Talk:The Dinah Project

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit request 1 August 2025

Description of suggested change: Add the following text (stylized as code) at the intro: "The Dinah Project (Hebrew: פרויקט דינה)".

Diff:

−

'''The Dinah Project''' is an organization dedicated to recognition and justice for victims of sexual violence in war, emphasizing the victims of [[Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks|sexual violence in the October 7 attacks]].

+

'''The Dinah Project''' ([[Hebrew]]: '''פרויקט דינה''') is an organization dedicated to recognition and justice for victims of sexual violence in war, emphasizing the victims of [[Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks|sexual violence in the October 7 attacks]].

מקף־עברי (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't verify this, but if you can, please make the edit - todah Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tioaeu8943 The requesting user is not extended-confirmed yet, so they will not be able to make this edit themselves. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I have made the change, thank you UmbyUmbreon and מקף־עברי! Tioaeu8943 (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem! I'll close the request as  Done. UmbyUmbreon (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Drop Site News

Greetings Smallangryplanet! Here is the Talk Page discussion you requested. I'm also tagging Rafi Chazon and Raskolnikov.Rev as they are editing the same portion as I'm typing this.

The article is already WP:NPOV by virtue of the inclusion of the statement from Reem Alsalem. Since the NBC News item from which it hails is the single source cited by the Drop Site News item that contradicts A Quest for Justice, the DSN remarks strike me as beside the point and the former should replace the latter.

Leaving aside the consideration of whether Drop Site News is a WP:RS, this item in particular at DSN is badly argued. The claim by Ryan Grim that the report in question "contains scant new evidence and largely aggregates existing reports, many of which have been discredited or called into question" is presented with no supporting evidence, or even details we might investigate ourselves. His later contention, that "debunked claims have now resurfaced in the Dinah Project’s new version despite having been knocked down," links to an X post by Grim which in turn links to a compilation of supposedly supportive examples by a pseudonymous X user that refers immediately to the "Israeli death and rape-cult that has actually been engaged in systematic pedophilic gang-rape of Palestinian children." The notion that Grim is performing objective journalism here, or even forgivably biased analysis, is not credible. It should be removed.

Moreover, your last reversion burned an unrelated edit.

Pace your claim that "Whether you personally believe it is without evidence is not relevant, unless you can find RS saying so, which you have not done, and are violating NPOV with your removals and not following WP:BRD" - it's the responsibility of Grim to supply evidence for his argument, not of me to supply reliable sources that it has none; see WP:ONUS. As for WP:BRD, nothing was stopping you from engaging in it prior to the third time you inserted this content.

A participant in the discussion about the reliability of DSN recommends that it should be "avoid[ed] for contentious claims unless there is some kind of secondary verification (such as getting picked up by a newspaper of record), and probably not great for establishing due weight." This seems like a case where it should be avoided, putting aside whether it should be avoided for anything else. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Grim's claim that A Quest for Justice contains "scant new evidence" is easily confirmed by reviewing the report . The evidence runs from pages 30-41 with the rest of the report being dedicated to legal analysis (as Grim reported):

• "Information Provided by First-Hand Survivors" contains one new source (fn 39) and 15 already published accounts.
• "Information Provided by Eyewitnesses and Earwitnesses in Real Time" has accounts from 3 new witnesses and uses 14 existing accounts (fn 66).
• "Information Provided by First Responders" contains two new accounts (one in fn 73 and one fn 74).
• "Information Provided by Second Responders" has two new accounts (fn 80).
• "Healthcare Providers and Therapists" has potentially new information from undisclosed sources (fn 82).

You are misconstruing WP:ONUS. Smallangryplanet provided a WP:RS to support WP:DUE criticism of the report and you removed it because you don't like it.

The editor in the RS Noticeboard discussion later agreed that DSN could be used "with attribution where they are relevant and useful." The DSN article is both relevant and useful here as it analyzes the legal arguments contained with the report, which are currently not mentioned in this article. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Greetings EvansHallBear:

you removed it because you don't like it.

You are attributing motives to me; please WP:AGF.

Eight or more new sources, by your count, is not "scant." These are credible allegations of sexual violence, after all. That we even have this number to discuss is due to your doing Ryan Grim's work for him. Had he told us the number of new accounts relative to the extant accounts, there may have been some basis for making the characterization, if not for its truth. But he didn't, and we can't cite you, so that's the end of that.

That's just the "scant" part. You don't address "many of which have been discredited or called into question." As mentioned overhead, Grim's source for this claim is a pseudonymous X user who believes that an "Israeli death and rape-cult... has actually been engaged in systematic pedophilic gang-rape of Palestinian children." I hope you appreciate my reluctance to grant that as a trustworthy and objective source.

That there is a legal analysis you find interesting in the article from which "contains scant new evidence and largely aggregates existing reports, many of which have been discredited or called into question" is excerpted is irrelevant. The claim itself must be supportable if it's to merit inclusion here.

