Talk:Hamas/Archive 27

Hamas No Longer Anti-Communist? - Contd.
Continuing where we left off since this was promptly deleted under "NOTAFORUM" when I am trying to discuss improving this article by putting "anti-communist" back under "ideologies" as well as the primary source that originally supported these links.

I am screenshotting this before I post it and putting the link here, so please refrain from moving this to a different Talk Page and claiming I posted it there.

I began the discussion by saying:

"When did this happen? Are they now promoting Lenin and saying they want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat in Gaza? Hamas is and always was explicitly anti-communist. Change it back."

"This is kind of reaching into discussion of the topic territory as opposed to discussing the article, but I think that given their cooperation with the PFLP in the current war, they arent exactly stringently devoted to anti-communism. (sorry if this is formatted wrong, i dont edit much)" -Emulsification92

that was the last comment before it was originally deleted from here.

Then I said:


 * 1) We are in fact discussing the article here and whether to put back "anti-communism" under ideologies.
 * 2) Is it possible that militants in Gaza being frequently bombed right now have a temporary alliance based on strength in numbers/public support alone and if not, why not? To me it doesn't seem like these are the circumstances for a genuine ideological unity Occam's razor would suggest they are not working together because of any ideological common ground.

Jester6482 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Anti-communism should definitely be under "Ideologies". I support its re-addition - after further discussion, of course. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't mean some group doesn't have the same ideologies then they are anti-{other group's ideology}.  Abo Yemen ✉  12:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: I distinctly remember some pretty fiery anti-communist sentiment in HAMAS. I'm unsure as to why that would ever be removed. Heyimastopsign (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! It was removed shortly -but not immediately- after October 7th, 2023; the date of Hamas' recent terror attack on Israel. Looking at the edit history I was able to track down the removal of both "anti-communism" and "anti-imperialism" from the infobox to a single edit on October 14th, 2023 at 4:01AM (https://imgur.com/a/w4IyY5E) with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as the cited reason. As my description shows, this edit was reverted (https://imgur.com/a/5qxRkU6), so apparently anti-communism was removed again somewhere down the line maybe for a different reason.
 * Your memory is accurate: Hamas is most definitely still anti-communist despite temporary alliance with the PFLP during a Israeli offensive and there used to be a link to a political science journal paper called "The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?" by Jean-Pierre Filiu (https://imgur.com/a/PekwKNy) in the footnotes to support this infobox link; the problem is on the Hal Portal for Political Sciences, apparently the file has been taken down or perhaps never uploaded? (See "No File" here: https://imgur.com/a/3vPbAxn) while over at Taylor & Francis Online, the article is behind a $53 paywall (https://imgur.com/a/jV9Ps5r).
 * One thing removing "Anti-Communist" from "ideologies" could accomplish in theory is to remove a certain cognitive dissonance western/American readers might have when reading this article. The United States fought Vietnam over communism so some readers might be confused as to why Hamas is "anti-communist" when the west's enemies are typically opposed on the basis of their support for communism.
 * Instead of being introduced to the nuance that anti-communist groups can also be terroristic or "bad guys", without the link these readers may just assume Hamas IS communist given that they are 1. enemies of Israel & the west and 2. "anti-imperialist" (which would be in the center of a venn diagram between the two, Hamas and Communists) as still properly listed in the infobox.
 * I don't think it's fair that the way it's looking right now, someone would have to cough up $53 to get this very basic piece of information back onto a public online encyclopedia and even then you gotta wonder if anyone here would even care that a college kid, probably with no job or income, forked over $53 of money they don't have just to read a source and cite a specific passage to reinstate the infobox link here or would it just be another case of an editor with more authority cherrypicking and stretching some irrelevant Wikipedia policy to weakly rationalize the censorship even after the $53 was spent? It could also just be an accident though, so out of respect I won't speculate any further. Unless Hamas does something truly in the realm of endorsing socialist or communist politics, this remains a lie of omission by Wikipedia in my mind. Jester6482 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES section at the top of this page? If so, why are you not complying with it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I probably started this thread before that warning was put into effect and I am clicking my notifications inbox which brings me directly to the comment for which I got a notification, skipping past any and all warnings that may have been added to the top of the page. Why are we assuming I'm even breaking the rules at all, let alone on purpose when this thread is in fact an edit request to put "anti-communist" back under ideologies here? If this is referring to my CAREFUL use of the word "terroristic", then I can put a different word. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about and don't appreciate the accusation. See: Postulate absence of malice Jester6482 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Unless Hamas does something truly in the realm of endorsing socialist or communist politics, this remains a lie of omission by Wikipedia in my mind"
