Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)

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

Syrian conflict?

I think the Syrian conflict should also be added to this article. This includes the recent offensive by Tahrir al-Sham against Iranian and Syrian forces that resulted in the capture of Aleppo.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i approve of this decision, because if it wasn't for Israel and Iran attacking each other, it probably wouldn't have happened, Go ahead. Superyassi362 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless you can provide a reliable source that establishes a conneaction between this series of conflicts and the Northwestern Syria offensive, that should not be added. "it probably wouldn't have happened" is not sufficient proof to add this into the article. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that make a connection: Guardian, WSJ, Washington Post and so forth.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. The events in Syria are a part of the Syrian Civil War, so it'll likely lead to duplicated info.

Also, the Syrian conflict doesn't really overlap with the conflicts described in this article. Are there any countries/armed groups that participated in the Syrian civil war and in Israel-Hamas/Hezbollah/etc war?

The Guardian article you've linked says that the events in Syria were set in motion when Hamas attacked Israel. That may well be true but they're not explicitly saying that these events are part of one crisis. I think we should write in this article that the crisis's consequences include the rebels' victory in Syria, wikilinking that article while making it clear that it's not in the scope of this one. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Are there any countries/armed groups that participated in the Syrian civil war and in Israel-Hamas/Hezbollah/etc war?"

Yeah, Israel (see this section of the article). JasonMacker (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And Hezbollah Yavneh (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Could we add a subtitle for 'Fifth Arab-Israeli War'

There aren't a ton of sources using that, but I don't want to rename the article, I just want it added as an alternate to the opening of the page.

Israel is at full scale war with Hamas(one of the two governments of Palestine and the one that won the last election) and Hezbollah(the strongest non-governmental force in the world, stronger then the actual Lebanon army), is invading Syria(an Arab nation and one they never reconciled with unlike Jordan and Egypt), plus skirmishes with the Houthis(one of the two main factions vying for power in Yemen and the one holding the capital) and arab militias in the West Bank. This is full scale war with a death toll that surpasses the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Arab-Israeli Wars. Israel is fighting multiple Arab state entities.

The fact Iran is the main funder and isn't Arab isn't inherently exclusionary either, the Soviets funded the Arab Nations significantly in the Third Arab Israeli War and had their own pilots involved and fighting in the Fourth One. And on the other hand, Israel had massive British and French help in the Second Arab Israeli War.

No it's not the popular name, only a couple articles are using it, I'm making mostly an academic case, but given I just want it as an alternate subtitle somewhere in the first paragraph I think that's enough. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:6C02:1E6F:B299:9942 (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Like in Bold in the first paragraph? 2001:56A:6FFF:C37C:241D:A004:6C05:96A6 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Visually representing the crisis

I appreciated @Stranger43286's attempt to add a photo to the infobox representing the conflict, and I agree that a blank map does a poor job of representing it. However, I also understand @WeatherWriter's objection that one image may misrepresent or inadequately represent the entire conflict. I thought that maybe we could come together and decide on a handful of images that can represent the entirety of the crisis, similarly to how Vietnam War's infobox looks. One should be the image of the destruction of Gaza that Stranger proposed. I thought that another could be an image of the dueling Iranian and Israeli missile trails in the sky during the April or October Iranian strikes. Does anyone have any other ideas? Unbandito (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched it to a five image collage. Individual images can be discussed in the future, but that will be better than (1) the plain map and (2) the single image by Stranger43286. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor edit Request

The description for the pictures in the infobox isn't clockwise from the top, it goes

1

2 3

4 5

sorry for the bad templating Fyukfy5 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

Move the Palestinian Authority up in the "allies" section, the fact that the PA is carrying out operations in the west bank against Palestinian terror groups is more significant both politically and to the actual outcome of the war than say Pakistan and Sri Lanka patrolling the red sea. With so many allies on Israel's side it's entire possible people glancing at the article could just miss the one all the war at the bottom. Fyukfy5 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've made the long list of Red Sea crisis and Iran conflict allies auto-collapse by default, which should help with the situation. Have decided I wouldn't change the ordering for now though (will leave that decision to the other editors) VoicefulBread66 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request - add a new column in the infobox for the Syrian rebel offensive

If the Syrian rebel offensive that toppled the Assad regime is going to described in this article as part of the middle east crisis, labeling the rebels and the Assad forces as allies or being one in the same in the infobox is just wrong. Please add a new column if those events are going to be included in the article, even if it's just for 1 paragraph. Fyukfy5 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fyukfy5 They could potentially be put in the same column as the Lebanese Armed Forces? (with a horizontal break to separate the LAF from the Syrian rebels) VoicefulBread66 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

• What I think should be changed:

Under Events by country -> Syria -> Opposition offensives and end of the Assad regime:

−

Main articles: 2024 Syrian opposition offensives, Fall of the Assad regime, and Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2024–present)

+

Main articles: 2024 Syrian opposition offensives, Fall of the Assad regime, and Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present)

• Why it should be changed:

It should reference the invasion of Syria, not Lebanon (probably a mistake).

