Talk:Attack on Holit

Merger?
The usual suspects applied for the deletion of this page. Allow for a "Hamas massacres on 7 October 2023" page, and I'd be happy to discuss it. That would be a less disingenuous attempt at whitewashing and worth considering. Attacking military bases is one thing, although one can apply the rules of war - or not; attacking civilian towns for murder & hostage-taking goes under "terrorism" and is another biest altogether. Arminden (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Memorial
, is the list of casualties (given at Holit_massacre) appropriate, given WP:MEMORIAL? VR talk 01:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi VR, I’m aware of MEMORIAL and I thought about the list being seen in that light. But it was not intended to be. My writing process is to first summarise all the resources and then base the article off those sources (as you can see in the Nir Yitzhak article and talk page). Much of the nobility of these articles come from coverage of what happens to people, and these stories are spread over several resources. So I start these articles by puttingv together the C&H list to keep track of what happened to the people.
 * This is especially useful to keep track of:
 * People initially considered missing subsequently found dead or less likely (so far in the articles I’ve worked on) taken hostage
 * Hostages released or still kept in captivity
 * Injured recovered or not

I will be adding text to the story as I proceed with the update. At that point I could discard the list. But for list/table oriented people (like me) the complexity of the text becomes difficult to follow without the visual aid. So the aim is not to memorialize but to make the article accessible to more people. Ayenaee (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In that case do you want to do that in the draft space or in your sandbox? It can always be brought back once its ready. VR talk 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’re right, I was getting ahead of myself. Thanks. Ayenaee (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I was very tempted to close as "no consensus" on the grounds that not a single !voter cited the correct controlling policy, which is WP:NDESC. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME do not apply and were not fashioned for the circumstances of this discussion.

But NDESC does rely on WP:NPOV, and that still leaves the characterization of reliable sources as the controlling factor, although in a slightly broader manner than supporters suggest. I might have entertained the argument that, by nature of being a descriptive title, NDESC considers the content in the article in whole, instead of the specific turns of phrase journalists choose. The citation of The Guardian was particularly sloppy, given that the article also refers to it as a part of a pattern of "assuault"s and takes the tone of horror in covering the entire tragedy. Overall, however, the tenor of the arguments in support are solid. The opposition, by contrast, leaned largely on a pragmatic assessment of the events of the attack. Combined with the opposition being outnumbered 5 to 9, I see consensus to move. No prejudice against an RM from "Holit attack" towards something like 's "Attack on Holit kibbutz". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The following close was vacated per a participant request - the discussion has been re-listed for more comment and an admin close.

The result of the move request was: Moved - It was a common ground of people on both sides of the discussion that "attack" likely prevails over "massacre" in descriptions of this event in reliable sources numerically. This was by itself a very strong argument in favour of moving that would take a strong numerical and/or argumentative showing in the other direction to close as not moved.

The strongest point in opposition was essentially about whether "attack" was also an accurate descriptor. Ayenaee argued very forcefully and convincingly that it was a massacre (and I agree: it was a massacre, and I thank Ayenaee for their contribution to this discussion). For this reason, it was hard to give a lot of weight to the argument that "massacre" is a POV name, since it is clearly accurate given the facts. Showing that it was a POV name would require casting doubt on it having been a massacre from non-fringe viewpoints, but this was not done and likely could not be done.

However the argument that was less developed in this discussion was about whether it was inaccurate to describe it as an attack. To overcome the point about "attack" being the WP:COMMONNAME it was necessary not just to show that "massacre" was accurate, but to show that the name we would otherwise favour under WP:COMMONNAME was inaccurate to the extent that "massacre" should be favoured. However, this was not shown decisively. As פעמי-עליון pointed out - every massacre is also an attack.