 * Doesn't mean that if they do not endorse them then they are against them.  Abo Yemen ✉  10:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Turkey from the list of Hamas state allies
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that he was only on the side of the Palestinian people. It did not provide any military aid to Hamas. He invited the parties to a ceasefire. You need to remove Turkey from the list. 149.140.105.75 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with him, can someone remove Turkey because there is really no help to Hamas? 24.133.152.195 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reinstating subsection ‘Policies and attitudes towards Israel’
The topic of this now restored subsection (recently the part of section ‘Political and religious positions’ until the start of subsection ‘Hudna proposals’) has since its inception on 11 Apr 2023 always been: policies and attitudes [of Hamas] towards Israel – though it never yet fully bore that name. The last title it had (‘Two-state solution’) was not fully right (the subsection covered more options than that) but was removed on 10 Dec and not replaced by a new name; possibly to have an excuse to move this subsection back to the top position within section “Political and religious positions” where it had been expelled earlier by another colleague. I don’t have a strong preference as to the following order of subsections here, but I do care for sections and subsections to have clear titles, usefully indicating/demarcating their content. Next to reinstating a title above the subsection, I’ve organized the already given information chronologically. (The chronologic structure of the subsection had gravely withered away, the subsection had thereby gotten very intransparent and incoherent, except perhaps for a few Wikipedia contributors who regularly edited on it.) While doing so, I noticed some (smaller or larger) mistakes et cetera which I’ve ‘corrected’ in the way and for the reasons I explain here below. Ofcourse, each of these ‘corrections’ stands open for debate and further improvement. I’ve also integrated the subsection about hudna (slightly summarized) back into (the chronology of) this subsection ‘policies/attitudes towards Israel’: hudna proposals are part of Hamas’s policies/attitudes towards Israel; the Wikipedia visitor may want to speculate about how hudna proposals hang together with other Hamas ‘attitudes’ towards Israel; so I see no strong ground, logic or necessity to keep that information in a separate subsection, outside of the chronology of the rest of the information on this topic. The third and fourth sentences of this paragraph were drawing conclusions from the ‘fact’ of “Hamas's acceptance of the 1967 borders”, which ‘fact’ however is not prooved or stated anywhere in Wikipedia as to be a fact. In that case, I believe we in Wikipedia cannot draw conclusions from it (as was already noted in a {clarify} tag), so I deleted these sentences. If you disagree, please put the sentences back and tell us, why you disagree, and what the sentences mean (see the {clarify} tag in the now removed version, asking for clarification).
 * In today’s edit, several sentences have been slightly rephrased for clarity or to be more faithful to the text of the given reference source.
 * The previously first sentence (Hamas “dominant…force”) needed to be dated (“since 2007”).
 * Previous sentence 5 (‘…President of the PNA…’) made a too vague statement (on behalf of author Seurat), I’ve replaced it with more concrete and clear information about the status of PLO and Palestinian President, from the ‘Palestinians’ Prisoners Document’ (2006) itself.
 * In sentence 6 (‘Mashal, 2 May 2017’), the explanation of the phrase: “… on the basis of June 4, 1967…” had lost a few essential words, after several edits; I’ve put them back. The date of the press conference is now also corrected, into 1 May 2017.
 * As to sentence 7: This statement was not made by Ayoob in his book. Professor Ayoob in his 2020 book wrote (as this Wikipedia article more or less cited until 10Dec2023): “Acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptance of the preconditions for a two-state solution”, while only suggesting (not stating!) that such acceptance took place in the 2017 charter. That statement (in its correct citation) seems too vague and hypothetical for this section: this section is about Hamas positions, but Ayoob doesn’t give clear, correct (new) information about any Hamas position. (The 2017 Hamas charter doesn’t speak of any ‘accepting borders’; nobody – not even Ayoob – even contends that the 2017 charter ‘accepts borders’.) If you disagree, please put a (more correct) citation of Prof. Ayoob back into the (sub)section (and please explain the relevance of it).
 * Previously third paragraph (‘Whether Hamas…’):
 * Previously fourth paragraph (‘In a 2006…’): The second and third sentences of this paragraph were wrongly summarizing the referenced source, so I repaired those statements now.
 * The previously tenth paragraph (‘2011, Mishal and Abbas respecting borders’) seemed too vague, so I removed it. “Respecting borders” in this context seems a meaningless statement (as noted in a tag since roughly two weeks: which border exactly is meant, and what exactly does Mishal or Hamas do or not do when they ‘respect’ a border?). If anyone can give clear, substantial information about that Mishal–Abbas–event in 2011, please add it to the article.
 * Previously eleventh paragraph (‘February 2012…’) was extensively describing a few weeks of no-direct-violence between Israel and Hamas (in 2012), which I’ve condensed to the essential facts for this (sub)section. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

“Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society”, our article stated, up until today.
I would very much doubt whether “Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society…”, as the lead section until today contended. Inhabitants of the Gaza Strip live under totalitarian Hamas regime (“…In the first years of the Intifada, Hamas violence was restricted to Palestinians; collaborators with Israel, and people it defined as "moral deviants"…”, and: even in 1993, long before Hamas dictatorship in Gaza as of June 2007, only 17% of Gazans supported Hamas – both stated in our section Hamas; in 1996, only 3% trusted the Hamas leader (section ‘Oslo years’); torturing of Fatah followers in 2007 (section Hamas); see also section Hamas) where, as in all dictatorships, it would be dangerous for your health to utter anything else than abundant praise for your government. Now, our article (in lead section) corroborated that claim (“widely popular…”) with four sources. Two of them were press articles from after the start of the 2023–2024 war, which only state that ‘support for Hamas rises’, which is really not the same as saying that it is high (and which rising also is quite logical during a war). Two others were books: Slater 2020, Phillips 2011, which ofcourse I and most of us cannot check. Considering though that it seems rather impossible to proove that civilians truly are fond of the dictatorship they live under, I’d like to see clear citations from those books, for this highly unprobable conclusion. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I questioned that too. I think maybe Palestinian views on Hamas change over time due to circumstances. Here is a report from Oct 25 2023 by Arab Barometer:
 * https://www.arabbarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas-2023-10-26-08-4941.pdf Wafflefrites (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024
Marwan Issa, who was recently confirmed to have been killed by Israel, should also get an X marking his death/assassination, like Saleh Al-Arouri Nextrava (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"two spokesmen, four stances"
There appears to be now original research in this article where editors are introducing themes in Hamas' positions that are not found in scholarly sources. For example, can someone tell me which scholars say Hamas had "two spokesmen, four stances"? If not, why is this in the article? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I see it was introduced by . In fact, most of that edit appears to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Much of it is also unsourced.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela allied??
Where is the source for this? The only sources listed just show how Venezuela has condemned the actions of Israel, not that they have supported the actions of the Hamas 73.160.109.176 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

[Edit request] Add Argentina to the list of countries that declared Hamas as a terrorist organization
President Milei has declared Hamas as a terrorist organization multiple times while also supporting Israel.

