am in violation of 1RR when I have not made ANY reverts in this article? Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the Hamas denial inclusion. But also, I dont see why Blinked would be quoted, and there is a large body of sources saying that Israel has reported such evidence. A reversion is any edit that reverses another, you reversed my removal by restoring. And SPECIFICO's removal of the Hamas denial for that matter. Your other partial revert was this. And yes, the US Secretary of State is a political office and its holder a politician, and a politician representing the views of the Israel's main backer internationally, so no that is not false. nableezy - 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a bold edit to the opening paragraph, it now certainly looks neater and more structured. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, neither edit was a revert and I already responded re Blinken. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The restoration is undoubtedly a revert. You restored what I removed. How do you figure that isnt a revert? nableezy - 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that a revert is only pushing the "undo" or equivalent. (I've certainly failed to get 3RRs sanctioned that are not clear undos.) That said, I have not dealt with reverts for some years and that is not something I'm prepared to quibble over. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect, The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. nableezy - 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but despite your expertise on the subject of reverting I am not interested in discussing the subject with you at this time and in this location. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool, Ill just report it next time. nableezy - 16:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

By all means. But if you are going to be suggesting in the future that this kind of edit is a "revert," you may want to consider WP:BOOMERANG. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN are something else to keep in mind. You can have the last word, as I am done with this idiscussion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked this question at WP:EW talk and while the policy is indeed phrased this way, it appears that in practice such edits are not considered reverts. Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And after all that, restoring it without the denial. Huh. nableezy - 05:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring (the repeated re-addition of the allegation without the denial) appears to be ongoing. I recommend the parties who persist in re-adding this allegation without the denial familiarize themselves with WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV. WillowCity^(talk) 02:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. They reverted me in spite of me explaining the reason in the edit summary[2]. Crampcomes (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this still happening. Lmao. WillowCity^(talk) 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats an absurd rewrite and it should be reverted. nableezy - 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is irrelevant. The sexual assaults, which have received an avalanche of attention in the world media, are in the article albeit underplayed, and removing them from the lead, as I some editors are doing, is contrary to WP:LEAD. I think editors need to ponder WP:OWN here. I am seeing editors saying "well, Hamas's reaction should be included" and then not adding Hamas's reaction but just taking it out entirely. There is no need for Hamas reaction in the lead; we do not have Israeli reaction to every single negative thing in the lead. That is false balance and I think it is also an NPOV issue, reflecting a larger problem with the article, as reflected by the fact that eight words in the lead on sexual violence should inspire such passionate opposition. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Because when the reaction was added it was removed. The idea that contested claims should be left uncontested is absurd. Beyond that, ONUS is always relevant. The sexual assault accusations have indeed received attention, but so have the denials, which nearly every serious source includes in its coverage. Your edit makes it more difficult to claim that we are a serious source. nableezy - 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Armenian genocide denial is a common belief does not mean that the Armenian genocide article should prioritize that viewpoint. Don't see how this is any different. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ill let that comment stand on its own, and note that sources attribute the claims of sexual assault and include the Hamas denials in their articles, and any serious editor would do the same here. nableezy - 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If Hamas denying the assaults took place, despite all the overwhelming evidence including their own videos, is an issue, then it should be introduced in the subsection of the article where the sexual assaults are discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Sexual_and_gender_based_violence It is totally unnecessary in the lead and in my opinion including that ridiculous denial in the lead creates a POV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no video of sexual assault, there are witness accounts. And Ill fix the missing denial in that section, thanks for bringing it to my attention. nableezy - 15:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it belongs there not in the lead. We have an entire paragraph in the lead on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We do not have in the paragraph Israel's assertion that Hamas is responsible for that crisis. We do not have a "he said" "she said" anywhere else in the lead. But some editors here want either no reference to the sexual assaults at all in the lead (as evidenced by the fact that they keep taking it out) or, if there, with Hamas's denials in the lead. I think the overall impact of the edits I'm describing is to skew the lead in favor of Hamas. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Belongs in both. And I agree that claims of sexual assault should be in the lead. But they belong with the denial. If the denial is being consistently removed then the claim should be as well. That is what NPOV demands. You may think that going from blatantly pushing Israeli positions as fact towards NPOV is "in favor of Hamas", but it is in favor of NPOV. nableezy - 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.” That is fairly typical of the coverage. Now, when I attempted to add a link to this you called the US Secretary of State (Bliinken) a "politician." So I don't want to reinvent the wheel here or get in a rather degrading and nonsensical discussion with you concerning the sourcing re the widespread sexucal assaults. I'll just leave it at that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a political ally of Israel has backed up Israel's account. That is not a reliable source for facts. Biden also said he saw scores of beheaded babies, something that was later proven to be complete bullshit. So yes, leave it at that, where you drop a quote from Israel's staunchest ally and pretend like you proved a fact. We use reliable sources, not partisan political actors, for facts here. nableezy - 17:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly. You are saying that according to some sources, there were no rapes? The eyewitness testimony, the forensic evidence, etc., may all be just made up and Blinken is lying to support an ally? I just want to clarify what you say the is in doubt here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please dont put words in my mouth. I am saying that sources that are reliable for facts are largely attributing the rapes to Israel and Israeli accounts. They are not stating that it happened as a fact, they are saying X, Y, and Z have made these accusations. They are providing A, B, and C as evidence. You are taking that and saying, in the lead no less, that the accusations happened as a fact without attribution to X, Y and Z. That is like saying, in what you call a blatantly POV edit below, that calling Israel's war genocidal is acceptable because that accusation has been made by politicians. You think it acceptable to relay as fact what reliable sources report as accusations when it involves accusations that you want to include, but think it highly POV to do the same when it is about accusations you do not want to include. Ill leave it to you to determine the level of hypocrisy of such actions. nableezy - 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the other side of the story is. You say there are two sides to this story. Rape and mutilation "accusations" and another side. Is the other side "there were no rapes and mutilations"? I'm just trying to figure out what the reliable sources are rporting so we can reflect that fairly in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Um, where did I say there were two sides of this story? The story is Israel has accused Hamas of using rape as a weapon, and has cited such and such, Hamas has denied it. That is what the reliable sources have reported. Have you read the ones Ive posted here? nableezy - 17:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

ONUS has nothing to do with the lead unless it introduces new text not already in the article, and that is not the case here. There are other neutrality issues. For instance this edit by you removes text concerning opposition to Hamas within Gaza. You say you "neutralize section" but I think the opposite took place. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about dissent in Gaza it's about the war writ large. We need to keep this article t a manageable length. That edit is good and supportable.

