Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information To-do list:, Project Israel To Do: ...
Close

Revisiting "reportedly" in lead

How do we get consensus on this? It seems that numerous editors commenting here agree that the word "reportedly" can have different connotations and isn't always NPOV (see: Wiktionary, which includes rumoredly, supposedly, allegedly, and ostensibly as synonyms). How do we get a consensus that it should be changed to "according to reports"? My change was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplewriter (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Reportedly in lead

There has been a bit of an edit war about the use of "reportedly" in the first sentence. Opposing it, RCSCott91 says Removed word "reportedly" which is defined by Oxford as "according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true)." Word is not unbiased and is meant to involve in the reader as sense that the event is a lie. Reinstating it, {Rap no Davinci says The word "reportedly" does not cast doubt on the fact that sexual violence occurred. Instead, it just reflects the nature of the evidence, which is based extensively on reports and testimonies. most sources report it as "Israel accuses Hamas..." and Raskolnikov.Rev says "Reportedly" means it was reported, it does not cast doubt. We use the same term in the page for sexual violence against Palestinians. Rap no Davinci is incorrect in saying that most sources report it as "Israel accuses Hamas..." as is clear from reading the article. However, Raskolnikov.Rev is correct that Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war opens with During the ongoing Gaza war, Israeli male and female soldiers, guards and medical staff have reportedly committed wartime sexual violence against Palestinian women, children and men... and it seems sensible to me to use the same language, and stick with the language we have now. (An alternative formulation (for both articles) would that used in the article War crimes in the Gaza war: Reports from human rights organizations, media outlets and testimonies from Palestinians have confirmed that Israeli male and female soldiers, guards as well as medical staff have committed wartime sexual violence against Palestinians children, women and men.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The English wiki article, "Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war" uses the word "reportedly" because this article uses the word "reportedly". The adverb "reportedly" was used when this article was created by editor LeRenartQuiPense on 29 November 2023, approximately 3 weeks after the event started. Neither original inline sources uses this wording.
I will inform, LeRenartQuiPense, on their talk page, in hopes of getting their input.
RCSCott91 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
LeRenartQuiPense (formerly Homerethegreat) is currently topic banned from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
So in essence, we are arguing over a word choice on an article by an editor who is banned from the topic?
A word choice, "reportedly" that is the adverb of "reported", which is literally used as an example of words not to use as an expression of doubt. MOS:DOUBT
I'm going to go apologize to LeRenartQuiPense for inviting them to a topic they are banned from.
RCSCott91 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
MOS:DOUBT doesn't describe "report" as a word not to use, rather the example (a Yale "report") serves to discourage the use of "scare quotes". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@Butterscotch Beluga I grabbed the wrong section link. I should have grabbed for that MOS:AWW.
Going further in MOS:Doubt, "expressions of doubt should be avoided. Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others."
The word "reportedly" in this lede is superfluous. Of course the events are reported, we use secondary sources in Wikipedia. So the only reason to keep it in a well-established event's article is to pull on its second meaning of sowing doubt. Unless you feel the word needs to be in article ledes about events such as the Armenian Genocide, the Attack of 9/11, Massacre of Trujillo, the Tokyo sarin attack, etc.? All these events are also reported.
RCSCott91 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
It's now become apparent from article edit history that Raskolnikov.Rev has reverted the exact same edit from at least 3 other editors and possibly reverted similar edits that also included removing "reportedly".
I also question their bias in editing based on multiple reverts in this article including using sources that seem WP:CHERRYPICKING which leads me to doubt they aren't merely downplaying the established alternative meaning of "reportedly". One such example on 7 August 2025.
RCSCott91 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the belated reply, I've been preoccupied with work. I see that @RCSCott91 sent non-neutral talk page notifications solely to editors who agree with his POV and did not do so with me despite knowing I had not participated in this talk, and also failed to do so with other editors with the opposing POV, which is a gross violation of WP:CANVASSING. The fact that one of those editors then decided to get involved in the discussion also implicates them in this.