I did consider a relisting of this discussion, however the recent surge in voting in favour of the move makes it unlikely that the outcome would be changed. If any one on this thread would prefer an admin close to this controversial discussion, come and find me on my talk page and I will happily vacate and give you the opportunity to get that - but you may be waiting some time as there is a month+ backlog in RM discussions needing closing. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Holit massacre → Holit attack – The term "massacre" is loaded and thus WP:POVNAME. That would be ok if there was a "significant majority" of sources that called it that, but there aren't. Of the sources that were quoted for SIGCOV at the article's AfD, most used the word "attack" (emphasis mine):
 * The Guardian: "Shachar and Shlomi Matias, who died in the Hamas attack on Holit kibbutz"
 * New York Times: "was killed while at home in Kibbutz Holit during the Hamas-led terror attack on southern Israel."
 * Al-Jazeera: "Al Jazeera visited Holit, a kibbutz near Gaza which was attacked by Hamas fighters on October 7."
 * Politifact: "Vach was explaining the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Holit kibbutz".
 * Haaretz: "The tank operators who came with their tanks actually broke the attack [referring to the attack on Holit]" VR talk 04:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not against this discussion happening, but I had hoped it could wait until I updated the article using all the resources I’ve found. As I said in the AfD the resources I found there were just used to show initial notability. I have been working on collecting and summarizing resources in my free time for this article for over a week (26 resources vs initial 5). I’ve found the resources I will use but haven’t yet summarized them all. Note that there are several articles covering the same attack, but from different perspectives. I might not use all of them in the final article, but will use most.
 * If it is necessary that this renaming process take place now, you shouldn’t consider, the AfD resources, but rather those in my User:Ayenaee/sandbox where I’m collecting the resources. Where the table says "SUMMARY" it means I still need to to do one. You’ll have to look at individual articles for this purpose, because I don’t note whether an attack is called a massacre or not. I also start toning done some of the more emotional wording in the source (although there is some left which I remove in writing the article). I’ve become used to replacing terrorist in resources with militant in my summaries and similarly with massacre to attack.
 * I still think it would be better to focus on Nir Yitzhak where the update is complete, in terms of this question, and withdraw this one till the actual update is complete. But that’s VR’s choice. This one will definitely need relisting if it continues, because I expect it will take at least another 5-7 days to complete. It’s attack section is simpler than Nir Yitzhak, but it’s C&H section is more complicated. Ayenaee (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support If the sources are tending to call this an attack, then Holit massacre is a POV name. If this changes, we can revisit it down the trach. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support "attack" as NPOV. Sammy D III (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Attack on Holit kibbutz? None of the above-quoted sources use "Holit attack", which lacks clarity about whether Holit was attacking or being attacked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose.
 * TLDR
 * The arguments in favor of renaming confuse:
 * What happened: Attacks by Hamas and it allies on various Israeli targets (in all parts of the 7 October event), with
 * How it happened:
 * Attacks on military targets with civilian "collateral damage", or
 * Targeted killing of unresisting defenseless civilians with killing of armed defenders a necessary means to that end.
 * In English (1) is referred to as an "attack" (or perhaps military attack, battle, combat etc) and (2) as a "massacre". Being the more generic word, attack can refer to either generically but can’t describe the elements of a massacre. In this usage neither word is POV and each should be used as appropriate descriptively. The deaths in this case were overwhelmingly of the "massacre" pattern, so it is descriptively incorrect to not indicate this in the title. Counting of words is confounded for various reasons (not least of which is that, as above, "attack" is the more generic word so will be used more often) and should not be used to change the description of how the attacks happened.
 * Descriptive argument
 * I have just finished the table of sources I will use to update the article (see section below). I base my arguments on that, but since no one wants to wait for the update before this discussion, you will either have to verify my statements by reviewing my summaries of the sources, or AGF that I am being objective in my argument. As evidence my objectivity and GF I offer my !vote on the Nir Yitzhak move debate where I agree that the name should change because none of the elements of a massacre occurred in that attack. For this attack, however:
 * The attack (generic meaning) section, when written, will show that this attack was different from that on Nir Yitzhak in that there was only minimal resistance from the kibbutz residents. In terms of the sources most residents hid in their safe rooms, and were defenseless and unable to resist if the rooms were breached.
 * The general pattern of the attack (what was done) followed that of a massacre (how it was done). Militants went from house to house shooting at the metal shutters of saferooms to determine from screams from within whether they were occupied. They then attempted to breach occupied saferooms and where successful shot the unresisting defenseless occupants. In several cases they returned to houses and set them alight to force the occupants to exit so they could be shot.
 * Of the 15 deaths:
 * 11 of the 12 Israeli or duel citizenship deaths were caused by militants breaching safe rooms, sometimes with grenades, and shooting the unresisting defenseless residents they found inside (the other death was a safety team member who seemed to be fighting the militants alone)
 * 1 of 3 foreign workers killed was killed in a massacre situation, it is not reported how the other 2 were killed
 * Of the 8 reported injuries:
 * 2 of them arose from breaches of saferooms and killing of the unresisting defenseless residents inside, with 2 injured in these shootings.
 * 4 of them arose from an attempted but unsuccessful breach of a saferoom with a grenade where shrapnel entered under the door and injured 3 elderly people and a child, out of the 4 adults and 4 children in the room
 * 2 other injuries didn’t fit the massacre pattern
 * Therefore in this attack (what happened), the method (how it happened) in just under 80% of the reported killings and injuries to civilians, was factually and descriptively a premeditated massacre of defenseless unresisting people. To not use the word massacre to describe this is an inappropriate twisting of the sources. The word massacre here is being used purely descriptively.
 * Numerical argument
 * I don’t believe the numerical argument "wins" over the descriptive one, but since some do, to assist the discussion, I have done the following analysis of all The sources:
 * Attack/Massacre = 5.6x (184 attack ÷ 33 massacre)
 * Terrorist/Militant = 11.3x (135 terrorist ÷ 12 militant)