If you actually read WP:ONUS you'll notice the hatnote directing readersto WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY, which is a clear indication that the onus for inclusion in the lead is on the party seeking inclusion. WillowCity^(talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, when I say "at a manageable length" I mean that if we start quoting random people on the street for every proposition in this article, the length of the article will balloon completely out of control. WillowCity^(talk) 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It does not remove text concerning opposition to Hamas, it very clearly includes The Associated Press reported that rare instances of public dissent against Hamas were taking place, with reports of angry chants against Hamas by hundreds of people taking refuge in a UN shelter. and that characterization is a lie. It does remove random anecdotes about individuals, and keeps the content more in line with the sourcing. The change I made went from an attempt at framing Israel bringing Gaza to and past the brink of starvation and the resulting breakdown in social order in to the Israeli propaganda line about Gazans need to rise up against Hamas. Now you can support pushing that propaganda line, thats up to you I guess, but yes that edit neutralized a nakedly partisan section supposedly on malnourishment. And yes, WP:ONUS, as literally any person who clicks the link will see, will see applies to all content, and says the burden on achieving consensus for challenged material is on those seeking to include it. nableezy - 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question completely changed the focus of the section. Blatant POV edit. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it corrected the blatant POV of framing starving people and the resulting loss of social order in to the people of Gaza are rising up against Hamas. Your edit includes accusations that have been denied without the denial. Which is a blatant POV edit. That will also be corrected. nableezy - 16:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

They are not "accusations." There is overwhelming evidence for them. They were an essential feature of the 10/7 attacks, but this article deals with them only in passing, and the lead, as edited by several editors, either doesn't mention them at all or gives equal weight to denials by Hamas. The net effect, in the lead, if the Hamas denial is included, is to pretend that they are just mere, unproven accusations. After all, Hamas has denied them "repeatedly." Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That is POV, sources are attributing accusations and saying there is mounting evidence for them, but they are not saying that these things occurred as a fact. And they are including that Hamas has denied them. For example Reuters reports on Israeli accounts of sexual violence, and also includes that Hamas has denied the accusation. They do not say that this occurred as a fact. Unlike the lead. You can pretend like because you feel there is overwhelming evidence and that they were an essential feature of the attack that you are free to disregard the sources, but you are not. nableezy - 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"They do not say that this occurred as a fact"? Well as you may recall (see discussion above), I sought to add a few words from this link at one point to the lead, alongside the Hamas denial, as a compromise. The article begins:

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday forcefully condemned sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas during the October 7 attack and blasted those who have not forcefully condemned it or were slow to do so.

“I don’t know why countries, leaders, international organizations were so slow to focus on this, to bring it to people’s attention. I’m glad it is finally happening,” Blinken told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “The atrocities that we saw on October 7 are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest. And we’ve talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on October 7 is beyond anything that I’ve seen either.”''

My reference to Blinken's comments was removed by another editor. You supported removal on the rounds that Blinken is a mere "politician." Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, a political ally of Israel backing Israel's account does not make it so this is a fact. You either get this or you dont, but we dont source statements of fact to political actors, and asking that we do is straightforward POV pushing. Here is an actual reliable source: The evidence of sexual violence on Oct. 7, Israel says, is overwhelming: Witness accounts of militants raping women; bodies of women discovered with their clothes removed; others shot through the head and the breast. You see how it attributes the accusation to Israel? I also support including that Physicians for Human Rights Israel saying this occured to be included in the article, attributed to them. But you want to include things that third-party sources attribute unattributed. That is what is POV pushing. You also want to not include the denial that third-party sources include. That is what is POV pushing. You are the one slanting the article and lead in a very specific direction, away from NPOV. nableezy - 17:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See my question above. I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the other side of these "accusations" is that it is all a lot of nonsense, there were no rapes, all the eyewitness testimony was made up, all the forensic evidence is garbage, etc. Therefore Blinken is just lying to support an ally. Is that what you are suggesting reliable sources are saying to counter these "accusations"? I am just trying to clarify the issues here. Please help me out on this. Because what I have read is overwhelming support of the position that yes, Hamas personnel committed rapes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying what I said, not what you are imagining I said. What I am saying is sources attribute the claim to Israeli accounts, so we have to do the same. They also include Hamas denials. So we have to do the same. You want to include as fact what sources as attribute. This is a very basic issue, what is attributed in the sources cannot be unattributed here. nableezy - 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And the edit youre faulting me for includes as well that the PA Foreign Minister blamed Israel for using starvation as a weapon. It also includes an Israeli denial, despite the fact it has been well established by third party sources, and by statements by Israeli government officials themselves, that starvation is being used as a weapon. We dont just include the accusation without the denial. Because even if including Israeli denials that are on their face ludicrous is "skew[ing] in favor of Israel", NPOV demands that their views also be included. nableezy - 16:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm tallking about the total absence of Israeli counterpoint in the lead. Right now we have nine words on the widely, exhaustively reported sexual assaults and no, God forbid, we can't have that without a Hamas denial right there, in the lead. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli counterpoint that Hamas has forced Israel to carpet bomb Gaza? What source includes that in its coverage of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Youre asking for unequal treatment, denials that are not covered by reliable sources should be covered by us, but denials that are covered by reliable sources should not. nableezy - 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should address the elephant in the room and talk about why these allegations are so widely, exhaustively reported? That is, Israel instrumentalizing violence against women to wage propaganda war for cynical motives far-removed from feminism. Not accusing anyone here, but people can clearly see the motive behind these types of allegations 1 2. Not trying to forum, or suggest that these sources be included in this article, just saying that this entire narrative is bound up in Israel's well-worn bait-and-switch. If we're going to compound systemic bias on wikipedia, let's at least do it in line with reliable sources, which report on the denials. WillowCity^(talk) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, see my question above. I may have missed reliable sources covering the position that there were no rapes by Hamas personnel. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that reliable sources cover it as an Israeli accusation that Hamas has denied, and our article now covers it as an undisputed fact. nableezy - 17:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Well you see that is my question. They are saying there were no rapes and other forms of sexual violence? If Hamas is saying "Israel is making it all up," we should say so. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking. The sources attribute to Israeli reports that Hamas has engaged in rape and sexual assault. They also report Hamas has denied it. Do you get that? nableezy - 17:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to figure out how detailed and substantive the denials are, Clearly they are perfunctory, whereas the "accusations," as you call them, are anything but. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is presenting what sources attribute unattributed and not including denials that sources include. Your view on how perfunctory those denials are is something that is personal opinion unrelated to our editing policies. nableezy - 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're drifting into WP:OR territory here. Our purpose is not to opine on the relative merit of legal claims and defences, we're here to convey what sources say. If sources say, "According to Israel, XYZ, although this is denied by Hamas", then that's what we should be conveying. Anything more or less runs the risk of synthesizing and pushing POV. WillowCity^(talk) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect example of WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't want to turn this into more of a forum, but just commenting that one of those links is a post by a Medium user called "Proleterian Feminist" made exactly two days after the Oct 7 attacks. In one of their recent posts they say “For all these reasons and more, I cannot look at the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and come to any other conclusion other than it being a just response…” & “It’s also worth noting that Hamas and the other resistance factions have continuously stated that they are not targeting civilians or children, and have released video proof of their treatment of civilians.”(hamas, the famously reliable and neutral source) among many other things which if I were to fully quote would make this far too long. Not exactly a neutral or reliable source. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not proposing that that op-ed be used in this article in any way, shape, or form. My point was that many people understand that these claims are not coming from a place of authentic feminism, but as a justification for the atrocities committed against Gaza (including Palestinian women). The author writes: [Israel] will often try to pull on the sympathies of left-leaning people by alleging violence against marginalized groups, such as women. My point was that the mounting coverage and feverish tenor of these allegations is conveniently timed, given Israel's increasing international isolation and growing pressure for a ceasefire. But again, not a forum. The real issue is whether or not to attribute the allegations and include the denials (see below). WillowCity^(talk) 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use these Medium links again, even on a talk page. They're inappropriate and offensive. Andre🚐 05:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats an essay. NPOV is core policy. Guess which one matters more? nableezy - 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Essays guide us in our application of policy. In this case: "If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that 'X denies the accusations' then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" We have the denial in the body of the article and I think we can dispense with it in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they guide us that one person thinks something about our policies. And that one particularly goes against other policies, such as WP:BLPPUBLIC for living people who are public figures. If the denial is not in the lead the accusation should not be either. I intend to restore the prior lead, adding the accusation with attribution and the denial. You may not present what sources attribute as Israeli accusations as though they are fact. That is a basic NPOV and V issue. nableezy - 19:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued against the denial being in the article at all, but simply not in the lead. The brevity of mention of the allegations in the lead (just nine words at present) would require the Hamas denial to be given equal weight in the lead. But that would not be neutral. It would be POV, as there is a massive weight of evidence of the sexual atrocities and a perfunctory denial. Per WP:Neutral and proportionate point of view: "When there are competing points of view, Wikipedia does not aim for the midpoint between them. Rather, it gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources." Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the issue is portraying as fact what the sources attribute to Israeli accounts, while also not including the denial that they also include in their reporting. nableezy - 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're framing the issue accurately, Remember, we're talking about the lead now, and only the lead. The danger is false balance in the lead and the NPOV policy specifically warns against that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is where you are relaying as fact what reliable sources attribute. And you dont include the denial that they also attribute. One cannot go in without the other, and if you demand that the denial be removed then so to will the accusation. nableezy - 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is absolutely not a case of one editor claiming ownership, this is a case of approximately five separate editors disputing an edit, through the proper forum, while other editors persistently make contested/tendentious edits. You can't just allege WP:OWN to circumvent the WP:CONSENSUS/WP:BRD process. WillowCity^(talk) 15:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Some editors here are making blatant POV edits this one. That was swiftly removed by an administrator but it does raise serious questions in my view. I also have on two instances corrected some serious mischaracterization of sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't know the elaboration of POV, it means Point of View. The article from the official UN website https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against is titled "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people." And the first paragraph literally says and I quote "Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today." It was only reverted because it's still incompatible with Wikivoice. Crampcomes (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But apparently grave violations committed by Hamas on 7 October that Israel has accused it of are totally compatible with Wikivoice. I leave finding the word to describe holding these conflicting positions an exercise for the reader. nableezy - 21:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The word that comes to mind is "contrary to Wikipedia policy." If you feel differently, please go back to the edit history, ascertain the identity of the administrator who removed it, and take it up with him or her. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont disagree that inclusion of genocidal in our voice is not in alignment with our policies. I dont hold hypocritical opposing viewpoints on other accusations that sources attribute however. Thats the difference between us. nableezy - 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to there? I'm afraid you've lost me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That you believe one set of accusations, rape by Hamas, should be placed in our voice, despite sources attributing the accusations, while another set, genocide, made by independent observers no less, should not be. nableezy - 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that editor that's why I didn't pursue it further. But don't try to deflect from the topic at hand, which is you trying to include rape/mutilation of women allegations against Hamas without including Hamas's outright vehement denial. Crampcomes (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Throwing in this phrasing as middle ground: "including reports of sexual violence." Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying in the article on the Hiroshima bombing "reports of nausea." Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Lousy analogy, the rubble of Hiroshima was there for all to see. Meanwhile, here the sources cited in the article speak of "allegation" (abcnews) and "investigations" (Reuters). There is nothing proven, as far as the sources are concerned. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and the evidence of rape is substantial according to all of the reliable sources. Referring to them as "accusations," as if it's a couple of women filing lawsuits, is simply not an accurate way of describing the sourcing. But anyway, I think this discussion is starting to get repetive. I should add that I have added further text quoting Hamas's position on the subject, as what we had from Hamas is bare bones and perfunctory. What I ahve added remedies that. I also corrected a misrepresentation of the underlying source. Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources attribute it as accusations from Israel. You cant distort that into proven fact in the lead. nableezy - 22:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dispute that these claims should even be included in the lead at all, with or without the denial; the lead should summarize the body of the article and this is not one of the most significant features of the war as a whole. We have numerous articles covering the events of October 7, an entire article on sexual violence on October 7, and another article on the experience of women during the war. This website is already flooded with this latest Israeli talking point.