I left aside the question of whether Drop Site News is a reliable source in the above discussion, but I'm moved to raise it now. I haven't studied other articles on the site, but if this article is an indicator, it should be regarded as unreliable. Parts of this essay look like they're intended to attach a respectable veneer to the outer limits of anti-Israel paranoia. I'm open to the possibility that other parts of the site are more responsible, but the quality of this piece is poor and reflects badly on the author's judgment. Numerous editors motivated to present DSN as reliable look like they're relying more on wishful thinking and declaration than real consensus; if that's mistaken, let them address the shortcomings of the reportage in a convincing way. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to cite me, we can cite DSN because they are a reliable source. This is the reason for relying on reliable sources so we don't need to double check every claim made. However, I went and did that anyways based on the standard that you made up that reliable sources need to show their work. This is of course a standard that you don't apply to any of the anonymous new accounts provided in the Dinah projects reports, which you are nevertheless willing to describe as credible. One new first hand account compared to 15 rehashed accounts is in fact scant new evidence.

If you want to question the reliability of DSN, you can do so at the RSN noticeboard. However, per the conversation you linked above, DSN can be used with attribution.

That numerous editors are motivated to present DSN as reliable look like they're relying more on wishful thinking and declaration than real consensus You should take your own advice and WP:AGF

Most significantly here, you have now made 4 reversions of the same material posted by 3 different editors:

This is WP:EW on a WP:CTOP. I'd strongly advise you to self-revert here. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You say:

However, I went and did that anyways based on the standard that you made up that reliable sources need to show their work.

The applicable standard is WP:SPS, which applies because Ryan Grim is both the author of the piece and a producer of the site. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." This echoes the discussion about the reliability of DSN, in which a participant advised that on its own it's probably not usable for establishing due weight. I agree with that participant. If someone was making this claim in addition to Ryan Grim, it would be another matter, but if that's the case, the source has not yet been provided.

This is of course a standard that you don't apply to any of the anonymous new accounts provided in the Dinah projects reports, which you are nevertheless willing to describe as credible.

One one hand, we have a report published under the direction of two lawyers and a judge containing primary source material from eyewitnesses and victims of the October 7 attacks, which was then reported upon by dozens of news outlets. On the other hand, we have a Substack post by a former Intercept reporter in which the star investigator is X user @zei_squirrel. I gently suggest that these publications are not equivalent.

One new first hand account compared to 15 rehashed accounts is in fact scant new evidence.

You said that was in one section of the report. What happened to the other seven or more you found? What is the total denominator? How many new testimonials of sexual violence have to aggregate before they are no longer "scant"?

Most significantly here, you have now made 4 reversions of the same material posted by 3 different editors... This is WP:EW on a WP:CTOP. I'd strongly advise you to self-revert here.

If you know this, then you likely know that I introduced the statement by Alsalem contradicting the report. I've demonstrated that I have no objection to the inclusion of WP:RSPS criticisms of the report and will even help them to appear. My contention is that according to the discussion about the reliability of DSN, there are cases in which its claims should be scrutinized, and when I did so, I found that one of them germane to the text I removed was ultimately sourced to someone who believes in the existence of an "Israeli death and rape-cult that has actually been engaged in systematic pedophilic gang-rape of Palestinian children." The correct response to that is not "This blog has been declared RS so we're going to pretend that doesn't exist," it's "This is obviously a case in which the site failed to live up to its RS designation and we should cite someone making these claims who is more reliable," which evidently no one is. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not become an applicable standard just because the founder of a news site also writes an article.

I would agree that an independent news report is not equivalent to a report designed to reach a predetermined conclusion that spends the bulk of it's pages backing into a legal strategy to lower the standard of proof required for conflict-related sexual violence. Grim provides several quotations directly from the report analyzing the legal argument provided despite your insistence that it's based entirely on a twitter user.

As an aside, that twitter user (despite the inflammatory style) presents solid evidence of systematic rapes of Palestinians occurring in Israeli detention centers. This includes a UN report , which finds, "Other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, including rape and violence to the genitals, were committed either under explicit orders or with implicit encouragement by Israel’s top civilian and military leadership". They also cite testimony from a US State Department official that Defense for Children International was designated a terrorist organization by Israel after reporting on the rape of a 15-year old Palestinian child by Israeli forces:

Back to the scant new evidence in the Dinah Project report. If we include accounts from both survivors and eyewitnesses (the most important evidence), we get 29 existing accounts to 4 new accounts. These new accounts are also not detailed in any way that can actually be verified.

Finally, that you added an RS making a different criticism of the report does not allow you to continue edit warring on this content. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @EvansHallBear. @Tioaeu8943, you have now removed attributed RS content from a subject-matter expert that is directly relevant to the material at hand multiple times without providing a policy-based argument for it. Moreover, when having been challenged on it by multiple editors, you have decided to edit-war over it and remove it repeatedly from this and other pages, and keep doing so without awaiting consensus for what you know is a highly controversial edit. Please stop doing this.