• References supporting the possible change:

None.

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

References

 Done Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion notification

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war regarding merging content to this article and better summarising of this subject, both in this lead and elsewhere. The thread is Scope of article. Thank you. CNC (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No civilian male casualties?

One issue I have with this is that it removes all indications of male civilian casualties and restores: "An Associated Press analysis of GHM data up to April 2024 found that women and children comprised 54 percent of all identified dead, a statistic often used as a proxy for civilian casualties."

The first issue there is that OCHA has given more up to date dempgraphic breakdown, so why are we relying on Apr 2024 data? But more importantly, that statement indicates that there's no such thing as civilian male casualties, which is simply untrue. Scholars have made attempts to quantify that number (as removed in that edit) and we shouldn't pretend that ever male killed in Gaza is a combatant.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

First, the most recent edit (which reverted the revert your comment spoke of) doesn't just replace it with more recent information, it also removes Israel's estimate for the amount of killed combatants, as well as the sourced fact that the GHM doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants (which is the whole reason why we have to talk about these various estimates in the first place.)

Second, OCHA does not give a more up-to-date demographic breakdown. The source cited for its report states plainly that The report examined fatalities that occurred over the six-month period between Nov. 2023 and April 2024. When writing, I preferred the Associated Press analysis, because it took data beginning on Oct. 7, when the war began, instead of in November. But if you'd like to add the source, writing that it analyzed data only from November 2023 to April 2024, I would not oppose that.

The AP article is also clear about how the "women + children = rough number of civilians" claim is imperfect. In full, the article says that The fate of women and children is an important indicator of civilian casualties because the Health Ministry does not break out combatant deaths. But it’s not a perfect indicator: Many civilian men have died, and some older teenagers may be involved in the fighting. And to be clear, the casualty percentages given directly by the GHM are sometimes incorrect. The AP says that as recently as March, the ministry’s daily reports claimed that 72% of the dead were women and children, even as underlying data clearly showed the percentage was well below that.

That leaves us with your claim that Scholars have made attempts to quantify that number. The sources currently in the article — which back up the claim that Scholars have estimated 80% of Palestinians killed are civilians — are broken and don't lead to anything. However, they seem to be taken from the table at the beginning of Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. But assuming that they are (the reference names used seem to corroborate that), let's look at them, one by one:

Source 1: The Nation

"Don’t Believe the Conspiracies About the Gaza Death Toll" (The Nation, May 2024) — According to WP:RSP, The Nation is a partisan but generally reliable source. The article in question is tagged as an opinion piece, and is written by Adam Gaffney, who is critical care physician and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. I'd struggle to consider him a scholar relevant enough to the field of war casualties to be described plainly as a "scholar" in this context (a WP:WEASELy phrase if there ever was one), but regardless, we can analyze the article itself. The claim emerges from the part of the article that says In the May 8 report, while total deaths rose to 34,844, a demographic breakdown was provided for only 24,686 of these deaths; in that report, sourced to the MOH, the count included 7,797 children and 4,959 women. This is practically the same data used by the AP analysis.

Basic WP:CALC-ulations say that (7,797 children + 4,959 women) equals 12,756 people; dividing by 24,686 (the number of identified casualties) gives the number of 51.6 percent. The article then arrives at the "80 percent" number by first applying the percentage of identified likely-deaths to the total number, then by adding in the number of "nearly 3,000 elderly people (which I can't find a citation for but I'll take their word for it), and then finally assuming that the number of noncombatant men who have been killed equals the number of women killed, which is equivalent to about half of the roughly 14,000 adult male deaths. This estimate seems to come out of thin air and comes with neither a rationale nor any established practice in the complex field of estimating civilian casualties, of which the author is not a part.

Source 2: Action on Armed Violence

Civilian casualties in Gaza: Israel’s claims don’t add up (Action on Armed Violence. October 2024) — Next up is two sources from the Action on Armed Violence. The one taken from "Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war" is from August, while the fourth source (the only one here not present there) is also from the AOAV, nearly three months later. I'll assume it to be definitive and ignore the first one. AOAV is not listed on WP:RSP, and I couldn't find any mention of it on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'll assume it to be reliable here, though that could be a question for other editors at a later date. The piece in question is written by Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill, a PhD student at the London School of Economics. (PhD students are certainly scholars, but again, lumping them in with just the phrase "scholar" in trying to claim consensus is a bit misleading.)