 * So numerically attack "wins". But also numerically "terrorist" "wins" so why a guideline recommending the use of "militant"?
 * "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" are ideologically POV words referring to the same group of people with subjective biases in the way each is applied. Militant provides a more neutral word to bridge this bias.
 * Attack and massacre are not ideologically opposite POV words if based on an objective factual description:
 * Attack can mean the general thing Hamas did in every case: attacked a target
 * Attack can also mean how a belligerent attacks a target as in a military attack
 * Massacre while containing the basic elements of an attack, also includes the objectively determined method of attack which is killing unarmed unresisting people
 * Attack and massacre may have different subjective emotional values attached, but this shouldn’t disallow their use when they objectively describe how an event occurred
 * Why massacre occurs less frequently in sources
 * Once "massacre" is used once in reference to a particular attack, or in an article about a particular attack where the entire 7 October event is referred to as a massacre, it is established that the method of attack was massacre, and the more general nature of what happened (rather than how it happened) can then be referenced by the word attack.
 * Copy editing would require that massacre used less than the more general attack
 * Some editorial policy may not allow the use of "massacre" for various reasons which may be ideological or not. if ideologically based Wikipedia shouldn’t be following it
 * The takeaway here is that there are many reasons why attack may used more than massacre. But to use the numerical argument to misname what is objectively a massacre is not encyclopedic. Ayenaee (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The takeaway here would be that you are making an argument for what is essentially a personal preference, while tacitly acknowledging WP:COMMONNAME, the evidence in support of the common name and the WP:NPOV aspects of the present name, which must be considered in terms of the prevailing policy at WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I’m saddened that I’m not granted AGF even in the form in which I present my !vote. To clarify: it was not my intention to argue a personal preference or to tacitly acknowledge anything. My conclusions are based on a thorough review of resources which I’ve provided. I argue in GF and openly that:
 * Whatever the article is named, what happened at this event is clearly what would in English be described as a massacre by any objective standard, supported by references.
 * COMMONNAME should not be blindly applied for the reasons I state.
 * No one has to agree with me, but neither should they mischaracterise what I’ve said. The closer can decide on how convincing or otherwise my arguments are. Ayenaee (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have not assumed that you have acted in bad faith. What I have done is to observe that your preference is not supported by what the articles (overall) are calling it and that your argument is contrary to the prevailing policy (WP:AT and WP:NPOV) at several points. Consequently, your view should be largely discounted per WP:RMCI. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. For all the reasons Ayenaee stated above. The fact is that Hamas militants infiltrated the unprotected Kibbutz, went from house to house, murdered 15 of the kibbutz's residents in cold blood, among them women, children and elderly, and wounded many more. In common English this event is definitely a massacre. GidiD (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Ayenaee above stated that English sources use the word attack more commonly than massacre? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per Ayenaee. --Yorkporter (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per sourcing—particularly that mentioned above—there is good evidence that Wikipedia can neutrally state that the event was a massacre. Further, it seems readily known as a massacre, to a degree (in English) that I'd say crosses the threshold for COMMONNAME. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that massacre is COMMONNAME? So far, all evidence, including that by Ayenaee, is that "attack" is more commonly used than "massacre". VR (Please ping on reply) 08:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * oppose per Ayenaee, the methodology is well-explained by him(/her?). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 11:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another thing: every massacre is an attack, but the most notable part of this attack is the massacre. Even if we can't determine the goal of the terrorists (whether it was to slaughter, kidnap, occupy or something else) we should choose the definition that emphasizes the most notable feature of this topic (just like it would be stupic to rename Bashamem inscription to "Bashamem stele base", even though it was indeed a base for stele dedicated to Ba(al)shamem – because the most notable feature of this artefact is the dedication inscription, and not it being more generaly an inscribed base dedicated to Ba(al)shamem). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Insufficient sourcing to apply massacre label so POVname.Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Since it has been shown that the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is to call this an attack rather than a massacre, that's absolutely what we should be calling it. The opposes above seem to be saying we should reject that commonly used descriptor based on detailed analysis of what happened in the event. Obviously there are some sources calling it a massacre, so this approach isn't entirely original research, but in the context of choosing a name for the article, such analysis is largely irrelevant and should be rejected. That's not at all to play down the severity of the tragedy which occurred, but the central point is that if sources predominantly call it an attack, then so should we. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: as has been pointed out several times since November-ish, sources simply don't refer to this as a massacre, but as an attack. Thus the current titled is loaded and not NPOV. Dylanvt (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru, it isnt even close on common name, attack is exponentially more commonly used than massacre, and thats according to the data from somebody who opposes tht move. If it were close then we could look at things and analyze, but it isnt close so this is an obvious support.  nableezy  - 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: The clear majoritarian language for this event in the sources aligns with the proposed move. The arguments against it appear to rely more on independent reasoning over the nature of the event, not the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Opposition here is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how titles are chosen on WP. When we use descriptive titles we still rely on usage in RS. In this case the only question to address is which of the two reflects usage in RS better. Whether massacre is a more accurate description than attack is irrelevant. For better or worse, the undeniable massacre at Holit is almost universally referred to as an attack in RS. We simply follow usage in RS. —В²C ☎ 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