To answer what was said about me by RCS: I reverted it for the same reason I reverted it when you removed it, which is now being discussed here. Another editor also reverted it. That by itself says nothing about the validity of the removals, including yours, or the reversions. This is why Bob started this talk topic. To restate my position, reportedly means that an event has been reported, it does not question it or cast doubt on whether or not it happened. That is your own projection, which curiously you have not extended to the sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinian page. It is particularly useful and accurate to use the term when it's in reference to an event that is primarily and most conclusively contained and relayed in reports from human rights and other organizations as @Smallangryplanet noted, as is the case here and with the sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians.
This is why your invocation of other events where this does not apply has no relevance. I also agree with @Bobfrombrockley point that there is an additional nuance that warrants its usage, namely that there is some conflict in the reports as regards scope and nature of the sexual and gender based violence. The term does not cast or imply doubt about the occurrence of it, but emphasizes that we rely on specific reports for its extent and scope.
You have no rules-based or other persuasive argument for removal of the term. This is why you resorted to citing a dictionary entry when other definitions state the opposite to your claim, and then misrepresenting MOS:WEASEL which says nothing about usage of the term. It's also why you resorted to referencing one of my non-related edits without pointing out anything wrong with it. Please refrain from WP:CASTING aspersions with references to editors' edit histories supposedly indicating their bias and stick to the merits of the case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
@Raskolnikov.Rev you could have broken it into a line item of things instead of an essay of paragraphs.
-You stated in at least two of your reverts to those editors, that the "reportedly" change should be brought into the talk page, did you feel that they shouldn't have a voice? You'll also see I tried to get input from the article's creator, the source of the use "reportedly" back in November 2023, obviously before I found out that the person is barred from Israel-Gaza topics.
But by all means, if you honestly believe I'm had "gross violation", you should report me. Although, you are the main culprit for reverting the use of "reportedly", so your assumption of me seeking one-sided voices doesn't hold much water considering I invited anyone involved with the revert who wasn't already in this discussion. (Namely, the article creater and people you have reverted.)
-I already addressed your concern about a non-related article in my response to Smallangryplanet on 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC). If you feel that sexual violence of October 7th and Palestinian violence are connected, IE: one either caused or warranted the other, you should request a page merger, otherwise they are separate articles.
-With your accusation of WP:CASTING when I cited your edit 7 August 2025, in which you changed "survivors testimony" into "witness accounts" and then choose a source that claims the UN found no findings of sexual violence yet the UN report had been released (ironically, the source you had also reverted from my edit) which was published nearly a year prior to the news article you cited in your edit. You made that edit in August of this year, choosing a source that obviously doubts all wrongdoing in October 7th.
Again, report me if you feel that one edit is a simple one-off and not a normal example of bias in the topic.
@Raskolnikov.Rev RCSCott91 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree with @Bobfrombrockley, @Raskolnikov.Rev and @Rap no Davinci that it's fine to keep it both here and in the related article on sexual violence against Palestinians.
"Reportedly" does not inherently imply or cast doubt, it simply expresses that something has been reported, and it's clear that's its meaning in the context we use it here. Merriam Webster defines reportedly as simply "according to report", and provides examples that do not cast or imply doubt. Britannica defines it as "according to what has been said — used to indicate what has been said or reported." Cambridge dictionary defines it as "according to what many people say".] As with Merriam Webster, Cambridge and Britannica provide many examples that do not cast or imply doubt.
Since per the lead and body we're relying on reports from the UN and other organisations and media outlets, it's only accurate that we use the term. Again, as has been noted by others, we also use it in the lead for the article on sexual violence against Palestinians, as there too it has reportedly occurred, so also for consistency we ought to keep it here as well.