But if it absolutely must be included, Makeandtoss makes (and tosses) a good proposed compromise. WillowCity^(talk) 22:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the prior lead, but with the rape/sexual abuse claims and the denial. nableezy - 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that works too. Certainly far better than the prior. WillowCity^(talk) 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It did, but in a 1RR violation Chessrat returned the unattributed claim saying the bbc supports it. However the BBC says that it heard testimony and saw evidence, it does not independently claim that rapes occurred. That, once again, distorts the source to make statements of fact that are attributed by the source. nableezy - 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My reversion of your unexplained removal of the BBC source was my only revert in the last 24 hours, so I would appreciate you refraining from baseless 1RR accusations. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

not sure what this is then, do my eyes deceive? WillowCity^(talk) 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No your earlier reinsertion in to the lead of the unattributed claim was a revert. Please self revert. nableezy - 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way was it a revert? It was a re-wording and restructuring of the lede for clarity, moving parts of it around, adding bits/citations and trimming other bits. It wasn't based on any prior revisions of the article in any way so I'm genuinely not at all sure what you believe that edit to have been "reverting". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You restored material that previously had been removed. You can call it a bold edit but it was also a revert, a revert about this specific material in fact. nableezy - 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Which specific material in that edit had been previously removed from the article? I made the edit made entirely independently of the article history (and in fact hadn't even looked at this article for weeks prior to the edit) so certainly am not aware of anything amounting to a revert, but if there is specific material in the edit in question which happens to have been removed from the article in a similar form prior to the edit, thus making parts of the edit in question a revert in practice (if not in intent), do please tell. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

carrying out mass rape and killing of Israeli women, which reverted Special:Diff/1189799035 which removed and Hamas militants reportedly raped, assaulted, and mutilated Israeli women and girls. You returned the very thing that has been argued about in this section twice today, the unattributed claim that Hamas raped Israeli women as part of their attack. nableezy - 01:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so not the BBC source then. Your unexplained removal of the BBC source was the primary reason for my latest revert, so I have partially reverted my most recent edit to your wording, but retained the BBC source. Is this acceptable? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine. Thank you. nableezy - 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Chessrat, for future reference, this "1RR accusation" stuff was disposed of above in the comment and linked WP:EW discussion cited by Alaexis above at 20:09, 13 December 2023. Such edits as you carried out are not in fact viewed as reverts. Coretheapple (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. The policy is pretty clear on this point. A revert is An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. The edit described above “manually reverse[d]” my action (the removal of an unattributed, POV claim) entirely, or at the very least in part. It was definitionally a revert. If your interpretation was correct the edit warring policy would be basically meaningless; minor semantic tweaks would be enough to skirt the rules and there would be virtually no restrictions on edit warring. WillowCity^(talk) 04:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

See link to the October 2023 noticeboard discussion in my reply. which indicated that such edits as Chessrat made are not considered reverts. Editors should be mindful of WP:OWN in their conduct on this page, and that bad-faith 1RR warnings are subject to sanction. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you can test that belief if you like, but you probably shouldnt recommend somebody else risk their own editing privileges based on your misconceptions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Coretheapple, that is a mischaracterization of the noticeboard discussion linked above, which related to the removal of "certain information that had been in the article for a while". It did not address restoring information that had been very recently removed. The discussion also specifically emphasized WP:QUO which has been persistently disregarded during this discussion. Again, no one is asserting ownership, as I've pointed out, this is a case of a significant number of editors disputing non-consensus POV edits.