close challenge
Hi FOARP, thank you for your effort on this close and your compliment. But with all due respect I appeal to you to reverse your decision and let an admin close, even if that takes some, it’s important enough to wait. The outcome of this close is difficult not only because it’s a CTOP, but because it has implications for all articles about warlike action related to unarmed citizens (existing and future). So although I respect your thinking, I would like the close to be by an admin, making the unassailable interpretation of COMMON official having considered these implications, if that’s the outcome. I’ll put this on your talk page as well, I just want my appeal to be here for other participants to see. Thanks again. Ayenaee (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s not true that the decision here has implications for other titles. In each case we reflect usage in RS when referring to each topic. Whether it’s attack, massacre or anything else depends entirely on usage in RS. Period. —В²C ☎ 20:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to state for posterity that had FOARP not explicitly stated that they were vacating their own review, I would have simply upheld their close the same way I would opine on it if it were challenged at AN: they were within their discretion to make the close, despite not being an admin. It is only them voluntarily agreeing to have someone else make the close, and not just review theirs, that made me write a rationale of my own. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Resource summaries for updating Holit massacre article
Below are the resources which I will be using to update the article as per my AfD pledge:
 * The summaries are mine. Although I do tone down some of emotion while I’m summarising, that is not my main aim, so the summaries aren’t completely wikified. I do the wikification as I’m writing the article from the toned down summaries.
 * I translated the Hebrew and used the Apple translation service for the Russian