I haven't seen any valid objections to this usage. @RCSCott91's invocation of MOS:DOUBT does not apply, as there's no reference to it at all there. MOS:WEASEL is not referring to the verb or adverb, it's specifically referring to the use of it is often reported, a phrase that could indeed be indicative of weasel words as it introduces a vague reference to quantity into the description. This is not case with the adverb by itself. Even there the MOS states it is not automatically weasel words and can still be used. Nor is the invocation of the origin of the phrase of any relevance as to its current status given – as I said before – it's an accurate reflection of the body. Smallangryplanet (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I think if it implies no doubt whatsoever and simply means our article is based on “reports” in the media or by agencies, then it IS completely superfluous, as per our core principles ALL our articles are based on “reports”. My view is that, exactly as with sexual violence by Israeli military against Palestinians during the war, multiple reports exist, many but not all of which have been independently verified, such that we can be confident it happened, but not of the exact extent of it happening. I therefore think it is probably the right term, but oppose POV efforts to overemphasise this margin of doubt. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it was the correct term 3 weeks after the event when the word was chosen by the creator of the article (even though no inline source used that choice of words) but we are 2 years post event and the event is verified. It simply shows doubt to keep it at this point. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I think I agree with you here Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
It's unneeded here. The extent of the violence may be disputed but its existence is not. Alaexis¿question? 15:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how that means we can't use the word "reported" to describe violence that was reported. I've seen it over-used in plenty of articles, don't get me wrong, but here it correctly describes that the events were reported. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
If something happened we should say it happened. It's really that simple unless I'm missing something here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed Wait. No I don't. Sorry, I got confused and thought you were saying if something is reported it should be described as reported. I agree with Bobfrombrockley's point because I do not believe there's any doubt or questioning of the occurrence of sexual and gender-based violence on October 7, and the term doesn't indicate or imply that there is – as I said in my previous reply. However, as Bob and Alaexis correctly note, there is some ambiguity and conflict amongst the various reporting as to the extent of the violence, which is report-specific. So I agree that this term makes sense to use here in particular, and it is an accurate reflection of the content in the body and the RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Alaexis, the second paragraph discusses what is disputed, and "reportedly" definitely casts doubt. Frankly I don't know how people can argue it doesn't with a straight face. It looks like this needs an RfC. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
@Smallangryplanet
- Verbs and adverbs are intrinsically linked in English.
- Who cares what a different article uses, there is specific WP not to make decisions simply based on other articles choices, that's why each article has it's own talk page. Unless you are arguing these two articles are linked such as the events of October 7th are deserved because of violence against Palestinians or the inverse that violence against Palestinians is somehow deserved because of the events of October 7th, in which case, you should request a merge of the articles; otherwise it's not a good argument. FYI: the use of the word in that article is probably inappropriate as well and most likely was added specifically because it was in this article, which is an inappropriate reason, in my opinion.
-I get it, you really want to bend over backwards to keep this word possibly because of it's secondary meaning, because it serves no purpose but being superfluous. Let the facts stand on their own, don't qualify them as if anything on Wikipedia is not supposed to be from secondary sources. WP:TERSE
-Finally, if I were to try to remove the use of the word "reportedly" from that other page that keeps being referenced. The change would probably be objected to by 3-5 editors with just as biased edit histories but on the pro-Israel side of the Gaza-Israel conflict.
PS: you forgot to respond to wether you think all articles about horrific events should use the qualifier "reportedly", given that they are all reported through secondary sources.
RCSCott91 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Verbs and adverbs are intrinsically linked in English MOS:WEASEL is not referring to either.
- Who cares what a different article uses... I was agreeing with other editors who noted that we use this term in other articles the same way we do here, that's all.
- I get it, you really want to bend over backwards to keep this word possibly because of it's secondary mean... no, I want to keep it because I agree with the other editors, for the reasons I listed in my post. Please WP:AGF.
- Finally, if I were to try to remove the use of the word "reportedly" from that other page that keeps being referenced... if the content on that page comes from cited reports, probably? I don't see how this is relevant.
- PS: you forgot to respond to... Not sure what you're referring to here I don't believe Bob asked this? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
@Smallangryplanet
Knowing that the word "reportedly" was an editorial choose by the editor who created this article approximately 3 weeks after October 7th.
- That verb/adverb choose wasn't used by any source;
- given that the events are now verified,
- and the word "reportedly" does have an alternate meaning which is used to show a person doubt or lack of verified information.
Why should we keep it?
RCSCott91 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