Here, the AOAV says that at least 74% of the 40,717 Gazan fatalities identified by the Ministry of Health in Gaza are civilians. That's not 80 percent, nor does it round to 80 percent, but that source says that's likely to be an underestimate, so I won't make a huge deal about that. The source reaches its conclusion by building off of the assumption that young men, elderly men, and all women and girls can be safely assumed to be 100% civilians. Then, it assigns likely civilian percentage values to the groups of "older boys," "young men," "middle-aged men" (52.4%, 40.6%, and 51.0%, respectively). This number is based on an Airwars study of civilian deaths due to airstrikes. The source says that deaths due to airstrikes may underestimate the male-civilian over-representation in fatalities relative to female civilians[emphasis added]; i.e., it claims airstrikes cause less civilian casualties than other methods of warfare. It's source, a study on civilian casualties in the Iraq War from 2003 to 2008, says exactly the opposite.

These findings, combined with the high Woman and Child DWI outcomes from air attacks, suggest that heavy reliance on air power during the invasion may have been particularly costly for Iraqi civilians—and especially for women and children—in terms of deaths and injuries.

The claim is also contradicted by the Associated Press, which cites a direct subject-matter expert "Historically, airstrikes (kill) a higher ratio of women and children compared to ground operations," said Larry Lewis, an expert on the civilian impacts of war at CNA, a nonprofit research group in Washington. Ultimately, it calls into question the credibility and authority of the AOAV article in creating such estimates.

Source 3: Frontiers in Public Health

Comparative analysis and evolution of civilian versus combatant mortality ratios in Israel-Gaza conflicts, 2008–2023 (Frontiers in Public Health, June 2024) — This source, from a journal, is also among the sources that estimate civilian fatalities to be zero in all females and males below the age of 15 and above the age of 65. It is primarily focused on previous Israel–Gaza conflicts, but does analyze some data from the current Israel–Hamas war .... for the period October 7, 2023, to October 26, 2023.

We need not dwell on the fact that this article does not once mention the claim that "80 percent of deaths in the conflict were civilians," nor the fact that they use — in their own words — a novel approach to investigating civilian deaths in conflicts. Their takeaway for the first 19 days of the current conflict was that the variable n, which represents the level of civilians being an object of war, had a value of 7.01. According to them, this indicates robust evidence for civilians being an object of war, with civilians identified as the primary focus of the conflict.

The more complete data, according to the AP analysis, which shows GHM data, clearly shows that the rate of women and children deaths has declined over the course of the conflict. The cumulative data as of Oct. 26, 2023, when the Frontiers article was published, showed this number at 64.4 percent. By Jan. 5, 2024, it was 61.7 percent. By March 29, it was 56.9 percent. By April 30, it was 54.3 percent. Taking an analysis from the first 19 days of a 15-month conflict would in any regard be insufficient to prove a claim about the overall death toll — even if you ignore the fact that the source in question doesn't verify or mention that claim at all, even just for the period of 19 days it actually covers.

Conclusion

To sum up, OCHA has not given a more up-to-date analysis than the AP about the civilian casualty percentage, and the scholars the article claims has estimated the number either aren't scholars or didn't estimate the number. And this Wikipedia article, citing the AP, does not pretend that ever male killed in Gaza is a combatant. It mentions only the proportion of women and children killed, while noting (cited to the Associated Press), that such a figure is often used as a proxy for civilian casualties. The reason we use these proxies in the first place is that the GHM does not release that data, a widely-sourced basic fact that was also removed from this article. DecafPotato (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that we should try and find better / more up-to-date sources if possible, but we shouldn't remove the current figures unless we have something to directly replace them with. The one part that I'm skeptical about is the The GHM does not distinguish between civilians and combatants bit, which seems WP:SYNTH-y in its current location (nothing about the earlier part implies that it excludes combatants, anyway, so we don't need to include an "but actually..." disclaimer in this manner.) It'd also be best to find a secondary source for the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies figures, which might provide more context for them. It might be worth splitting the "combatants killed" part of the paragraph off into its own para. Splitting might help with the synth issue if we keep the note about the GHM not distinguishing between casualty types, too. --Aquillion (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how it's SYNTH-y in its current location. I think it's just a logical progression, because GHM is for pretty much all intents and purposes the authoritative source here. So, to me at least, it makes sense to say that it doesn't distinguish, and then give both Israel and Hamas's figures. We could split it into a second paragraph, but I don't think the current length justifies breaking the paragraph order right now of Gaza --> Israel --> Lebanon --> everything else. And as for the secondary source for the IINSS, the source is structured to update very frequently, so it's difficult to find secondary sources citing the most recent figures, unlike the GHM where every new update is pretty widely covered. I'd rather have a more recent primary source than an out-of-date secondary one, but if you can find a recent secondary source then yeah we should obviously include it. DecafPotato (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Its defies commonsense for one to claim there are no such thing as civilian adult men in Gaza. So the idea that women and children are the only civilians being killed in Gaza, is a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, for which you'd need extra-ordinary sourcing.