Removal of sentence from main image caption
Hi Loksmythe, thank you for your edit of the article where you removed the sentence "His family are calling for a cease fire, as they are certain he would" from the main image caption with the edit summary "editorializing". I apply WP:0RR (except for vandalism, BLP etc) which means I use BD[R] rather than WP:BRD. So I don’t revert, go straight to discussion, and then only revert if there’s consensus. So this is the “D” of BDR.
 * Looking at the sentence you removed again, I do think it’s not well written and clunky, and if it’s decided to include it again, I’d rewrite it.
 * But I can’t see how it’s editorialising. I am updating this article per my pledge at its keep AfD, so the refs aren’t in yet, but their are refs to support both sentences (see section above). I understand it’s not a popular opinion, but it is one Katsman a"h and his family hold. It provides balance to the rest of the article.
 * I read WP:Editorial and I don’t think you meant your comment in that sense, because I don’t see that breached? And as I said, the sentences are ref’ed and I haven’t changed their meaning or taken them out of context, so I don’t believe it’s editorialising. Ayenaee (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming of the Hamas military wing
Hi SaintPaulOfTarsus, thank you for your edit supplying the correct name of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade and the linked article which I’ve reviewed. If I may ask some questions for my education. I acknowledge my lack of knowledge of Hamas or it’s allies’ military structure, so I apologize if my questions seem obvious: Thanks again for your help. Ayenaee (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When I’ve seen "Al-Qassam" added in other articles, I’ve added a {cn} tag because I thought that Hamas had other brigades so the involvement of this one needed citation. Can you confirm that this is incorrect and that if resources mention Hamas participation this always means the Al-Quassam Brigade and this can be used without citation, Basically Hamas military = Al-Qassam Brigade?
 * You used the full name in the text, but left the infobox as "Al-Qassam Brigade". Would that be the normal usage i.e. mention the full name once, and use the abbreviated name thereafter?
 * Since many sources only mention Hamas participation, I assume it’s still necessary for citation if their allies are involved but only citied as such in a few resources?
 * I’ve just noticed that on another article someone change Hamas in the infobox to "Hamas (Nuseirat Battalion)", which indicates my reasoning above is incorrect? I see this battalion is mentioned in the list of battalions in the article you linked. To me this means that Al-Qassam is the general name (like IDF) and wouldn’t require citation, but that if a particular sub-structure is mentioned as being involved then it would require citation? Ayenaee (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ayenaee, my highest compliments on your diligent improvements to this article. I'll attempt to address your questions as best as I can.
 * In my experience across Wikipedia, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades are generally considered the sole military wing of Hamas. As you've noted, there are other groups known as "brigades," such as the Khan Yunis Brigade or the Northern Gaza Brigade, but the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades are considered the parent organization of such groups. In my opinion, the more specific we can get with this, the better - so if you come across a more specific military unit designation in your research, I encourage you to include it. (cf. Southern Khan Yunis Battalion in Nirim attack and Nir Oz massacre, Beit Lahia Battalion in Netiv HaAsara massacre)
 * Generally, I've seen most mentions of "Hamas militants" interpreted as the al-Qassam Brigades without additional citations, much the same way as mentions of "Israeli soldiers" could be reasonably understood to mean the Israel Defense Forces, as you noted in your later reply.
 * I can't really speak to the correct usage re: mentioning the full name once and using the abbreviated name after. Come to think of it, most articles I've read have omitted Izz al-Din completely, so maybe removing that from this article is favorable if only for the sake of consistency and clarity.
 * If sources only mention Hamas, I would concur that any reference to a sub-unit (like the battalions) or an allied organization (like the PFLP) should be supported by a citation, so that the claim is verifiable.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the geographical patterns I've observed above, I'd speculate that a battalion of the Rafah Brigade is responsible for this massacre, but without any references that's pure original research on my part. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I’ve seen and learnt from your editing of similar but much more complex articles, so thanks for that as well. I would normally write the first instance of IDF in full and linked, followed by use of the abbreviation. I think the same is appropriate here. I agree we should be as precise as possible, so I’ll look for more detail of subunits before using the brigade name. Thanks for your help. Ayenaee (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "the safety team"?
The second para of the lead has "Twelve residents including one member of the safety team were killed". "No organized defense" has the line "Avi Korin, the only member of the safety team mentioned". Is it clear what a "safety team" is? Sammy D III (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s should be security team (team of residents on standby too defend the kibbutz). Thanks for spotting this. Do you think it’s necessary to explain the concept? None of the sources do.
 * I didn't know. I thought it could have been dedicated employees (I forgot the commune nature), maybe a military squad? How many? You may assume the knowledge, I'm just outside eyes. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Update completed
I’ve completed the update of the article. Ayenaee (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)