As someone who had removed "reportedly" before, I maintain this view, but I see both sides. Personally, I feel enough reliable sources such as one I linked to earlier establish that sexual violence was carried out by Hamas on October 7 and that "reportedly" is simply unneeded.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Recasting to find a compromise position

Part of this argument seems to be a difference between the denotation and connotation of reportedly. The denotation is neutral, but using it -- particularly in the lead, which should be carefully crafted -- allows for the interpretive connotation "if reports are true, X occurred". If we aren't trying to indicate nuance, let's use a more straightforward, less-open-to-nuance, framing.

I'm wondering if rather than arguing over what reportedly means, this can be resolved by simply recasting the sentence to use something like "was reported by multiple sources", which uses a form less open to interpretation. Maybe something like:

During the October 7 attacks, sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault, by Hamas or other Gazan militants against Israeli women, girls and men was reported by multiple sources.

or

Multiple sources reported incidents of sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault against Israeli women, girls and men, by Hamas or other Gazan militants during the October 7 attacks.

Valereee (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee
I liked the idea of rewording but if we change the adverb "reportedly" into "reported". We fall into MOS:WEASEL words.
The word "reportedly" was used by the creater of the article less than 3 weeks after the events of October 7th 2023. They can't officially chime in on why they made that choice of words because they are barred from Israel-Gaza subjects.
Arguably, the word choice shouldn't have been used to begin with, it isn't found in any sources and using verbs/adverbs that have an alternative dictionary meaning to 'show doubt/show that something has been unverified' whether we consider them weasel words or not it doesn't seem appropriate when it's about the title subject of the article. ie: "Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks".
Either "reportedly" is meant to be interpreted by its alternative meaning, of showing doubt or unverified' status, as we don't appear to use that verbage years after a tragic event is verified in other places, or it is superfluous and can be removed without cause.
RCSCott91 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
The word "reported" is no more weaselly than "reportedly". We don't get into weasel words unless we don't say who reported it. We don't want to do that in the lead when we're talking about multiple -- although we could use verbiage like "multiple sources, including X, reported" for the most reliable, maybe -- but as long as we attribute those reports in the sections, we're good. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, @RCSCott91, should have pinged. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
@Valereee If that is the case, I agree with rewording it, thereby not using the adverb "reportedly". RCSCott91 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
I support the proposed rewording. I prefer the second proposed formulation, but I see either as an improvement over the current version. Nehushtani (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC) (Blocked sockpuppet Blocked sockpuppet of Galamore, see investigation)
Support ' RCSCott91 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I do not see the semantic value in replacing "reportedly" which is clear, concise, and conveys the same meaning as "reported by multiple sources". The change also feels unnecessarily repetitive, since the text already goes on to specify that multiple sources reported it and even lists them explicitly right afterwards. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
@Paprikaiser the semantic value is because "reportedly" has an alternate connotation of information being unverified. It's verb form, "reported", doesn't have that alternate connotation.
[definition from dictionary.com]
[definition from vocabulary.com] RCSCott91 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
So, @Paprikaiser, you're saying you think the two wordings convey the same meaning. Some editors feel 'was reported' is less open to connotative interpretation. Can you talk about why you prefer 'were reportedly', if they both convey the same meaning and we aren't trying to introduce a nuanced interpretation? Valereee (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons noted by @Paprikaiser. The sole justification for adding a needlessly convoluted version is the mistaken belief that "reportedly" somehow casts doubt even though it doesn't for reasons I and others explained. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
So I can't speak about your background in English but as a native American speaker of English and anecdotally asking about a dozen other English speakers, who would assume someone using the word "reportedly" is telling you about an evolving story in the news or someone who has doubt of the facts of a story.
Non-anecdotally here are 3 online dictionaries definitions, which either have definitions showing the word is meant to show either doubt or that the word is for unverified information. One of which is Oxford dictionary.
|Oxford definition
Dictionary.com definition
| Vocabulary.com definition
At best it is an ambiguous word with multiple meanings, in which case it should be changed. And at worst it is a word meant to convey the lack of verification of facts/distrust of a story. Which side of that argument are you on?@Raskolnikov.Rev RCSCott91 (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Let's not bludgeon. Let's ask neutral questions. Valereee (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@Raskolnikov.Rev, can we discuss the reality vs. perception here? I feel like removing unintended nuance -- and every editor here is agreeing it is unintended -- which is a source of ongoing contention because many people clearly are interpreting this as intended nuance may be worth an extra two words in order to get the lead sentence to neutrally mean what we intend it to mean and remove a word that many editors -- which means certainly many readers -- are seeing as intended nuance. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@RCSCott91 I am fluent in English, and I do not believe relying on anecdotes helps your case. Saying something has been "reported" is the same as saying "reportedly", as can be readily observed by reading standard news coverage where they routinely say and write: "It has been reported that X", in the same manner they do with "reportedly". Also @Smallangryplanet already pointed out why the dictionary argument holds no water as there are others that say the opposite.
@Valereee, I don't believe it is reasonable to believe that many readers will consider "reportedly" to be in any way different from "reported by multiple sources" solely because several editors have tried to argue, based on some anecdotes and dictionary definitions, that the former is qualitatively different from the latter. Rather, I believe they will agree with editors who have noted that the former is less cumbersome as it means the same thing. However, for the sake of compromise, I am fine with the alternative version proposed by @Smallangryplanet. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