• Adam Gaffney is a widely published scholar in international epidemiology. He further gives solid basis for the casualties: "that the number of noncombatant men who have been killed equals the number of women killed, which is equivalent to about half of the roughly 14,000 adult male deaths". The only way # of dead civilian men < # of dead civilian women is if Israel is somehow deliberately targeting civilian women and sparing civilian men. A report in AOAV confirms that both Airwars and Btselem have found civilian male casualties get killed at a much higher rate in Gaza than civilian women.
• "ignore the first one" you just ignored Michael Spagat, aprofessor who is widely published in armed conflict.
• For this AOAV article, not a single source you cited contradicts this article. The author is saying that "more civilian men are killed than civilian women". By contrast the statement "airstrikes (kill) a higher ratio of women and children compared to ground operations" doesn't mention civilian men at all, but considered the proportion of women killed in airstrikes vs ground operations. Apples to oranges.
• This journal article gives the %civilians killed at 87% (see this image). The abstract also gives the index of killing civilians at 7.01, which is 7.01/(1+7.01) = 87.5%.

I find it strange that all mention of civilian male casualties in Gaza should be removed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent — I have never said there is no such thing as civilian adult men in Gaza. All that I did was add a source to the article that uses women and children as a proxy for civilian death and explain that it used those numbers as a rough proxy for civilian death, because we have no concrete figures on the amount of civilian men. I am not, and have never been, opposed to including high-quality estimates of the overall civilian death toll that rely on estimates of male casualties to fill in the blanks.

My opposition to these sources stems primarily to the way they were incorporated. A combination of opinion articles and journal articles were taken together to provide citations for a figure that only a single one of them actually used. (One of them, The Nation, is a source that needs to be attributed for opinion pieces per WP:RSP, so the incorporation of it was improper.)

• Re: Gaffney, international epidemiology ≠ casualties of war. According to AOAV, the B'Tselem source focused on past conflicts in Gaza, and the Airwars source draws only on the first 2.5 weeks of this war, and exclusively on airstrikes. These provide good baselines but in my opinion aren't directly transferable to the current conflict without attribution.
• Re: Spagat, that's entirely an oversight on my part. I saw two citations from the same source, and, as I explained in my comment, looked only at the more recent one, assuming it to be definitive in order to save myself some time. I did not mean to discredit the author or the source, and I apologize for ignoring it without looking further.
• Re: Journal, I still find it unhelpful to use an analysis from 19 days of war to make general claims about 15 months of war, especially because (as I cited) there is numerical evidence that the civilian casualty ratio has changed throughout the way.

To sum up my position, then, I chose to include the AP article because it was the most simple to include. I can attribute the source and explain their methodology and their basis for it in a single sentence. I wouldn't be opposed to including other sources, obviously. But for contentious figures like this I believe each individual source should be attributed, and the methodology of their estimates and their rationale for using them should be explained in text. DecafPotato (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is you removed scholarly views on Gazan civilian male casualties and replaced them with...Israeli military claims that are made "without providing evidence". Sure, professor Gaffney published in a (reliable) newspaper as opposed to a peer-reviewed journal, but he's still a much better source than Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli military claims have been criticized by BBC[1] and simply don't add up[2]. The Ha'aretz quoted Israeli soldiers who admitted they count civilians as "terrorists":

An officer in Division 252's command recalls when the IDF spokesperson announced their forces had killed over 200 militants..."Of those 200 casualties, only ten were confirmed as known Hamas operatives. Yet no one questioned the public announcement about killing hundreds of militants."[3]

Back in March:

The number of dead Gazans is now estimated to be over 32,000. According to the [Israeli] army, some 9,000 of these are terrorists. However, a host of reserve and standing [Israeli] army commanders who have talked to Haaretz cast doubt on the claim that all of these were terrorists.[4]