In the event that I'm wrong, it's based on my good faith understanding of policy and the noticeboard discussion linked above. Baseless accusations of bad faith are themselves uncivil. WillowCity^(talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And I see this is still happening. Wow. WillowCity^(talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be reverted, we are not including that Israeli bombs have wiped out entire families, that they have decapitated countless babies, that snipers have shot at civilians during the supposed ceasefire in the lead. That level of detail does not belong in the lead, unless your aim here is to attempt to skew the article to support a narrative. nableezy - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ive included an equivalent level of detail for Israeli atrocities. If you want to turn the lead in to a detailed accounting of the worst stories you can find, I promise you I can find worse ones. nableezy - 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should include the premature babies that were found decomposing after Israel demanded the hospital be abandoned and promised to evacuate the babies, and then didnt. nableezy - 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The previous wording in the lead presents an NPOV issue. It presents a false balance between amply documented allegations of rape and a perfunctory Hamas denial. I retained the denial, though I do not believe it is necessary as I have previously indicated, but to prevent false balance in the lead I think NPOV requires more substance in describing the assaults. Various excuses and rationalizations are being presented to either omit entirely the mention of the sexual assaults or to falsely balance them with the result being to underweight and skew the neutrality of the lead. Neutrality does not require that equal weight be given to all points of view. That is well established. And in the section that this summarizes, in fact equal weight is not given to the perfunctory and brief Hamas denial. In fact, it was so brief, I actually had to add to it. But it remains in sharp contrast to the extensive documentation of teh sexual assaults, the horrified reaction of people overseas, including US president Biden and Secretary of State Blinken as well as European and EU officials. The false balance language therefore does not reflect either the article or reality. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, politicians are not reliable sources, no matter how many times you pretend like they are. If you want this level of detail for charges against Hamas then fine, we will have that level of detail for the exceedingly well documented crimes of Israel. Biden was also horrified at the beheaded babies. That was later found to be bullshit, but you would have had us include "Hamas beheaded countless babies" because some ultra-Zionist politician said so. nableezy - 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No one has to "assert" ownership for WP:OWN to apply. No one ever says "I own this article." I would just suggest that people be mindful of that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and neither do you. nableezy - 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that you just called upon my lateast edit to be reverted, that is quite a statement. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be, you keep trying to push things in to the lead without anything resembling consensus. You dont own this article, consensus does. nableezy - 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to your added wording to the lead. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I would respectfully suggest that you not treat it as such. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool, will be adding a bunch more. Not looking for a battle, just equal treatment and NPOV. nableezy - 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You say "cool," but there are a lot of other editors here. I can be reverted or edited and so can you. This is not a peace conference with delegates from both sides making handshake deals. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

One other point I wanted to make. The coverage indicates that this is an extremely brutal war. It reminds me of the Pacific Campaign during World War II. To sugarcoat or downplay the actions of one party in a high-visibility article like this is very corrosive to the project as a whole, and I fear that that has been the case in this article with regard to the sexual assaults and its treatment in the lead. If the sexual assaults are not given proper weight, or if there is false balance, that is damaging to the project. This should not be a tit for tat situation. "Oh you addedd negative details so I will too." I see that an editor added some badly needed text re friendly fire incidents. Again, that rsolves is an important omission. There is no need to add countervailing detail from "the other side." Each detail needs to be added independently with an eye toward weight. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that we should only include details on supposed atrocities by one side, when the coverage of atrocities by the other side has been exceedingly wide, is absurd. If some editors insist on turning the lead in to a detailed account of the most extreme accusations against one side then of course the lead will need a similar level of detail for the actions of the other side that have been much more widely reported and verified. nableezy - 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I said quite the opposite of "including details on supposed atrocities by one siide," but... eh... never mind. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO can you explain why you are both including details on charges against Hamas and removing as unencyclopedic material that is widely covered? For sources on the wiping out of entire generations of Gazans, see France 24, Associated Press, Financial Times, Time, and al Jazeera. What is unencyclopedic or not in keeping with the balance of sources in that material? That you did so while adding detail to charges against Hamas is a curiosity that I would like an explanation for. nableezy - 20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In what world is this an acceptable edit Andrevan? Why did you remove the material on multiple generations of Gazans being killed? How is it non-neutral? Why is it removed from the body? nableezy - 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this in a section below, under the heading, "wiped out multiple generations of families" Andre🚐 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've lost track of the discussion, maybe it will help to re-frame the issue. There are two viewpoints: there was sexual violence and there wasn't sexual violence. Many Israeli sources and some international ones say the former, Hamas says the latter. According to WP:DUE the viewpoints have to be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Other than Hamas, who else is saying that there was no sexual violence? If it's just Hamas, we should mention it in the article but not in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 22:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not true, y4ou dont describe what sources attribute as a fact, and you dont not include what sources include for a denial because "it's just Hamas". That is straightforwardly asking that we distort the cited sources. Independent sources are saying there are Israeli reports of rape and sexual violence, and that Hamas has denied these claims. nableezy - 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not just Israeli sources, there are also international ones like NBC and the Times that interviewed survivors and watched the footage.

You're right that if the denial itself is widely covered, then it would also satisfy DUE. However then the onus is on you to show that RS indeed mention it prominently. I didn't see it in the discussion above but I may have missed it. Alaexis_¿question? 22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

NBC says The evidence, primarily from the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli officials, suggests that dozens of Israeli women were raped or sexually abused or mutilated during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. According to first responders, one was mutilated with a pair of scissors and another stabbed with a knife. The genitals of some men who had been killed were mutilated as well. and then later NBC News could not independently verify the authenticity of the interrogation videos released by Israeli officials. Officials declined to provide unedited versions of the interrogations. And, by the way, the NBC story also includes Hamas's denial. They report on the testimonies of first responders and of witnesses, but do not say that they have established the veracity of those claims. I dont know which The Times you are referring to. You are welcome to provide such sources, but the sources have been attributing the accusation to Israeli accounts. Not saying that they have established that they are accurate. nableezy - 22:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Your “reframing” also ignores the fundamental question of whether this story is essential to a summary of the war as a whole (i.e., WP:DUE). Not a summary of October 7, not a summary of how wicked and cartoonishly villainous Hamas supposedly is, a summary of the entire war. Regardless of whether you accept Israel’s evidence, one of our tasks here is to distill out the essential features of the whole war, in proportion to the coverage of RS. The fact that the Israeli propaganda machine has latched onto these stories (after the “40 beheaded babies” schtick didn’t catch on) doesn’t make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. So, no, it may help a certain POV to re-frame the issue along these lines, but I doubt it helps our readers or other editors looking to establish consensus. WillowCity^(talk) 22:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So you suggest to remove any mention of sexual violence from the lede? I don't agree with this, lots of RS have mentioned it very prominently when describing the conflict.