If there is no difference between "reportedly" and "according to reports", then the word is superfluous. Above you argued that the word was warranted because it does inject a connotation of qualification into the sentence, here it seems to me that you are saying that it doesn't. If all it means is "according to reports", the word is superfluous. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
RR, thank you for the good faith of being willing to compromise. Valereee (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
“Reportedly”, a cumbersome word, is not less convoluted, just uses one or two fewer words BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons I stated earlier. There actually is ambiguity and conflict in the various reports, especially regarding extent and scope. Therefore we should retain "reportedly" as it denotes this ambiguity/conflict in the sourcing, which we then immediately clarify. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so this is a different issue. I hadn't been aware you intended to introduce a nuanced interpretation, sorry. Is this something that you feel most people who are arguing to keep "reportedly" are actually getting at -- that these reports may not be true, and that we should be indicating that in the lead in Wikivoice? Valereee (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to ping @Smallangryplanet Valereee (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Even more nuanced than that, in fact. As I noted in the reply I linked, there's (sadly, on a human level) no doubt about the occurrence of sexual violence, that's shared amongst all of the highest quality RS we cite. But in those same sources there is also ambiguity about scope, extent and nature (e.g., was it planned and systematic, is it attributable to any particular faction, to combatants/noncombatants etc.). So "reportedly" accurately conveys the ambiguity/conflicting aspect of the RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
(@Valereee) Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@Smallangryplanet (LMK if you'd prefer not to be pinged; I'm sub'd, so I'll see it, but I also like the ping in a convo I'm actively in to put it into alerts rather than notices) -- so maybe the answer would be to remove some of the detail in that sentence to remove both the scope/responsibility and the need for nuance about those from wikivoice and follow it with another sentence that places the nuance where it's actually needed, something like:
Multiple sources reported incidents of sexual violence during the October 7 attacks. Some reports included allegations of rape and sexual assault of Israeli women, girls and men by Hamas or other Gazan militants.
'Allegations' puts the nuance back in for the issues of scope/responsibility, but removes the nuance about whether sexual assault even happened, which I think may be a main source of objection to the current sentence. That would help solve the issue of convolutedness, too. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@Valereee a ping is fine, I do the same thing with the alerts/notices. Thanks for asking!
Re: your suggestion - that could work, but the ambiguity would have to be correctly identified, and I'm not sure if others would accept putting that in the first paragraph. But something like this could work:
I would drop this line as being redundant as it's already stated in the first sentence and also repeated later on in the lead: The militants involved in the attack are accused of having committed acts of gender-based violence, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
What do you think? Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm just here as uninvolved to try to moderate a contentious discussion, so my own opinion on the content is moot. That said, if we can get others to agree to this -- which does remove the questioning of whether sexual assault even happened, which to me seems like it's what is being contended over -- great. That said, the suggested removal could become the new point of contention. Which is fine, we can just take this one step at a time and folks can argue about that next. :D Valereee (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Dammit and @Smallangryplanet, you literally just told me how you work. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Hah, no worries!!
Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Then use qualified language when talking about the scope/extent?? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
That's what I suggested here, I think. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Friend, that still attributes the acts to reports when the scholarship I've seen states it outright. Would During the October 7 attacks, Israeli women, girls and men were subjected to sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault by Hamas or other Gazan militants. The extent of sexual violence perpetrated by militants, and whether it was planned and weaponised by the attackers, has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. be amenable? The lead should also mention Israel's weaponisation of this and that be expanded in the body, as discussed in Mhajne 2024 Kowal2701 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't have as strong of an opinion on the lead's exact wording as others here (I find arguments both for & against using the term "reportedly" reasonable), but I believe this approximate wording is the most representative of the article's content.
It both directly describes the current findings of reliable sources while still nuanced enough to cover the controversies of the topic. I'm unsure if we need to write "Israeli women, girls and men", rather then just "Israeli women and men" as the former wording seems partially redundant, but if others are satisfied, I won't complain.
Regardless, I support this wording & I hope it adequately resolves the issue at the heart of this dispute. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
I would support this over the other compromise suggestions put forward so far. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
You cited an article from May 2024 before the mandated UN reports were published (not the un-mandated Patten report), and it makes claims that are highly contested by RS, including that sexual violence was widespread, systematic, and planned. It also relies heavily on contested sources such as the earlier NYT piece that other RS heavily criticised and that the NYT made corrections to later. The highest quality information we have is from the latest UN and other human rights reports and there is nuance there. For instance: they say that they could not verify any case of rape. Amnesty International also states this in its latest report. Both also say it was not part of a planned systematic policy. We therefore are dealing with conflicting sources and reports, and "multiple sources have reported" or "reportedly" properly captures this ahead of further clarification in the rest of the lead.
On the weaponisation point, I agree it can be added to the lead. We already have a section devoted to that in the body, but it doesn't yet include the Mhajne piece. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
The UN June 2024 report says