I would propose roughly something like this for the article:

According to an analysis of GHM data by the Associated Press in June 2024, women and children constitute 54% of total casualties, while an analysis by OCHA in November, that verified casualties using three independent sources, estimated women and children at 70% of total casualties. The Israeli military states, without providing evidence, that about 40-50% of those killed are "terrorists", but many sources (including Israeli soldiers) believe this figure is greatly exaggerated. Scholars instead have estimated that civilians constitute ~80% of Palestinians directly killed in Gaza. These scholars derive civilian adult male casualties using a combination of data from the current war and previous rounds of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion of figures from Israel are completely separate from scholarly estimates as a first-party source. And you've ignored the fact that I also added back Hamas figures that you removed, saying that they had lost about 6,000 of their fighters by April 2024. Both of those should be included in the article in addition to third-party estimates.

Regarding your proposal, I'd agree that we should add OCHA to the article. But I think for the Israeli figure, the current situation — in which it's presented side-by-side with Hamas's figure — better fits WP:NPOV. I'd support switching the current wording for Israel from "says" to "claims" (which also removes the need to insert "without evidence") to prevent the perception of undue support for Israel's claims. But I don't think we need to explicitly mention that sources find the Israeli claims to be exaggerated; that's implied when we list other sources in the same paragraph with much higher civilian casualty estimates. And I'm not sure why you've removed the sourced Hamas casualty figure, which has much the same effect of making it clear these numbers are disputed.

And I appreciate your change to the "scholars" sentence, I think it basically fixes my problem, though I'd prefer "some scholars," which seems to be less WP:WEASEL-y. DecafPotato (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Disagree on a few points:

• "I'd support switching the current wording for Israel from "says" to "claims"". No, see WP:CLAIMs, language should be neutral.
• Source emphasize that Israel has yet to offer any evidence for its statements, and we should say that.[5][6][7] This is in stark contrast to the GHM, which, despite operating under war conditions, provides detailed evidence multiple times a year.
• I'm not opposed to including Hamas claims, but for me both Israel and Hamas are engaged in propaganda, while reliable (esp scholarly) sources are the ones engaged in serious study and must be given more WP:WEIGHT.
• "But I don't think we need to explicitly mention that sources find the Israeli claims to be exaggerated; that's implied when we list other sources in the same paragraph with much higher civilian casualty estimates." You are conflating two different things: Criticism of Israeli military methodology vs criticism of the results stated by the Israeli military. Both of these things have gotten RS coverage and should be mentioned.
• I'm fine with "some scholars".

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is part of why I'm hesitant to talk so much about RS analysis of what Israel says, I feel it's counterproductive and actually gives Israel's figures UNDUE emphasis. Just saying "Israel said this; Hamas said this" and then moving on to the scholarly analysis seems to me the best way of providing the most weight to the sources that, like you said, are engaged in serious study.

As for WP:CLAIM, I don't find use of the word claim to be any more non-neutral than directly stating that it has provided no evidence, and that many sources ... believe this figure is greatly exaggerated. WP:WTW isn't about banning words but only making it clear that they should be used with caution. If there's RS doubt about the validity of a claim, I don't see issue with calling it a claim, especially when gets across the same meaning in a more concise way, which I think is preferable for WP:SUMSTYLE articles like this one. DecafPotato (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so we have two outstanding issues where we'd need 3rd party comment or RfC:

• can the article say, as many RS have noted, that Israel has not provided evidence to substantiate its statements of militants killed
• can the article say that the Israeli counts have been criticized as exaggerated by BBC, ACLED and Israeli soldiers interviewed by Haaretz. One proposed wording would be: "sources looking into Israeli counts concluded the true count was only a fraction of what the IDF officially reported". I'm open to other wordings too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems right. (Though really that's all the same issue of how to present/qualify the Israeli figures). Idk if that warrants a full RfC but seeing as we both seem to be stuck in our positions I think a WP:THIRD works best. DecafPotato (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit War

Multi-party edit wars were recently looked at in WP:ARBPIA5, so please don't engage in this behavior here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

On Jan 14, DecafPotato added this controversial change to the article. I tried to work with it (i.e. keep certain parts, remove other parts, while adding new, sourced info), but they reverted all my changes, instead of trying to build upon my edits. If we can't agree, then I suggest we revert to the longstanding version of the article before the contested changes.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify the basis of my position here (though the discussion just above is still ongoing), I reverted all your changes because you made them all at once, not necessarily because I disagreed with all of them. The point of the ongoing discussion is to build consensus on which parts should stay and which shouldn't. DecafPotato (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)