The 40 beheaded babies have nothing to do with it. Some claims turn out to be false, on both sides (e.g., the first reports of the number casualties of the Al-Ahli explosion were hugely exaggerated). In case of beheaded babies, the RS have investigated this claim and found it to be untrue. In case of sexual violence, on the other hand, we get more and more evidence that it happened, unfortunately. Alaexis_¿question? 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

From your CNN source: CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims. AP comes closer to saying that it happened in their own voice, but still attributes it to accounts provided by Israeli witnesses or first responders. Both also include the denial. I am fine including that these accusations have been made, in the lead too, but not with the level of detail given here if we are eliding detail of Israeli crimes from the lead. And yes, with the denial. nableezy - 22:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position, but I’m not opposed to compromise. I’m glad you brought out those sources though. From the first:

• CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims … Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence during the attack — despite the evidence. so, some editorializing (which we don’t do here), but still noting the denial.

from the second:

• accounts given to The Associated Press, along with first assessments by an Israeli rights group, show that sexual assault was part of [the Oct 7 attack] … investigators are still trying to determine the scope of the sexual assaults … Hamas has rejected allegations that its gunmen committed sexual assault … Rights experts say the United Nations is best placed to conduct a fair, credible and impartial investigation.

attributions, denials. WillowCity^(talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Willow, you misunderstand our NPOV and Verification policies. When the source says the denials are false, then WP must do the same. We are agnostic and just summarize the RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say the denials are false so your premise fails under its own weight. nableezy - 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Alice says she saw Bob eating a steak. Charlie says he saw Bob eating a burger. But Bob says he's a vegetarian—despite the evidence. CNN cannot independently verify individual allegations and claims." In this hypothetical, is CNN saying that Bob's denials are false? WillowCity^(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It would advance your position more effectively if you would not post straw men and other deflections. I did not say that the quoted source called the denial false. I was trying to address the principle by which WP treats statements by RS. I was giving you the example that even in the polar case, where the denial was outright false, we would still represent whatever the source says. In the case of Hamas' denial of these assaults, the source makes a point of telling its readers that the denial is "despite the evidence". The NPOV way to reflect that in the article is to include that assessment. Numerous editors have been explaining that quite clearly for many days now, so if it's not acceptable to you, you could mount an RfC or solicit feedback at NPOVN, but I think you will find that our policies have not changed. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is one source, and numerous editors have been explaining quite clearly the issue with your edits, and you may solicit that same feedback. Since you have declined to answer my question on your removal of very well sources material up above, I am reverting it. nableezy - 01:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that something is denied "despite the evidence" is not the same as saying that the denial is false. That was the point of my analogy. I understood you as saying that the quoted source called the denial false. If I misunderstood, that was my mistake. But, as nableezy notes, even if CNN did dismiss the denials, other RS report the denials without editorializing on their relative merit.

My position remains that a clinical, detached tone is preferable. Even in articles like Rwandan genocide and Atrocities in the Congo Free State, the extreme language that's being pushed here isn't used in the lead. Make of that what you will. WillowCity^(talk) 01:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all, or are somehow in doubt, is a position that does not help matters much at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say that they didn’t happen? I said that they were denied by the alleged perpetrators, I said that Israel has a history of misrepresenting or outright fabricating evidence, but I never specifically opined on whether or not it happened. Rape has (always and tragically) been a weapon of war and it will continue to be as long as imperialism and colonialism (the real root of wartime violence against women) persist. But are we here to discuss what WP user WillowCity thinks, or what RS say? I’m vain, but I think the latter. WillowCity^(talk) 23:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking sources to give a false impression of the overwhelming evidence supporting the immensity and gravity of the sexual assaults. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, he is accurately showing that sources are attributing these accusations. Your accusation is baseless and outrageous. Please stop yourself. nableezy - 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli rape accusation which was fact-checked by Thomson Reuters turned out to be false propaganda.[3] Crampcomes (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt inserted by WillowCity, and I agree that shouldnt be in the lead. What are you implying with that quote as a reply to me? nableezy - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just bringing this to your attention. BTW, I totally agree with WillowCity that this whole rape accusation, which already has a separate article on it, should not be in the lede of this article. Crampcomes (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not belong in the lead, it is a single report on a single instance. nableezy - 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Suggesting that the sexual assaults did not occur at all" is knowingly twisting someone's word. If you insist on such bad faith behavior, I may bring the issue to administrator noticeboard and ask for possible disciplinary actions. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the denials are mentioned, but not prominently (two sentences in the Times [4], one sentence in the CNN, NBC and AP reports. These sources do not mention anyone else denying that this happened. In view of all this, we should mention the denials too in the body of the article, and in the article about the sexual violence, but definitely not in the lede, per WP:DUE.

Basically every claim in this war has been contested by one side or the other. Including denials after each sentence is clearly not the right way to write encyclopedic articles. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Andre🚐 21:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, that they include it means we need to, and including charges without responses is a straightforward NPOV violation. nableezy - 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is particularly true since the lead may be the only portion of the article a reader actually looks at. We also can't pick-and-choose what parts of NPOV we want to rely on (e.g. emphasizing a particular interpretation of DUE, without considering potential BALASP issues that arise from discussing the claim in the lead at all). WillowCity^(talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV Andre🚐 22:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

When sources relay accusations as accusations and include denials they are not endorsing a view, they are relaying the charges made and the responses to it. That is what we do as well, as the sources do. nableezy - 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with the points made aboveby Alaexis re the denials, and I think the NPOV issue created by failure to mention the sexual atrocities is self-evident. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• per wp:neutrality, all the views must be quoted when a subject is mentioned 1) Hamas denies using rape as a weapon - it is a fact, they released a statement, 2) individual Hamas soldiers did commit, it was reported. Iennes (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what neutrality is. Andre🚐 23:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". two sides of a coin and not censorship like it was done here.[5] Iennes (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not two sides of a coin, 5050 on every issue. WP:YESPOV, If most sources, even "WESTERN" sources, say something, we have to give more weight to that side. Andre🚐 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The same sources include the accusation and the denial. What don’t you get about that? nableezy - 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• The lead now includes "and Hamas videos showed naked and bloodied women on the day of the assault." and does not include the Hamas denial of the rape accusations. That level of detail is not being included for accusations about Israeli actions, we are not including that they left premature babies in a hospital they demanded to be abandoned to decompose, we are not including that they have killed generations of families which Amnesty International has called apparent war crimes with "damning evidence", we are not including that they have executed unarmed civilians sheltering in UN facilities, we are not including that video shows them killing unarmed civilians at close range in the West Bank, we are not including any details on the war crimes committed by Israel. But we are including details on contested allegations of crimes by Hamas. This is non-neutral. Either include details on charges or dont, but you cant turn the lead in to "this is why Israel is justified in leveling Gaza" without any other POV. nableezy - 22:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  a total blockade of the Gaza Strip was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water. This long-standing part was sneakily and cunning removed too from under our noses. You know whole population of 2 million drinking contaminated water can kill a lot more than 18000 in both long and short term. But it's what it is. Crampcomes (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Couldn't agree more, this has created massive BALASP issues. The lead could be filled with horror stories, with the torture of Palestinian detainees arbitrarily arrested en masse, or their deaths in custody, or the forcible disappearance of doctors, or the "exponential" increase in settler violence in the West Bank, or the assassination of journalists. But it's not. This allegation is given more attention in the lead than anything I've listed, none of which is even mentioned. The result is an outrageous POV violation; as editors, we should be embarrassed. WillowCity^(talk) 23:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to see the source survey for the relative prominence as aspects of each of those for this topic, stacked against the other things you think are less prominent. Has such a survey been done yet? If not, maybe that would be a constructive, productive way forward rather than soapboxing about how embarassed or ashamed we should be about this, which isn't exactly incivil, but I don't like the tone. Andre🚐 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well I apologize for the tone, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just exasperated by this conversation going in circles for days. But you don't need a source survey to know that this level of specificity, for something that has yet to be independently, impartially investigated and verified, is not in keeping with the rest of this article's lead, which is the real crux of the issue.

  As for a constructive, productive way forward, I'm on board with just stating the allegation and the denial, without getting into the specifics. That is a compromise from my original position, which is that the sexual assault issue is WP:UNDUE for the lead (and I note that no editor has produced a source survey showing that this is a prominent aspect of coverage of the war as a whole, despite the onus). EDIT: When I say just stating the allegation and the denial, I mean with attribution for who is alleging and denying. WillowCity^(talk) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

a total blockade of the Gaza Strip was imposed, thereby forcing Gazans to drink contaminated, "tainted" water.

References

Why letting the pro Israeli wp users impose their will of relating unbalanced stories when you can use edit summary naming the User who did this, re including this content while re-adding the denials of Hamas. Don't wait for their approval, cite wp:neutrality, it is what matters. Iennes (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the less detailed rape charge, along with the Hamas denial. There is no consensus for the inclusion of these details, and if you refuse to include the denial then the charge should not be included either. We can take this to an RFC if you want, but there has never been consensus for what has been repeatedly pushed in to the lead. nableezy - 03:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to think there is a better way to write it than, srael has reported rapes and sexual assault by Hamas fighters; Hamas has denied this.rape as a weapon of war. Andre🚐 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed that, was a mistake from two different thoughts being combined. nableezy - 03:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I also included the charge they used rape as a weapon of war. I think that addresses the problem that some had with supposed equal treatment here. nableezy - 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat, but haven't others aside from Israel confirmed the Israeli reports? While nobody has confirmed the Hamas denials, because you can't really confirm a denial. Andre🚐 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see an independent third-party source stating that it is confirmed, using that specific word. Some sources find the witness/forensic evidence credible, but that is a very different proposition from outright 'confirmation'. WillowCity^(talk) 03:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least the US state department. [6] Andre🚐 03:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I should say an independent, reliable third-party source. I thought that went without saying, though. And when I say "independent", I mean RS from outside of Israel or Palestine. In a previous edit, I said that the reports emanated from "Israeli sources", so that would encompass ToI, YNET, and other Israeli outlets that post corroborations/confirmations. I'm not opposed to that type of attribution. WillowCity^(talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, yes, that too. but what about like the US state department and US officials.[7] Andre🚐 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a reliable source for what the US government believes to have happened, but not for what actually happened. US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller is not (to my knowledge) a forensic scientist, international expert, specialist in the laws of war, or otherwise qualified to interpret evidence and determine its legal effect. He can convey what the US government believes to be true, and we can convey that. But the Hill article even says that Miller "had not made an independent assessment." WillowCity^(talk) 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, but you wrote it as Israeli reports alone. I think it's a bit relevant that the president has said governments and international organizations should "forcefully condemn the sexual violence of Hamas terrorists without equivocation." Not that we need to quote that, but maybe "Israel, supported by the US," would be appropriate. Andre🚐 04:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why in the lead? Why is that part of the summary? nableezy - 04:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Because otherwise it sounds like it's a 50-50 false balance whether the sexual assaults happened or not, not that they did happen, Hamas denied it, as they would, and Israel's story is corroborated by extensive evidence and international support. Andre🚐 04:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It is supported by their political and military allies. Who also supported claims that have later turned out to be patently false, eg babies beheaded. And there arent sources for "they did happen", the sources say that Israel says they happened and have provided testimonies from witnesses who say it happened. The source you offered has a US State Department spokesman saying "The fact that it seems one of the reasons they don’t want to turn women over, that they’ve been holding hostage, and the reason this pause fell apart, is they don’t want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody". That is a political office of an ally of Israel making what is an unsupported and uncorroborated claim, and you are taking that as evidence that this is true and we must follow that source. Sorry, but I disagree. I see an attempt to push a thumb on the scales here and include contested views as facts when the sources describe the views as views that are contested. And I do not think any reading of Israel has reported Hamas fighters committed rapes and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon of war; Hamas has denied this can be construed to be "50-50 false balance". We include that Israel has "reported", not "accused" or "claimed", that Hamas fighters committed acts of rape and sexual assault and that it used rape as a weapon. And we include four words on Hamas denying it, with one of them being a preposition. If you want to start an RFC on this feel free. nableezy - 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. Andre🚐 05:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The beheading of babies isn't "patently false"- it's something which several survivors and eyewitnesses have reported, and almost certainly happened (just as many other eyewitness accounts from 10/7 ended up confirmed by journalists)- but it is something that the evidence for has not been reported with sufficiently stringent journalistic certainty as to be presented as a fact in Wikipedia. Lack of sufficiently strong evidence that something happened is not equal to evidence that it did not happen.