However, the Commission documented cases indicative of sexual violence perpetrated against women and men in and around the Nova festival site, as well as the Nahal Oz military outpost and several kibbutzim, including Kfar Aza, Re’im and Nir Oz. It collected and preserved digital evidence, including images of victims’ bodies displaying indications of sexual violence, a pattern corroborated by independent testimonies from witnesses.

Conclusion:

77. The Commission found that acts of sexual violence were committed on 7 October in Israel, including at the Nova festival, on road 232, at Nahal Oz military base and kibbutzim Re’im, Nir Oz and Kfar Aza.

These are not nuanced statements. Is there any scholarship that contests that sexual violence happened? Ngl I could list 10+ journal articles that matter-of-fact say it did, but don't want to quote farm. You say including that sexual violence was widespread, systematic, and planned, but that is about scope/extent which we agree should be qualified.
Kurtcher and Turin 2025 say

A special UN commission of inquiry gathered evidence and determined that “conflict-related sexual violence occurred . . . including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks

Kowal2701 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
"Indicative" and UN inquiry findings are not same as legal proof acceptable in a courtroom. At best, that's "reasonable grounds to believe" it occured. It's not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a criminal conviction. While there are many credible reports, the legal proof required to make convictions are not achieved. The issue is when people get understandably emotional and want to claim as facts without an independent investigation as no decent being wants to imagine a horrific crime unpunished. But Wikipeda must remain impartial and cannot treat these claims as legally verified facts in absense of court-admissable proof as you also don't want to falsely accuse possibly innocent people without proof. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here since we are not talking about individuals. We have dozens of articles on "Sexual violence in X" which make similarly broad factual statements with no care for legal convictions Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine etc. If high-quality sources state it as fact, we do as well, we defer to sources, not courts. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
I have no issues at all in allowing UN reports in the body along with the arguments on the evidence limitations. But the lede however should not act like there's absolute verification where none exists. Examples are a heavily bruised and dead individual may simply be killed and battered, and it requires standard forensic practises to confirm rape also occured but Israel insisted bodies be buried quickly according to their faith, which makes verification difficult. But the reasoning there is plausible too. It's overall a situation where it's better to be conservative than imply outright that the reports are all confirmed beyond doubt, when they aren't. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
That is original research Kowal2701 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
It's not. Read source. Israel prioritize identification of missing individuals over forensic analysis of bodies. There's only a limited window to fully confirm. Unfortunately for their own reasons, Israel did not fully capitalise on this window and difficult to assess the motivations behind this. While others think events likely occurred outside of any admissible evidence, likelihood is not the same as confirmed fact outside of standard forensics. And why I cautiously support a compromise position:. Using "Reported" is the most appropriate approach in this situation. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