Regarding the edit, I will repeat the points I made recently on my talk page:

Your personal views as to the partisan nature of Drop Site News are not relevant per WP:RS:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

Any reference to their commentary on Trump and Kamala Harris or the social media usage of a reporter is therefore wholly irrelevant to the consideration of whether a source is RS or not. We already cite the journalist, who has written on the subject extensively before, multiple times on the main page for October 7 sexual violence. Drop Site News and the journalist who wrote that analysis meets all the criteria for RS, and there was attribution. You have not argued otherwise. Your removal and your justification for it as "partisanship" therefore constitutes a clear violation of WP:RS.

Evaluations of partisanship are inherently subjective. This is why we do not treat sources as unreliable based on our subjective understandings of their partisan or biased nature, as most if not all sources are biased or partisan in one direction or another, including the Dinah Project report the Drop Site News source you removed was analyzing. This is why Wikipedia has WP:NPOV, and why your removal of a reputable RS source that established NPOV in that section also constitutes a violation of that.

Per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV: "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems."

It should be noted once more that Drop Sites News is attributed in the information you keep removing. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This:

Any reference to their commentary on Trump and Kamala Harris or the social media usage of a reporter is therefore wholly irrelevant to the consideration of whether a source is RS or not. We already cite the journalist, who has written on the subject extensively before, multiple times on the main page for October 7 sexual violence. Drop Site News and the journalist who wrote that analysis meets all the criteria for RS, and there was attribution. You have not argued otherwise. Your removal and your justification for it as "partisanship" therefore constitutes a clear violation of WP:RS.

...and other passages of your comment are not germane to anything I wrote and I am unsure how to reply to them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is that Drop Site News and the journalist who published that report are not RS because they are biased against Israel ("Parts of this essay look like they're intended to attach a respectable veneer to the outer limits of anti-Israel paranoia."), and therefore should not be cited. As I explained, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of RS, and plainly wrong both for Drop Site News and the reporter in question. You then also added the claim that DSN is WP:SPS, which as Evan noted is plainly inaccurate and another attempt to frame the reporter and outlet as not being RS despite the fact that the clearly meet the criteria for them, namely:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject...When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

You also keep calling it a Substack as if that has any relevance for its RS status. It does not. Per WP:PUBLISHED: "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."

But you are wrong even per WP:SPS, for it clearly establishes a standard by which the journalist in question is citable as RS even if DSN did fall under it: "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Once more, the journalist in question has published multiple investigations on this subject in RS, which are cited on the main October 7 sexual violence page and elsewhere. These include but are not limited to:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-violence-kibbutz-beeri/

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-podcast-camera/

This is a subject-matter expert, and hence also citable per WP:SPS.

Also, when you say "If you know this, then you likely know that I introduced the statement by Alsalem contradicting the report. I've demonstrated that I have no objection to the inclusion of WP:RSPS criticisms of the report and will even help them to appear", you are misrepresenting what actually happened.

It was @Isi96 who added that statement to the page. You then removed it, were challenged by @Smallangryplanet citing non-policy based removal of RS content. You then began edit-warring over the Drop Site News analysis here and elsewhere, which is a clear case of removing WP:RS criticism of the report. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 19 May 2026

Description of suggested change: I suggest, without other sources, to avoid faulty generalization, as the only source is Le Monde. An other point is that Le Monde do not state that the conclusions of the report are consistent with all prévious reports, but (for the french version at least) that the "hypothesis" of sexual violence (a part of the report) are consistent with them. It excludes the "genocidal" hypothesis. Source 18 and 19 are the same, it should be replaced with a "ref name".

Diff:

−

Commentators and media outlets described the report as the most comprehensive investigation to date into sexual violence committed during the attacks.[18] The report’s conclusions were presented as broadly consistent with [...][19]

+

[[Le Monde]] described the report as the most comprehensive investigation to date into sexual violence committed during the attacks.[18] The report’s conclusions about existence of sexual violences were presented as broadly consistent with [...] [18]

Pa2chant.bis (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added a named reference and specified that the description of the report comes from Le Monde. The remainder of your request still needs to be evaluated by someone, as the Le Monde article is paywalled and I can't access the full version. I'll leave the request open for now in the hopes that another editor may be able to assist. Day Creature (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Day Creature . Would it be useful if I send (you or somebody else) a copy of the original article in french ? (I do not have access either to the english version). --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak French. You could post a link to it here in the hopes that someone else will take a look (don't post the full version though, for copyright reasons). Day Creature (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do post it. (assuming it is free to access) My french is not that good, but I can take a look, perhaps aided by my browser's automatic translation function. If I don't manage, perhaps a french speaker will come across this. Slomo666 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)