Regarding the sexual assaults on the other hand, there is widespread journalistic confirmation of that happening in reliable sources, so it would be undue bias to refer to the denial of them. There is a very good reason why the lede to the article on The Holocaust does not contain the wording "Journalists claim that Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, but Nazis deny this". Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Equating the level of certainty surrounding the Holocaust to the level of certainty surrounding sexual violence on October 7 (to the extent and in the manner alleged by Israel) is frankly offensive. Please refrain from making these sorts of comparisons, it does a disservice to the memory of the Holocaust and the millions who died. WillowCity^(talk) 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The better comparison, if any is appropriate, would be between current events and denial of the Holocaust during WW2 when it was ongoing. There was lots of that. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly happened lol? One baby was killed on October 7. So no, definitely did not happen. Completely debunked and yet repeated here as though it were true. nableezy - 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know that this should be in the lead of this article at all tbh. This isn’t the article on the 7 October attacks, and accusations of sexual assault have not been a major component in coverage of the war as a whole as opposed to coverage of the initial attacks. Definitely a major topic for that article, but here it seems like it’s just being shoved in the lead without regard to its weight to this topic. nableezy - 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been exactly my position from the get-go. It's a WP:BALASP issue. The war has been ongoing for months and a ton of events have transpired/are transpiring. If this claim is important to the war as a whole, then those who want it included in the lead should be able to establish its importance with reference to RS (and not just RS talking about the war's outbreak). WillowCity^(talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree and think it shouldn’t be repeatedly forced in either. If you support material being included and you need to resort to edit warring to include it then you don’t have consensus and need to establish that first. nableezy - 19:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, many other users disagree. Nothing is being forced in. There's no consensus to remove it. Andre🚐 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If there was never consensus to include it then the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include it. And I think you know that, despite your attempt to shift that onus. And it has been added/removed no less than 5 times^1,2,3,4,5 so I dont know how you can pretend like it is not being forced in. But, to the point, can you show that this story features prominently in coverage of the war and not just coverage of the 7 October attacks? Because we have an article on those attacks. If it is not a prominent feature of coverage of this overall conflict then it should not be in the lead of this article. nableezy - 20:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's by far, one of the most prominent aspects of the war and the attacks. There are something like 37 million results for "sexual assault hamas" Andre🚐 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But which of those are not in the context of coverage of the October 7th attack? And there are 16,400 news results for "sexual assault" "hamas", 14,800 for "rape" "hamas", nearly all of them in the context of coverage of the 7 October attacks. Which, again, we have an article for. nableezy - 20:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty significant amount of news coverage for an event that's only a few months old. There will be even more coverage as books and journal articles and other kinds of secondary and tertiary analysis are added. And there's clearly a consensus to include this material or at best a stalemate of status quo which as you know, defaults to the status quo. I think it's a gray area in terms of ONUS, one that gets discussed there, so I may leave a comment pointing to this. "I don't like that and it never had a consensus" isn't a valid argument here. It's been sitting in the article and the status quo should remain given that there's a critical mass of users who support it. If you disagree, I suggest an RFC is the way. Andre🚐 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you know a critical mass of users support it? How are you defining status quo? The extent of edit-warring completely undermines the idea that inclusion is the status quo, the last stable version of the lead before the edit war actually excluded the claim. Respectfully, this is not a grey area; the onus to include disputed content is on advocates for inclusion. “I don’t like that” is a strawman, various editors have explained (patiently, repeatedly, at great length) the policy basis for our position. WillowCity^(talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Start an RFC to solicit opinions. I do not know why advocates on this topic don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, part of those rules is contested edits stay out absent a consensus. But you up above, and now, act like the burden to establish that consensus is on those seeking the removal of what has not had any consensus to begin with. And what you also have restored, without that consensus. Whats that about don't want to abide by the same rules of engagement that everyone else must abide by on Wikipedia? nableezy - 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As you know, The rules are principles and ONUS must be weighed against every other policy, which should not be wikilawyered. ONUS is not a weapon to remove anything you find objectionable. In a situation like this with an active discussion, the status quo will remain. Andre🚐 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There was never a status quo for this, it has been edit-warred in from the start. If that continues well we can see what happens. Im removing it as lacking weight in coverage of the war and consensus for its inclusion. nableezy - 21:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The decision as to what will or will not remain is not yours to make alone. WillowCity^(talk) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Andre, youre ignoring my point. Its a significant part of the October 7 story. I dont think it is a significant part of the coverage of the war as a whole. There are 65,700 results for "ceasefire" "hamas". nableezy - 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I google "hamas rape" (no quotes) and I get 45 million results. 15,300 in news. USA Today two days ago: 'We know they were raped in Hamas captivity': Chilling details of what hostages faced" It is very much in the forefront of news coverage in reliable sources, and the only question is whether to include the Hamas denial, which is cursory and which I believe is barred in the lead by WP:VALID While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. Include the sexual assault, and exclude the denial. Andre🚐 21:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the Israeli military official says that. There has been some coverage of hostages being sexually abused, but I would not say that much. The coverage that does exist is about October 7, which we have a dedicated article on. There has been no indication that the coverage of the assaults in the context of the war as a whole, which is what this article is about, and not those attacks specifically, merits inclusion in the lead. Since there was never a consensus for its inclusion, Im going to remove it. And users should read WP:ONUS before continuing to edit war. nableezy - 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• @ScottishFinnishRadish would you consider reverting to include contested material due to no consensus when WP:ONUS requires consensus for inclusion to be tendentious editing? I was told to engage an administrator prior to escalating things to formal reports. This material has been subject of dispute since it was first included in the lead 11 December, been removed and restored more than a half dozen times in the 11 days since then. Does this meet any definition of consensus, either in this section or as WP:SILENCE? nableezy - 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it's not, as you know, during a discussion, the status quo remains. I have not violated 1RR Andre🚐 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say you violated 1RR, I am saying you are editing tendentiously which is prohibited independently of edit-warring. This has never been stable material, and users are edit-warring to maintain it. Hell, it's the second time today it is being pushed in to the lead, without consensus. nableezy - 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's stable material in that it's been in the article for a long time and people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus, and it is restored. That is a form of stability. Start an RFC. Bandying around empty accusations of tendentious editing is incivil. Andre🚐 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  No part of that is true. It was added 11 days ago and has been removed repeatedly only to be restored without it having consensus. It is just not true that it has been in the article for a long time, and you are adding it without consensus, despite twisting the policy to say people try to remove it for reasons that lack consensus. Sorry, but the onus for establishing consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content, and distorting our policies to pretend like they say the opposite of what they do is likewise tendentious. nableezy - 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're wikilawyering to keep out content that you don't like despite obvious lack of consensus or at best, a stalemate that defaults to the status quo. 11 days is a significant percentage of time that this article has even existed given that it's a <3 month old event. The bottom line is that while the article is under active and robust discussion you shouldn't be unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion. Andre🚐 21:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  But you're not engaging with the core points:

  1) There has been repeated edit-warring for the past 11 days, reflecting a lack of consensus

  2) in these circumstances, the actual status quo is the last stable version of the article, which excluded the contested sentence

  3) if there is an "obvious lack of consensus" as you acknowledge, onus requires the inclusionist camp to establish consensus

  Moreover you reverted nableezy's edit within a minute of it being made, is that not unilaterally making changes to the material under discussion?