That doesn’t contradict what the scholarship is near-unanimously saying. It’s very simple, we look at what the best sources are saying and summarise them, if practically all of them say the same thing, so do we. That the UN cannot verify specific testimonies is irrelevant, because the scholarship factors that into their writing (and the UN still stated sexual violence occurred in the same report!). Kowal2701 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Reluctant support (weak prefer the first formulation) - the argument for concision made by Paprikaiser above seems to me to rest on the understanding of the word “reportedly” that was assessed above as superfluous. All statements in wikipedia are or should be cited to reports of one kind or another. Under this understanding, the argument for concision should be to omit the word “reportedly” entirely. I can understand the argument to concision here as rejecting the compromise in favour of a maximalist (minimalist?) approach to the original question of removing "reportedly", if that's not accurate I don't understand it. I am willing to compromise, because in teh original discussion I agree with the side that sees a problematic connotation of "reportedly" as conferring MOS:DOUBT, so I come out for support here.
Raskolnikov.rev and Smallangryplanet add that “reportedly” conveys a further meaning in this instance, which is to convey ambiguity within the reports about the extent and scope of the phenomenon, but not about the existence of the phenomenon itself. This seems to me an absurdly unlikely reading of the current first line of our article: During the October 7 attacks, Israeli women, girls and men were reportedly subjected to sexual violence, including rape and sexual assault by Hamas or other Gazan militants. This sentence only establishes the existence of the phenomenon, which I think everyone here has stipulated as factual. It’s nonsensical that the insertion of the adverb “reportedly” in a sentence about the fact of the sexual violence does not qualify that fact, but rather inserts nuance about other content - the scope and extent of the phenomenon - which is covered in the next paragraph. Moreover, we already cover the ambiguity about the extent of the phenomenon far more explicitly, as “the subject of intense debate and controversy”, so the supposed nuance we've achieved is redundant.
If I wrote at Assassination of John F. Kennedy that "President Kennedy was reportedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald", the adverb can only be used to qualify the basic fact. I do not believe any reader would interpret that statement as questioning whether Oswald fired 3 or 4 bullets, or entering a debate into how many of them struck Kennedy.
I reluctantly support the compromise because the secondary connotation of "reportedly" as conferring doubt on the whole phenomenon is more of a problem than the concision which this compromise sadly loses. However, I think the preferable solution is to omit "reportedly" entirely. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as insufficient, "reportedly" should be removed entirely. WP:WIKIVOICE says not to make facts appear uncertain, it's concerning this needs lengthy discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701, all formulations in this section do seem to be removing reportedly entirely? Can you discuss what you're opposing? Valereee (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Mb, I oppose formulations where we don’t just say "it happened", preferred version would be to just remove "reportedly" from the current version. We should not be obfuscating facts and drawing them into "he said, she said". Bloom and Erez 2024 states it plainly:

We argue that the victims of October 7, although recognized by Israeli society as “ideal victims,” on the international stage have not been accorded commensurate status, despite the clear victimization. Further, any initial sympathy for their traumatic experiences was seemingly erased by Israel’s military retaliation against Gaza when Israel declared war on the 8th and began a ground invasion on October 27th. The backlash has intensified as the scale of death and destruction in Gaza, coupled with a man-made food crisis has disproportionately impacted women and children. Moreover, the sexual violence has been denied and its victims discredited in the global press despite copious evidence that they occurred, including perpetrators’ documentation of the abuse.