Here's a link to an article from Clarín, an argentinian news source: https://www.clarin.com/politica/gesto-milei-israel-listo-decreto-declarar-hamas-organizacion-terrorista_0_LavGJmp2y9.html SnowTag (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
On third paragraph of the introductory section, someone with the extended protector right could add a hyperlink to the word "2017 Hamas Charter" which upon clicking can lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter page. I'm sure some readers would find it useful. Ty. Rhythmic Ocean (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A previous sentence ("") already links to this article, and we generally do not introduce duplicate links. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Occupation of Gaza
Wikipedia describes occupation as territory actually being placed under the authority of a hostile army. This article states Hamas has been governing since 2007 & that Gaza is Israeli-occupied. Can this sentence be updated to reflect the correct status of which areas Israel currently occupies as of 2007 - such as describing Gaza with an up-to-date word and/or phrase or using a phrase such as "...following occupation by Israel." (A previous edit to the talk page refered to the risk of creating a duplicate link. This is not a suggestion of linking to another article.) Wikchard (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The UN and most human rights organizations continue to consider Gaza to be occupied by Israel as Israel, prior to this latest offensive, controlled Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and most border crossings. That, in their view, equated to the exercise of "effective military control" over the territory and as such Gaza remained occupied by Israel. That isn't even in question right now anyway, but even before the invasion by Israeli ground forces the majority view was Israel continues to occupy Gaza. See for example here:"many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways."  nableezy  - 14:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No vague, meaningless (and even deceiving) sentences please, in the lead section (about “foreign relations”…)
The lead contains more vague statements that I wanted to address (and still want to), but recently (12 May, 05:49), one more vague sentence was added: the last sentence in paragraph three, about “foreign…relations…Egypt…(etc.)”. Its first five words seem redundant: aren’t (foreign) “relations with Egypt” etc. logically and always part of “foreign policy”? But the sentence ails also in graver respects. The sentence tells us about “seeking” (frn) relations but not about finding them. Is seeking more important than finding or having? If yes: why? If no: this leads to the conclusion that they have sought, but couldn’t find. But how then did they ‘seek’, concretely? (And why did they not succeed?) ‘Seeking relations’ is only metaphorical (thus vague) language, since ‘relation’ is an abstraction. If Wikipedia can’t tell what Hamas actually concretely did for ‘seeking relations’, except this vague metaphore, this vagueness tells us nothing, really; and a lead section seems not the place for vague idlenesses. Our section Hamas however tells us, among much more, that a Hamas minister has “visited (…) Syria”, etc. etc., so Hamas' ‘foreign relations’ actually existed and perhaps still exist. In that obvious case, it is misleading to tell the readers in the lead section only about “seeking” frgn relations but concealing that Hamas indeed also has, or had, such relations. A Wikipedia article however shouldn’t be used for such deception of our reading public. So, please, colleague @Vice regent (and others), either replace this vagueness with serious and highly relevant information, worthy for a place in the lead section, or expect at some moment, sooner or later, this sentence to be deleted. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and rewrite the sentence based on the information in the Foreign Relations section. Alaexis¿question? 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , no one is attempting to "deceive" anyone, please WP:AGF and refrain from making WP:Personal attacks. I don't see much of a difference between Hamas has sought and Hamas has maintained foreign relations, but I'm happy to change it to maintained foreign relations.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find "sought out" to be a better choice because it reflects Hamas's choices and strategic aims. Baconi for example stated (I can't recall the page but I can dig it) that since a long time Hamas has been eager to get Saudi diplomatic and political and support, but the Saudis didn't always reciprocate that interest. Likewise, many sources have said that Hamas, given Gaza's geography, has strongly emphasized good relations with Egypt, although Egyptian interest in relations with Hamas has fluctuated. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
The image of the emblem, File:Emblem of Hamas Vector Graphic.svg, which is currently in the main infobox should be replaced with the locally uploaded File:Emblem of Hamas.svg as the former was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, posing a potential copyright violation as it conveys the same meaning of the emblem.

The new image is a vectorization of the emblem frequently seen in Hamas speeches, which means it is more official: ,

The previous infobox image appears to be more stylistic rather than official.

Bambobee (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was Turkey removed?
there is a whole article that states that Turkey supports Hamas - Turkish support for Hamas. The most recent article about this: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-leader-visit-turkey-talks-with-erdogan-2024-04-17/ Turkey is defenitely a Hamas ally. RAMSES$44932 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the allies and enemies listing is helpful, given the complex nature of various relationships. Eg this report which was later denied by Turkey. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we add images of the militants in green headbands?
Images should serve to enhance the understanding of an article's subject. I think that there should be images of the Hamas militants wearing green headbands with their faces obscured by a black mask, along the lines of the leading image in this WSJ article. It is a visual that is strongly associated with Hamas, and it should be included in the article. I don't have experience with adding images to articles and dealing with image use policies, so I do not know which image to use, hence why I am not submitting this as a formal edit request. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

These are the only images I was able to find on commons of Hamas militants wearing the green headband, although there are a lot of results under "Hamas" that I didn't search through so others may exist. I think Option 3 is what you are looking for, although 1 and 2 may come in handy here or in other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Organizational issues
Corriebertus, with all due respect, I disagree with how you are organizing the article. For example, I disagree with your recent organization of the foreign policy section. Summary style calls for each subsection to contain a summary of a sub-topic. So "Foreign relations" should contain a summary of Hamas' foreign relations and full treatment should be given in another article. Prior to your edits, there was indeed a summary, but I agree that it was a terrible summary. In your edit, you removed the summary altogether.

The summary is important not just for organizational reasons but also because certain things are connected to one another. Take a simple example. Previously the section summary said:

With your reorganization, we would cover this information like this:

In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Syria.
 * Syria

In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Qatar.
 * Qatar

...and so on. In your organization theme, where everything is broken down by countries, a particular foreign policy theme that spans across countries is lost.

I hope you will engage me in constructive dialogue on how to best organize this article which is already too long.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this point, here. I (still) consider section ‘Foreign relations’ (very) intransparent, unstructured etc.. But that does not mean, that my attempted ‘improvement’ on 20 May was good enough; in retrospect, it seems to have been perhaps a little overhasty (not necessarily for all the reasons you mentioned here). --Corriebertus (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

edit request on 26 May 2024
In the criticism section it says that the European Parliament started the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war. This is untrue. GingerNinja2711 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024
2001:1970:52E9:4C00:F0D1:F193:97CE:EB37 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) In section two (2) "History" the claim: Israel responded by invading Gaza Strip and killing 35,000 Palestinians, majority of them women and children. needs to be cited or removed.


 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69014893.amp
 * There are lots of sources, BBC is a good choice as it can’t be accused of favouring Palestine. Not sure why you’d want it removed. Even with the unidentified remains skewing the demographics, the majority of identified victims are still women and children. KittyBukowski (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed as unsourced. Also poorly written. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo? Or misinformation?
“The charter is said to echoe Nazi propaganda in claiming that Jews profited during World War II” - spelling mistake of echo aside, the Nazis did not spread propaganda claiming Jews profited during World War 2. Why would they? It would make them look incompetent given they were in charge. They also did not spread propaganda following the second world war, since they were either in hiding or on trial.

I know they spread the “stab in the back” myth about the first world war, so maybe WW2 was a typo, but if so it just needs editing with a source about Nazi propaganda that specifically claims Jewish people profited from that war.

Or, if the typo was using “Nazi” instead of “Neo Nazi” then same goes.

But if it was meant as is, it’s categorically false. The Nazis never would have claimed that Jewish people were benefiting as a result of their actions.

KittyBukowski (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * During WWII Nazi Propaganda did accuse Jews of profiteering. These false accusations were done as part of their efforts to portray Jews as the enemy of the German people, and to dehumanize them to facilitate the Holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Islamic Salvation Party" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_Salvation_Party&redirect=no Islamic Salvation Party] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References for casualties being "vastly" comprised of non-combatants
Only 1 of the 3 references provided actually includes the qualifier "vastly", while the others only mention the estimated number.

If this article must to mention civilian casualties in the latest conflict, it should defer to sources in the more relevant article, Israel–Hamas war, which includes a news article with a quote from a WHO spokesman that estimates a 56% civilian casualty rate, which is not a percentage compatible with the usage of "vastly".

I propose removing the 3 news sources in this article and replacing them the source from the Israel–Hamas war article. Tog000 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The only source for "vast majority" seems to be Anadolu Agency, which WP:RSP says is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. More neutral sources also use slightly broader language like "killed during the war" rather than "Israel killed".
 * I'll just remove the extraordinary claim for now, but no objection if someone wants to add that milder claim with the other source. — xDanielx  T/C\R 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an extraordinary claim. Even with down revision >50% of the casualties are women and children.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)