  I do not see these arguments as wikilawyering I see them as a mundane and obvious application of policy. The novel interpretation of ONUS and consensus that you're advancing, however... WillowCity^(talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bullshit, I am providing Wikipedia policy-based reasons for not including material in the lead of the article. Wikilawyering is when an editor claims that the rules, like WP:ONUS, do not say what they clearly say, and attempt to force through material through manipulating those policies to support what they do not. 11 days would be significant if it had stayed in the article. It did not, it was challenged and edit-warred back in. So your blustering is a. completely false, and b. completely unsupported by the rules. Ill await clarification from the admin on if that merits raising a case of tendentious editing or not, but I have no interest in engaging in a discussion with such a bad faith and plainly false portrayal of our policies, especially when it comes with a claim of wikilawyering by somebody who, ironically, is wikilawyering. Somebody should revert your edit as it is plainly not acceptable under WP:ONUS. nableezy - 21:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is also WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, and I see that the inclusion of the denial was already tagged by another editor for NPOV. Without any mention of the sexual assaults in the lead, I think we have a serious NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, my removal is based on WP:DUE, which is part of WP:NPOV. Can you please address the question on if coverage of the war as a whole, and not just the 7 October attacks, features accusations of rape prominently? Because where I say the overwhelming majority of coverage of that is in coverage of those attacks. But this is not the article on the attacks. nableezy - 21:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I RV'd to omit the sentence; hopefully this stabilizes the lead pending some resolution but I'm not holding my breath. WillowCity^(talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  ONUS is not a blank check and no wikipedia policy works the way that nableezy and WillowCity seem to think. Each policy must be interpreted in light of all other policies and context. See a similar discussion here Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Homework. This is very similar to the hypothetical scenario I proposed. Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining. Removing it is obviously anti-consensus if it's under active discussion. Again, start an RFC or a noticeboard discussion. Andre🚐 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  You need consensus for inclusion, and that applies to all of us. You dont get to claim a special exemption to the rules. Edit-warring in material that has been disputed from the start and then claiming consensus is needed to remove it is one of the POV-pushers main arrows. They think they can just shift the burden through slight of hand. Sorry, but I know the policies here, and your editing is in direct contravention of them. I'll see if an administrator agrees and take it from there. nableezy - 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Andre, and I also wanted to mention that I agreed to include the Hamas denial despite my feeling it was not warranted in order to get the matter resolved, as consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS "is not an all or nothing proposition." Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Except you also kept restoring it without, eg two days ago. Anyway, I dont think it belongs as I dont think it is a prominent feature of coverage of the war, as opposed to a prominent feature of the coverage of the 7 October attacks, but this article is not about the 7 October attacks. A point made and completely ignored for some reason. I wonder if its ideological? nableezy - 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's not a valid argument as the attacks were the opening salvos of the war, are very much part of the war, and as I said now and previously), it remains in the forefront of the coverage. Yes the atrocities were gruesome, but Wikipedia is not censored. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they were the opening salvo, but if you open up the universe of sources that are related to the war as a whole, and not just the ones that are related to 7 October, then the coverage of sexual assault is not that high. It pales in comparison to say coverage of the UN Security Council and the vetoes (114k news results for "security council" "hamas" "gaza" "israel" "2023" compared to the 16k on "sexual assault" and the 14k on "rape"). But you would have us cover that more prominently with more detail than we do the various UN resolution attempts? Why? nableezy - 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary, coverage is increasing due to evidence and testimony of the freed hostages. These is ainvestigative report by NBC News today. An RfC will resolve this. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see that there is, or has ever been consensus for inclusion, but what I do see is long term edit warring from both sides of the issue.
  Yesterday I had the edit notices and AE log open, ready to apply consensus required. The only thing that stopped me was knowing that I was going to be too busy to meet admincond for the next few days. I was hoping I would come back to see an RFC or other productive discussion, and this ain't that.
  I don't think anyone really wants to deal with consensus required on an article as active as this. To avoid this, I suggest we respect ONUS, and start an RFC. Andrevan your statement above Per Coretheapple, CONSENSUS, NPOV, LEAD, BALASP, all point to this content remaining is an argument for inclusion, but it doesn't make disagreement anti-consensus, and as you said it's under active discussion which demonstrates there is no consensus for inclusion. We have procedures for exactly this situation. Leave out contested content, discuss, if consensus isn't clear or is challenged open an RFC. The kicker is that even if this isn't how things proceed now it's how it will have to proceed if consensus required is applied because the content has never enjoyed consensus.
  I think an RFC with three options, include, include with Hamas denial, and don't include is probably sufficient. If the RFC starts soon we'll have an answer in a little over 30 days. There is no deadline, and a month with this one detail in limbo isn't going to make it break the article. We're all experienced editors who've worked on disputed content in contentious areas before, so let's steady on and solve this like a group that includes some of the more experienced editors involved with the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and that there have been 227 comments with only 16 editors (including myself) in this section demonstrates that this should have been an RFC well before now. When discussions turn to a small group of editors going in circles it's time to take a step up the ladder of figuring shit out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  While you are here, the most costructive thing would be if you'd review this talk page for civility lapses. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think it’s fair or necessary to ask SFR to devote their time to that. If you have a particular concern I’m sure you could take it to the talk page of the relevant editor. We’ve all been duly chastened by the “adult in the room”, let’s all just take the above comments to heart and try to deal more productively moving forward. WillowCity^(talk) 02:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you would like to share some of the one and a third tomats of text you object to? I see recently in this thread there were two accusations of idealistically based arguments, one of which was retracted and the other was pointing out the accusation, which is kind of a wash. I reviewed a great deal a few days ago and issued some warnings.

  There are 37,000 words on this talk page, so even a hint would help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the RFC is the best path forward, but per the advisory essay WP:QUO which has some community support, Avoid reverting during discussion. While both sides were reverting, to be sure, the ONUS argument is a non-argument. As of 6 days ago, the compromise solution was including the statement in the lead along with the denial. I never removed the denial, I attempted to restore the status quo which had 6 days of stability, Further, continued personalization of the dispute is disruptive. So while I agree this discussion has been going nowhere fast, I don't agree that the status quo wasn't including the material. Andre🚐 02:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's never been in the article long enough where removing it isn't considered a revert, so it's not the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  How long is that? because this is not a type of Wiki rules account rule-of-thumbing that I'm familiar with, but may be a custom or practice specific to this topic area. Given that the entire event is about 3 months long, if we agreed to a compromise 6 days ago, which was abandoned today for some reason (probably for the same reason that some people unilaterally redirected a number of articles on the conflict and put them up for AFD, for the 2nd time in a month in one case?), how much longer before these types of things would be considered a status quo ante? It seems to be we said, 'll leave it alone for a while, as I expect over time, more information will come out. Andre🚐 12:17 am, 17 December 2023, last Sunday (6 days ago) (UTC−5 at which time nableezy's edits stood in the article. I was reverting back to that version. The goalposts have moved, though. Andre🚐 03:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your timeline is incorrect as laid out below. nableezy - 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  From what I've seen in numerous discussions although there's no hard cutoff I've seen anywhere between 2 weeks to a month to upwards of six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, if that is the modern consensus I will abide by that. Andre🚐 03:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  It was not stable for 6 days however. You re-added it on the 16th, was removed on the 18th, re-added on the 20th (without the denial), I returned the denial and less detailed material that day, it was removed the 20th, and returned on the 22nd, twice. nableezy - 03:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't object to the chronology, which shows that it was not entirely stable, so I will grant that, but it does show that a compromise version containing the material and the denial was readded by me as well as you. I will admit I did not notice that the denial got lost in the restoration on the 20th. Andre🚐 03:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I was focused on maintaining the neutrality in that compromise, a compromise that was repeatedly rejected I'd add (including by you above), but I still dont think that is merits weight for inclusion in the lead, because I dont think it is a prominent controversy about the war as opposed to being a prominent controversy on a sub-topic of the war, the 7 October attacks. And Im surprised that the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel does not include rape in its lead for that matter. But as a a proportion of coverage of the war as a whole, and not just coverage limited to the initial attack, it just doesn't have the amount of coverage that other controversies do. Like al-Shifa, or other claims of human shielding, or the humanitarian crisis and the effect of the siege, or the stalemate in the UN(SC), or any number of other topics that have coverage 10x+ than this does. nableezy - 03:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, Nableezy, I oppose including the denial as my position, but I did not reject the compromise. I stated my opinion. I did not make any edit. It was under discussion. As far as why it's not on that other article, I can rectify that right now. In general, going forward, I thought we had had a compromise and that we were waiting for more info to come since it's still recent. Obviously we don't agree on the weight question, but that's a question we can put to an RFC soon. Maybe we could wait a couple weeks and draft some more proposals or evidence. Andre🚐 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your edit there. And yes, an RFC should settle all parts of this. nableezy - 04:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  But also, if that compromise did not keep getting rejected, both here and in the editing, I dont think we would be here. If it would actually end things Id support that compromise, but it doesnt seem like that it is what is happening. Agree to include the denial, then edit not to does not a compromise make. nableezy - 04:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've started an RfC as suggested. See bottom of page. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)