If needs be we can have a sentence on the disputed extent/scope in the first paragraph. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701, but the suggestions here in this subsection all have removed "reportedly"? And there has been a suggested sentence on the disputed extent/scope suggested for the revised first paragraph, see above within this subsection.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, here. I'm just coming in as uninvolved, trying to moderate and find consensus on what we can agree to say to improve -- even if it improves it imperfectly -- what we're saying right now. Opposing an improvement because it isn't 100% of what you want means, in this case, "reportedly" likely remains in the lead sentence.
Or are you saying your actual preference would be to leave "reportedly" in the lead sentence if you can't get "it happened"? Valereee (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be difficult but I really don't think we should compromise on facts (per the sources). I don't see "reported" as any better than "reportedly", so I guess on the substance of the proposal I'm neutral, but I oppose notions of a compromise here and would prefer to seek the "prevailing view" type of consensus meant for intractable disagreements a la RfCs. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701, you're entitled to your opinion, it's not being difficult. I'm just asking: if we can't currently find consensus on whether the prevailing view is arguably divided, you'd rather leave it at reportedly for now, rather than make an improvement now and hope that in some future, maybe years from now, the consensus on the prevailing view isn't divided and we can correct what Wikipedia says then to be accurate? Which is also fine, no deadlines, not news. But this is a highly contentious topic, and sometimes a compromise is good in the short term until historians forty years from now can agree. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Support as second choice, will shut up now Kowal2701 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The word “reportedly” is not always a neutral word, and can be used to mean rumored or supposedly, casting doubts on the sources cited. It would be more neutral to say “according to reports.” Purplewriter (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Support: the proposed change is not false. Additionally the article later mentions there is intense debate over aspects of these claims and explains. So it's not like the article is simply presenting claims as unchallenged. It's both stating multiple sources report this and that there is still debate over aspects among investigators and human rights organisations. So proposed wording maintains a necessary neutral tone while helping article in noting both things are correct. (Sources did report and claims are still debated)JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@JaredMcKenzie Just to clarify, which of the proposed wordings are you in support of? RCSCott91 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Both proposed wordings from Valereee are acceptable to me. There's no strong need to add in "reportedly" as long as the article notes that multiple sources reported the claims, and that some aspects remain debated. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
@JaredMcKenzie, sorry to keep pinging you back here, but it's probably important for a closer to know whether you also support the third proposed wording above? Valereee (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
A third proposed wording? I assumed you mean if I also support Kowal2701's suggestion to remove the term "reported" altogether and just state it as facts. I don't support that as long as no individual allegation of sexual violence has been fully and independently verified. There's already outright disproven claims in this politically heavy context but it doesn't mean all claims are false. It's just not easy to state as facts unless a fair independent courtroom convicts under due process first. I think "reported" is a sufficiently fair and conservative way to acknowledge all claims while also allowing the article to cover nuances about limits on certain evidence and disputed details later. For consistency and neutrality, all related articles on sexual assaults against Palestinians should also use the word "reported" instead of "reportedly"; otherwise, there may be a double standard in tone. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The third proposal is outdented above, but it's: "Multiple sources have reported that during the October 7 attacks, Israeli women, girls and men were subjected to sexual and gender-based violence, including rape and sexual assault by Hamas or other Gazan militants. The extent of sexual violence perpetrated by militants, and whether it was planned and weaponised by the attackers, has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. Hamas has denied that its fighters committed any sexual assaults, and has called for an impartial international investigation into the accusations." From what you've bolded here in your immediate above reponse, though, I take this as a support for that, too. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
I see. You meant the third proposed text is from Smallangryplanet. Then yes, I support their exact phrasing. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The current version is fine and all the proposed alternatives function as wordier variations saying the same thing, so I don't see the point of changing it. Genabab (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Genabab, the proposal by SAP actually has fewer words than the current article, and many many people -- from both sides of this particular argument -- are arguing that reported and reportedly don't unambiguously mean the same thing, which is what the point of changing it is. Given that, in the spirit of compromise -- and since for you, the meaning isn't changing -- could you consider finding your way to neutrality on this? Valereee (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I'd pinged @Genabab. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2026

Change: Autopsies of victims also corroborated these accounts, according to the Israeli police.[42][43]

To: Due to the chaotic nature of the body recovery process, physical forensic evidence was largely impossible to collect, leading investigators to rely primarily on witness testimony rather than autopsies.[42][43]

Reason for change: WP:FAILEDV (Failed Verification). The current text claims the exact opposite of what the cited sources state.

Source [42] (NYT) issued a formal correction for this article (archived on December 4, 2023) on December 8, 2023, explicitly stating: "An earlier version of this article misstated the kind of evidence Israeli police have gathered in investigating accusations of sexual violence committed on Oct. 7 in the attack by Hamas against Israel. The police are relying mainly on witness testimony, not on autopsies or forensic evidence."

Source [43] (The Guardian) corroborates this lack of physical evidence, noting that forensic analysis was rendered extremely difficult or impossible because the bodies were moved and "contaminated" by initial first responders who lacked forensic training.

The sentence needs to be updated to accurately reflect the limitations of the evidence as reported by its own citations. ~2026-39933-45 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI